|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
In the
Many commentators have attempted to explain the significance of the diminutive size of the à. Some commentators have contrasted åÇéÌÄ÷ÀøÈà, relative to
Other commentators suggest that it alludes to
Moreover, this is a letter of the verb. I suggest that this signaled something about the verb itself. In English, the parallel of what I'm suggesting would be, "Then He called " (
 |
 |
The conflict between Christianity and Islam is well described as a conflict between individualism and tribalism.
Both individual-oriented societies and tribal-oriented societies have legal systems, but their orientation is individual and tribal, respectively.
In the tribal legal systems, justice and welfare of the tribe takes precedence over justice and welfare of the individual while in individualistic legal systems the justice and welfare of the individual are supposed to take precedence over the society / establishment / government.
 184x268.jpg "Johnny Cochran (OJ Simpson atty)") |
| Fine example of American Christian (note cross in his lapel) adversarial legal system – Johnny Cochran (OJ Simpson attorney) |
Understanding the conflict between western societies and Islamic societies in this light can be very enlightening. Both see themselves as the most superior system of justice—and see the other as primitive, ignorant and base. One thing that is typically ignored in Western society is that an adversarial justice system is an oxymoron. When adversarial-legal procedure conflicts with justice, justice is sacrificed to the priority of the adversarial-legal procedure (for example, Miranda cases, tainted evidence and the like). An adversarial legal system is not a justice system. It should not be surprising that Judaic and Islamic systems of justice disrespect the often perverse western adversarial-legal system.
Israel wasn't called the Twelve Tribes without cause. But when the former Egyptian prince over all of Egypt went up on Har Sin•aiꞋ to consult with é--ä about how to unify the Twelve Tribes into one nation, the result was a legal system that struck a balance between the rights and justice of both the tribes and the individual. Later, Hellenist Romans would pervert that balance to eliminate tribal (but, of course, not state) responsibilities in favor of complete freedom of the individual (except, again, constraints imposed by the state) while, still later, Islam would revert to the primal tribal orientation.
The Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, the system of animal ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú and the half-shëqꞋël tax reflect the individual's interdependence and interrelationship with the merged-tribes, i.e. unified body, of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
 |
 Yᵊrushâlayim: Ir |
As Jacob Neusner observed in last week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ (Jerusalem Post Up Front Magazine, 2005.03.11), "The definition of who and what is Israel comes in the law of who paid the half-
"Israel as a whole [commits a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä] and requires [ëÌÄôÌåÌø]. Israel as a whole [committed a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä] corporately, particularly at Sinai in the making of the golden calf [mask]. The public offerings—the daily whole offerings—[expiate] for Israel's a•veir•otꞋ"—only.
"What the shëqꞋël [and similar symbols] accomplishes is to form of all Israel a single entity before [Ël•oh•imꞋ]: all [Israel has committed a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä], all [Israel expiates], all [Israel] together. Collective [a•veir•otꞋ], collective [ëÌÄôÌåÌø]—these categories of the relationship with Ël•oh•imꞋ, defined by Scripture. To be Israel, wherever one is situated geographically and socially, is to participate in the collective character of Israel, its [corporate accountability for corporately committing a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä], its vocation of [ëÌÄôÌåÌø]' Then the logic of the tale requires the incorporation of Israel in a very precise sense: the formulation of Israel as a single responsible body, a collectivity culpable as a whole and not solely by reason of the activities of the individual parts."
|
|
5.17 – åÀàÄí-ðÆôÆùÑ ëÌÄé úÆçÁèÈà, åÀòÈùÒÀúÈä àÇçÇú îÄëÌÈì-îÄöÀåÉú é--ä, àÂùÑÆø ìÉà úÅòÈùÒÆéðÈä; åÀìÉà-éÈãÇò åÀàÈùÑÅí åÀðÈùÒÈà òÂåÉðåÉ:
Whether via the îùéç or indirectly via the úÌÇáÀðÄéú (e.g. animal ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú and the several other means of ëÌÄôÌåÌø stipulated in úð"ê), all of úÌåÉøÈä is logically consistent in maintaining the principle that ëÌÄôÌåÌø is obtainable only for either:
as in this pâ•suqꞋ, the possibility of an undeterminable aveir•âhꞋ, some òÈååÉï against úÌåÉøÈä åÀìÉà-éÈãÇò – didn't, and don't, know whether [we] even did.
The authentic îùéç must be compatible with the úð"ê, which prophesies him, sets forth the only authoritative specifications and forms the sole basis for his legitimacy.
Therefore, messianic provisions of ëÌÄôÌåÌø must correspond—lock-step—to the provisions described in the same úÌåÉøÈä, which stipulates that one may neither add nor subtract anything from úÌåÉøÈä. (The authentic îùéç corroborated this principle—lock-step—in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)
5.17-20.
This doesn't suggest invoking a periodic ëÌÄôÌåÌø to cover all wrongs we may have done, as some non-Jews, being unfamiliar with úÌåÉøÈä, sometimes suggest. To invoke a messianic ëÌÄôÌåÌø when there has been no aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä would render it a vain offering—the prayer itself an aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä (see Mi•shᵊl•
The simplistic notion, alien to Judaism, that we "sin" all the time, is contrary to the teachings of úÌåÉøÈä. Aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä comprises two logical definitions found in every good dictionary. When one does something contrary to úÌåÉøÈä one has transgressed, "sinned." When one hasn't transgressed úÌåÉøÈä one hasn't "sinned." There is no gray area. (Even an uncertain transgression is not in the gray area. The only question is the fact of what occurred.)
To what, then, does the above pâ•suqꞋ refer? Suppose Mr. X, a úÌåÉøÈä-keeping Jew goes to a buffet luncheon prepared by various wives in the Orthodox Jewish community. (Unlike the Conservative and Reform Jewish communities, Orthodox luncheons are always ëùø.) A few days after the luncheon Mr. X learns that some of the chicken he ate, which had been purchased from the local supermarket, may have been improperly marked as ëùø. Several others had brought chicken that was ëùø.
Mr. X knows he ate a piece of chicken at that luncheon, but he cannot remember from which platter he had taken his piece of chicken or whether the chicken he ate was that which had been improperly marked at the supermarket. Therefore, on both counts, Mr. X cannot know whether or not he transgressed úÌåÉøÈä in eating tâ•
 |
 Oops! |
Beyond this provision of ëÌÄôÌåÌø for indeterminate aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä, we back up to the previous pᵊsuq•
There is no provision of ëÌÄôÌåÌø for an aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä one voluntarily chooses to do! The only way out of deliberate aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä is to discontinue deliberate aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä, for Yᵊhud•imꞋ this means returning in tᵊshuv•âhꞋ; which is an alternative way of stating that you must return to (or begin) living a úÌåÉøÈä-keeping life. Only when you are doing (present and imperfect – continuing – tense) your utmost to live a úÌåÉøÈä-keeping life is there ëÌÄôÌåÌø, since there is then no longer any deliberate aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä in your äÂìÄéëÈä
Moreover, everyone around you can easily see if you're trying to keep úÌåÉøÈä, from ka•shᵊr•utꞋ to keeping Shab•âtꞋ. As RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa noted, by their fruits you shall know them.
I've heard Christians say, 'I know it's a sin, but 'Jesus' will forgive me.' We love Christians just as we, and the Southern Baptists, love homosexuals—and Southern Baptists love us Jews—tolerant, but unable to gloss over what each of us, respectively, judge to be contra-Scriptural practice. (The big difference being, of course, that we úÌåÉøÈä Jews read and interpret the original language, not a Hellenist perversion of the Hebrew Bible.) The "grace" of 'Jesus'—like the supposed resulting atonement and salvation of Christian doctrine—is a Hellenist fabrication of post-135 C.E. Roman pagans, which not only lacks any documentable connection to historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa or his original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (see Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN)), it's absolutely, intractably and diametrically antithetical to the authentic—úÌåÉøÈä—teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa!
The teachings of the genuine—úÌåÉøÈä-teaching—historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa are about a transition from a state of externally imposed (under threat of punishment from the Beit-Din) úÌåÉøÈä-keeping to a state of úÌåÉøÈä-keeping, which is internally inspired, from the heart. In the former state, like athletes, one keeps only the letter of rules, which cannot be avoided. In the latter state, by contrast, one desires to keep úÌåÉøÈä, all of úÌåÉøÈä—i.e. the øåÌçÇ of úÌåÉøÈä—which is the only authentic øåÌçÇ äÇ÷ÌÉãÆùÑ
 |
 Jaffa-born, Arab Christian & international "miracle healer" megastar, Toufik Benedictus "Benny" Hinn. |
To misrepresent this øåÌçÇ of úÌåÉøÈä-defined ÷ÌÉãÆùÑ, the
øåÌçÇ äÇ÷ÌÉãÆùÑ, as a spirit that motivates one to degenerate into knowing and repeated aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä is blasphemy of the øåÌçÇ äÇ÷ÌÉãÆùÑ!!! A spirit that motivates one to degenerate into knowing and repeated aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä is a spirit of evil, a demon of ùÒÈèÈï. We still love them even though they have the misojudaic khu•tzᵊ
Though we love them we cannot overlook their contra-úÌåÉøÈä doctrines and practices. Based on a superficial and contra-contextual misinterpretation of post-135 C.E. pagan (Hellenist-Roman) redactions having no connection to historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, countless "charismatic" Christians revel in calling the deception of anecdotal and fraudulent "healings," babblings, emotional mysticism, magic and advocating transgressing of úÌåÉøÈä—defined by úÌåÉøÈä as the spirit of evil—"the holy spirit." This is unparalleled blasphemy of the øåÌçÇ äÇ÷ÌÉãÆùÑ!
It is é--ä Who performs miracles and heals. True, when you pray you must row for shore. You must do your best in harmony with úÌåÉøÈä. Aside from doing one's best to keep úÌåÉøÈä, however, one must then rely upon responsible medical care compatible with laws of é--ä and His úÌåÉøÈä. Mortals have nothing else to do with healing or miracles. Certainly, there can be nothing mystical or magic about it, as this is explicitly prohibited by úÌåÉøÈä.
 2006.03.17 300x136.jpg "Universe radiation afterglow Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)") |
 2006.03.17 600x273.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB – Universe Radiation Afterglow; Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe; WMAP) |
This necessarily means that miracles and healings are business between you—not involving any mortal intermediary—and é--ä. é--ä created the universe operating with perfect laws. Logically, a Perfect Creator, being Omniscient and Unchanging, couldn't do otherwise. Healing is most effective when you cooperate with é--ä's laws; within the care, and conducting yourself according to the advice, of responsible (scientific, not exotic) medical professionals.
 |
True miracles aren't hidden in mystical mumbo-jumbo magic, which contradict the laws of é--ä. True healings and miracles don't require the touch or any kind of "ministry" by quack preachers. Neither do true works of é--ä have any need of pretending by an audience of emotionally vulnerable and gullible collaboraters obsessed with making their emotional feelings ("beliefs") true by denying the contradictory knowledge of the real truth; and they can never expel truth from the deepest recesses of their heart. Nor are true miracles contradicted by documented records. Again, by their fruits you shall know them. Check the deepest recesses of your heart, with eyes willing to see truth, and then deal with the truth.
True, anecdotal, healings and miracles by é--ä happen every day. These countless healings and miracles are fully known and documented in the offices of physicians and hospitals around the world. Exposing the quackery of "faith healers," though, true, well documented, healings and miracles neither require any intermediary "faith healer," nor are they the exclusive product of any one religion! There are an equal number of healings and miracles, no more and no less, that happen under—despite—the "ministry" of shamans from Voodoos, Hindus and Christianity to Imams and Jewish mystics. úÌåÉøÈä is absolutely clear in instructing you to disregard any apparent involvement of a contra-úÌåÉøÈä religionist in miracles and healings even—especially—when the healing or miracle is real (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.2-6)!!!
When you focus your trust on some intermediary mortal, any intermediary mortal or "ministry"—no matter how you describe it—instead of directly on é--ä without interference in between, when you trust a translation of Scripture by men rather than reading Scripture yourself, then you err, trusting in man instead of é--ä, and you suffer the consequences. Pursue é--ä through keeping His úÌåÉøÈä, not wild claims of some quack contravening Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.2-6 and Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 28.9.
You must get your eyes off of "men (supposedly) of God"—not one of whom is any better, or closer to the Creator, than you are!!! That includes me. Fix your eyes, instead, on é--ä, on His Instruction—Hebrew: úÌåÉøÈä—for this world, and on the uninterrupted succession of Beit-Din among the Jewish people, which is ordained in His úÌåÉøÈä to determine and exercise îÄùÑÀôÌÈè upon this world. Repeatedly, úð"ê prophesies that the îùéç must corroborate, champion and amplify the
With the prophecies already fulfilled of the reinstatement of the nation of Israel and the regathering of the Jewish people from the four corners of the earth, which you've seen with your own eyes and in your own days, it is abundantly clear that the 'Times of the Gentiles' is over. Time is critically short. Whatever obstacle stands between you and úÌåÉøÈä-keeping must be abandoned—now, if you're serious—so that you may begin producing good fruits instead of the evil—unholy and demonic—fruits of aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä. You must prepare yourself to earn an income over a lifetime of service while investing in your own education, learning and applying úÌåÉøÈä—instead of the hedonism and conspicuous consumption of status symbols and luxuries—as if there is no more tomorrow.
|
|
1.2 – àÈãÈí, ëÌÄé-éÇ÷ÀøÄéá îÄëÌÆí, ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï ìÇé--ä; …
 250x371.jpg "Har ha-Bayit stones pulled down by Titus") |
| Har ha- |
It is noteworthy that úÌåÉøÈä uses the collective term for all mankind,àÈãÈí, in an instruction, which, when the punctuation conforms to the cantillation, literally reads: "àÈãÈí, because he will make a ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï from you,m.pl. a ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï to/for é--ä."
In the times of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ it is well documented that non-Jews sponsored ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú on their own behalf, which were performed by the Kohan•imꞋ. This pâ•suqꞋ provides one basis for that practice.
That é--ä permitted the Romans to destroy both the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ in 70 CE and the yo•khas•inꞋ of the Ko•han•imꞋ in the 2nd-3rd centuries C.E., which irretrievably terminated the office of mortal Ko•han•imꞋ, or any earthly-physical Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ in which Ël•oh•imꞋ is thought to dwell, forever (Ma•sëkꞋët Qidush•inꞋ 70b), necessitated the transition to the era described by Yir•mᵊyâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ (31.30-33; see also MikhꞋâh 4.4 & Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 3.10); in which every Tor•âhꞋ-keeping Yir•atꞋ é--ä will know Him, with no further need (or, indeed, even any allowance) for any earthly intermediary or intercessor – neither guru, nor priest (bishop / pastor), nor grand ayatollah, nor grand mufti, nor leading rabbi. (The authority of the Beit Din remains in place.)
|
|
This ôøùä begins åÇéÌÄ÷ÀøÈà.
ôøùú åÇéÌÄ÷ÀøÈà sets forth the definitions of the various types of offenses against é--ä along with their respective remedies.
4.2— In contrast to çÅèÀà (kheit), òÈååÉï (â•wonꞋ) and ôùò (pëshꞋa), defined in úÌåÉøÈä, "sin" is a Christian concept that has been totally disconnected from úÌåÉøÈä (or any other fixed definition).
According to the Christians' Scofield Reference Bible, the Christian concept of "Sin may be summarized as threefold:
An act, the violation of, or want of obedience to the "revealed will of god" – i.e., the "Holy Spirit" (i.e., whatever the Christian deems "right" = WWJD?)
a state, absence of "righteousness";
a nature, "enmity" toward god." (note "Sin," at Rom. 3.23).
So, for Christians, "sin" depends on one's personal opinion regarding what is the "revealed will of god," "righteousness" and "enmity toward god"; while, of course, Christians reckon god to be the Hellenist Jesus (unaware it's an apostasy of the 2nd-4th century Romans). So, by Christian definition, one's personal view of "following Jesus" is identical to the "revealed will of god" – or "following the "Holy Spirit," which they eqate to "righteousness"; while Christians regard not following their Hellenist Jesus as "enmity toward god"—sin!
Even looking up the term "righteousness" reinforces the Christian divorcement from úÌåÉøÈä and their dependence, instead, upon their definition of "sin," in their Displacement Theology pseudo-Bible (NT), which binds their notion of sin to following Jesus: "The righteousness of god is neither an attribute of god, nor the changed character of the believer, but Christ Himself' 'made unto us' righteousness' (NT, I Cor. 1.30)." (Scofield note at Rom. 3.21). Since Christians have no fixed definitions of anything to transgress other than this, their opinion concerning the eternal fate of non-Christians (those who reject following Jesus) is intractable and inevitable—and the basis for Christianity's historic and intrinsic misojudaism.
Hence, in Christianity, "sin" is unconnected to úÌåÉøÈä or any other fixed definition. For Christians, "sin" depends solely upon one's interpretation of the wishes of Jesus, as directed by their "Holy Spirit"—which is their own, unassailable, feelings and emotions about what "feels" right and "holy." Consequently, in Christianity if it feels right, then it's ok, regardless of what the "OT" may say about it.
Therefore, liberal Christian interpretations abound concerning abortions, same-sex marriages, etc. By Christian reckonings, such abominations need not be "sin" as long as Jesus, the "revealed will of god" and "Holy Spirit" to them, is perceived by them (i.e., in the "Holy Spirit") as tolerant of it. Who, they challenge, has authority to question them – which they equate to blaspheming the "Holy Spirit" they cite?
However, úÌåÉøÈä—specifically Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.2-6—defines the Christian "Holy Spirit" as unholy—and, therefore, Sâ•tânꞋic and demonic!
In contrast to Christianity, úÌåÉøÈä explicitly defines breaches of the áÌÀøÄéú. It's careless and ill-advised for any Jew to even use the word "sin" in reference to Judaism.
 |
One type of offense of the áÌÀøÄéú (distinct from those offenses that are unique to a king of Israel or to Israel collectively as a people), is (4.2):
ðÆôÆùÑ, ëÌÄé-úÆçÆèÈà áÌÄùÑÀâÈâÈä îÄëÌÉì îÄöÀåÉú é--ä, àÂùÑÆø ìÉà úÅòÈùÒÆéðÈä; åÀòÈùÒÈä îÅàÇçÇú îÅäÅðÌÈä:
Further specifying the unintentional nature of this offense, this is, first, a misstep (not deliberate) and, second, áÌÄùÑÀâÈâÈä means "in blundering," the adverbial form—i.e., blunderingly.
Consequently, this offense is explicitly defined by úÌåÉøÈä as an unintentional çÅèÀà, by a ðÆôÆùÑ of Bᵊnei-Yisra•eil, which violates a negative mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ.
Since mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ includes the Kohan•imꞋ and MëꞋlëkh, 4.27 specifies the ðÆôÆùÑ who is neither ha-Ko•heinꞋ nor MëꞋlëkh, but îÅòÇí äÈàÈøÆõ. The connotation, in modern Hebrew, of òÇí äÈàÈøÆõ as an unlearned, brutish, person developed later.
5.11— The one who committed the çÅèÀà shall bring his ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï: one-tenth àÅôÈä of fine flour, which is, according to Artscroll (IIIa, p. 89), the volume of 43.2 eggs.
"[Ël•oh•imꞋ] took pity on a poor man and assigned a very inexpensive offering to him so that he could afford to obtain atonement. But if a rich man brings this offering, not only does it not atone for him, he is guilty of the sin of bringing unsanctified objects into the Temple Courtyard (Ma•
5.17— clarifies that, though he doesn't know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his â•wonꞋ.
How can it happen that one would be guilty without knowing if he's violated a specific and explicit mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä?
Suppose you go to a kâ•sheirꞋ social event in the Jewish community. On the buffet table are a number of snacks brought by various members of the Jewish community. The table is labeled 'kâ•sheirꞋ.' Being helpful, a friend brings several plates from the buffet table to your table, each with a hot dog. He gives you a plate, and you eat the hot dog.
The next day, however, you learn that, of several identical platters containing hot dogs on the buffet table, one platter accidentally contained non-kâ•sheirꞋ hotdogs.
There's no way to know from which platter the hot dog you ate came. Did you commit an aveir•âhꞋ of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Tor•
Discussing a similar example, Rabbi Abraham Chill wrote: "As long as he had no possibility of knowng, he had to bring an 'offering of doubtful guilt.' If, and when, he found out beyond doubt that the piece he had eaten had been non-kosher, he had to bring a sin-offering." (The Mitzvot, Keter, p.154).
|
|
5.11-13— "And if you don't úÇùÒÌÄéâ by his hand two turtledoves or two baby pigeons, then he, who has çÈèÈà shall bring his ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï: one-tenth àÅôÈä of cream-of-wheat for a çÇèÌÈàú… 13 Then the ëÌÉäÅï shall have ëÌÄôÌÅø for him, for his çÇèÌÈàú, which he çÈèÈà of one of these, and shall be ðÄñÀìÇç for him. And [the ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï] shall belong to the ëÌÉäÅï, like the îÄðÀçÈä.
Here we find the formula for the atonement of a Jew who lacks the provision of blood. úÌåÉøÈä-obedience produces úÌåÉøÈä-guaranteed ëÌÄôÌÅø and ñÀìÄéçÈä that é--ä promises and é--ä – none else – provides. The rest is symbolism.
 |
 Universe Time-space |
Time is a phenomenon unique to the physical universe. Time is nothing more than an ethereal idea of length of duration as some measurement of energy (e.g., Joules) is expended in propelling physical bodies (mass – e.g., the earth relative to the sun, in kilograms) through space (e.g., kilometers). You can see this mathematically, derived from Einstein's formula for relativity, in the cosmology section of my book, ôÌÄùÑúÌÈä ëÌÅäÈä Live-LinkT . Apart from space and the physical world, time, like meters, grams and Joules, doesn't exist. Yet, we know that the Creator of the physical universe is non-dimensional, surpassing the physical world and, therefore, surpassing measurements dependent upon the physical universe, such as meters, grams and Joules – and, a priori, time.
Apart from the physical universe, i.e., in the non-dimensional Realm (colloquially, "spiritual realm" or "kingdom of heaven"), the non-existence of physical meters, grams and Joules implies the non-existence of meters, grams and Joules-dependent time. There is only existence and sequence (history and future), but no time (or aging, or physical vision, hearing, smell, taste or touch) in the sense that we perceive it in our physical world.
To é--ä, there is no difference between the poor, and perhaps infirmed, man of this pâ•suqꞋ and chronology (time), who could not afford the usual ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï or catch his own, and the Jews of the time or chronology since the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, or the time and chronology since the destruction of the genealogies of the Kohan•imꞋ (see Nᵊkhëm•yâhꞋ 7.63).
The same provision of an Unchanging (cf.
Since we maintain that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, as the Mâ•shiꞋakh symbolizes the provision for blood ëÌÄôÌåÌø that é--ä (none other) has, of His khein, given to the Jews, then it was also through the symbol of the Mâ•shiꞋakh that é--ä provided blood ëÌÄôÌåÌø and ñÀìÄéçÈä for those covered by the bᵊrit inherent in this pâ•suqꞋ.
What was the prerequisite for these individuals' ëÌÄôÌåÌø? úÌåÉøÈä-keeping to the best of the individual's ability, his utmost, all of his heart.
5.17— Is ignorance of the îÄöÀåÉú an acceptable excuse?
"And if a ðÆôÆùÑ, who shall çÈèÈà has committed one of any of the [things prohibited by the] îÄöÀåÉú of é--ä, which is not to be done, though he doesn't know it, yet he is àÈùÑÅí and shall bear his òÈåÉÌï." See also 4.1, where the condition áÌÄùÑÀâÈâÈä is included in the formula for atonement.
Nor does this pâ•suqꞋ specify that it applies only to a Jew who shall çÈèÈà. The pâ•suqꞋ, instead, specifies a "ðÆôÆùÑ who shall çÈèÈà."
For his treatment of wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 4.1-2, it is only fair that we acknowledge R. Singer is on the mark in his use of this passage (Outreach Judaism, p. 10). When we criticize, we must also be ready to compliment. Here it's strictly "!ëÌÈì äÇëÌÈáåÉã" to R. Singer. To elaborate, the key phrase here is áÌÄùÑÀâÈâÈä åÀçÈèÀàÈä
"Unintentionally ," as R. Singer renders this pâ•suqꞋ, indeed accurately conveys what this pâ•suqꞋ is saying. R. Singer is correct in stating that there's no provision for deliberate rejection of úÌåÉøÈä and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, (until there is tᵊshuv•âhꞋ—which includes turning to halakhic úÌåÉøÈä-keeping).
 |
 The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT – prophesied by Dân•iy• |
On the other hand, R. Singer states about Dân•iy•Jesus" (Outreach Judaism, p. 38-41).
On the other hand, to mangle Scriptures to fit his argument, R. Singer argues, incomprehensively contrary to Judaism, that Dân•iy•
We concur that it's impossible to apply this verse to the Christian Jesus on countless grounds. However, anyone who reads The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT (Chap. 10) will discover why, contrary to R. Singer's argument,
neither Dân•iy•
that, contrary to his contention, and like many Sages of Judaism, we have always distinguished the first seven weeks of years (49 years) from the remaining 62 weeks of years (434 years)' and it always has, and continues to, fit perfectly when applied to historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.
Moreover, what R. Singer describes as "Dân•iy•
The
îÄï-îÉöÈà
ãÈáÈø,
ìÀäÈùÑÄéá
åÀìÄáÀðåÉú
éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇí
in Dân•iy•
R. Singer attempts to tie this prophecy to a completely irrelevant passage (Dân•iy•
How is it that R. Singer sees no difference between "the saying to devastate Yᵊrushâlayim for 70 years" and "the saying to restore and build Yᵊrushâlayim"?!?
Dân•iy•
This is irrefutably the decree by
R. Singer's uses Hebrew calendar datings to obfuscate the fact that his dates have nothing to do with the consistent datings of (separately) the Hebrew calendar, or (separately) the secular calendar, or history and reality. Example (appropriate to emphasis both how ancient and the foreign Persian nature and culture of the ruler): 
(see also Big Stretch Apart), which equates 70 C.E. with 3830 (R. Singer gives 3829). Since the Hebrew calendar depends on the season of the year on the secular calendar, we'll not quibble about one year.
Calculating the zero point between the years B.C.E. 1 and C.E. 1 (there was no "zero" year) yields 3830—70 = 3760. So do all of the major calendar calculating programs and websites.
R. Singer gives the reign of
 |
 Yᵊru•shâ• |
This proclamation or edict is described more clearly in non-Jewish history books. Nevertheless, EJ's description is enough to see that [
The only viable way that the issue of rebuilding Yᵊrushâlayim could have come to the fore is if a proclamation had already been issued—i.e., sometime during the "first three-fifths of his reign"—and the rebuilding had begun causing anxieties. He reigned 40 years. Each fifth is then 8 years. The first 3/5 was then 24 years beginning in B.C.E. 465. This narrows the period to B.C.E. 465-441.
If we simply take the middle of this period to be in the ball park, (465 + 441) / 2, we arrive at B.C.E. 453.
This date, in agreement with the consensus of modern scholars, is the date we used for our calculations in The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT .
"In the later, calmer years of his reign, he appointed [Nᵊkhëm•yâhꞋ] governor of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa] with authority to fortify [Yᵊrushâlayim]" (ibid.), i.e., after considering the possibility of a threat to his authority, he determined that, rather, rebuilding Yᵊrushâlayim was an extension of his authority, confirming his earlier proclamation of c. B.C.E. 453.
Even more shocking, and contradicting virtually all of the Judaic Sages, R. Singer labels the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ in 70 C.E. as the beginning of the "Messianic Age"!?! (p. 41). Please therefore, might he tell us, the name of the Mâ•shiꞋakh who, in 70 C.E., must have come in victory according to all popular Jewish interpretations of Messianic prophecies? This is news to the Judaic world!
This is certainly nowhere near an exhaustive list of R. Singer's mistakes. But it should be far more than sufficient. One mistake is sufficient.
An understanding of Dân•iy•.
See also Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 44.28—45.1, 13; Dân•iy•
|
|
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins åÇéÌÄ÷ÀøÈà
 |
 Shᵊkhit• |
In the English, wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 1.5 reads: "And he shall kill the bullock."
In the Hebrew, however, there is much more information because of Hebrew word associations not present in the English.
The Hebrew reads:
åÀùÑÈçÇè,
àÆú-áÌÆï
äÇáÌÈ÷Èø
ìÄôÀðÅé
ùÑÈçÇè is the term used for slaughtering all ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú. It is also the
Perhaps deliberately (since even the Jewish English translations rely heavily on the influence of NT), there's no hint of the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of ka•shᵊr•utꞋ in the English.
Another inadequacy of the English is surfaces in the phrase "without blemish." The same Hebrew word is often rendered "perfect." While úÌåÉøÈä-keeping Jews understand a special, technical, definition of "blemish," the special sense is unknown to virtually all Christians.
"Blemish," in this Judaic application, refers specifically to a list of particular blemishes and the criteria established by Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ for determining whether the animal can be declared kâ•sheirꞋ.
This confusing ambiguity doesn't exist in the Hebrew. The term is úÌÈí, also úÌÉí and úÌÈîÄéí (tam•imꞋ;).
úÌÈí is defined as complete and perfect; however, these words describing úÌÈí correspond more accurately to ùÑÈìÅí
úÌÈí derives from the shorꞋësh úîí, which itself is related to the Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic words meaning entire, whole, complete, innocent.
ùÑÈìÅí is most accurately rendered as "complete" while úÌÈí is most accurately understood as whole[some]. It isn't logical to translate such a term in the negative. In other words, while "whole" and "wholesome" are antonyms of "blemished," they aren't equivalent to "not blemished" (i.e., unblemished).
Oft-quoted pᵊsuq•imꞋ dependent upon ùÑÈìÅí include Shᵊm•otꞋ 20.24 et al (where the English usually translates it as "peace offering" rather than "completion-offering); Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 32.35 (recompense); Ho•sheiꞋa 14.3 (render); Tᵊhil•imꞋ 56.13 (render); Mᵊlâkhim Âlëph 7.51 et al (ended) and Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 60.20.
 |
Examples of úÌÈí and úÌÈîÄéí include bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 25.27 (plain); I•yovꞋ 1.1 et al. (perfect); Tᵊhil•imꞋ 37.37; bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 20.5-6 (integrity); Shᵊm•otꞋ 28.30; wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 8.8 and Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 33.8 (úËîÌÄéí); Tᵊhil•imꞋ 26.1, 11; 41.13; 101.2; Shmueil Beit 22.24, 26, 31, 33; Tᵊhil•imꞋ 18.24, 26, 31, 33; 19.8; Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 28.18.
In this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, the ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú are required to be úÌÈîÄéí (pI. of úÌÈí), not ùÑÀìÈîÄéí, "and it will be wanted / desired for him ìÀëÇôÌÅø; for ëÌÄôÌåÌø) upon / over / concerning him" (1.4). (ùÑÀìÈîÄéí are treated in 3.2.)
Since the ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú are widely regarded as prefigures of the Mâ•shiꞋakh, this distinction is important in directing the drawing of any parallels concerning how the Mâ•shiꞋakh is to parallel the animal ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï system. While ùÑÀìÈîÄéí are frequently mentioned, LXX syncretized a Hellenist interpretation of these offerings, not as ùÑÈìÅí, but, rather, as a christological σωτηριος. A priori, by this manipulation, Hellenists (and their offspring Christians) injected and infused the Greek interpretation of ùÑÈìÅí→σωτηριος into their native Zeus-syncretized "perfect" Christ – Jesus!
While some æÀáÈçÄéí are described as ùÑÀìÈîÄéí, and ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú are described as úÌÈí, ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú are never described in Ta•na"khꞋ as ùÑÀìÈîÄéí – much less ùÑÈìÅí or îÀùÑËìÈÌí – and certainly not, lᵊ-ha•vᵊChrist sacrifice," in the tradition threading back through Hellenist Greco-Roman, Hellenist Greek and Egyptian idolatries, superimposed – like a feculent cloak (Zᵊkhar•
Why 17th century C.E. English Church translators of King James, producing both their new Greek Textus Receptus and matching English KJ/V text, ignored the Tar•
According to Christian dogma, salvation can only be through Jesus (which, the Church argues inconsistently, became the perfect-or-salvation? offering), yet, contrary to the instructions for animal ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú, and
In any case, the ùÑÀìÈîÄéí were required to be úÌÈîÄéí (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 3 et al.)—not ùÑÈìÅí or îÀùÑËìÈÌí (thus, no Scriptural support for any "perfect" sacrifice)
The Church has done a remarkable job of concealing this. Yet, like the ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú, the Mâ•shiꞋakh was required to be a whole[some] Bën-âdâm—neither perfect nor man-god in the tradition of Egyptian or Hellenist Greek and Greco-Roman man-gods!
These distinctions were twice-assimilated: first, Hellenization in the 2nd-4th centuries C.E. (the LXX), then further assimilated in the 17th century C.E. KJ/V – entirely erased from the Christian record. They can only be found in the earliest extant Scriptures, which are Hebrew, illuminated by the Aramaic Tar•
The ta•lᵊmidꞋ is encouraged to look up all of the instances of these two words in their Hebrew concordance (not Strong's, which is English-based and Christianized), to develop a grasp of the continuity of meaning for each as well as the proper associations of pᵊsuq•imꞋ and dispel invalid associations that have been based upon incorrect English-only connections.
Mi•nᵊkh•
|
|
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, for which the book is named, begins åÇéÌÄ÷ÀøÈà.
The kinds of offerings required tell us what requires expiation:
òÉìÈä – for scheming something that conflicts with úÌåÉøÈä / Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. This is popularly called a "burnt" or "ascendance" offering.
çÇèÌÈàÈä – for a áÌÄùÑÀâÈâÈä åÀçÈèÀàÈä against úÌåÉøÈä / Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, 4.2). This is popularly called the "trespass" or "sin" offering.
àÈùÑÈí (the following later differentiated by the rabbis) –
æÆáÇç ùÑÀìÈîÄéí – which includes the æÆáÇç úÌåÉãÈä (not to be confused with the similar-looking úÌåÉøÈä)
The àÈùÑÈí úÌÈìåÌé is for instances in which the individual does not know whether or not (s)he has violated úÌåÉøÈä. Example: You attend a function catered by a kâ•sheirꞋ caterer. Later, you learn that a non-Jewish employee of the caterer had used a knife or bowl, that he had previously used to cut or store shrimp, to cut vegetables and make one, of several, bowls of sushi. Though he had washed the knife and bowl before preparing the sushi, he had not "kashered" them. (This would render all of the sushi in that bowl tâ•reiphꞋ.) You ate some sushi at the function, but which bowl? It's not possible to know whether you are guilty. That required a àÈùÑÈí úÌÈìåÌé ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï
Without tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, none of these ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú provided ëÌÄôÌåÌø. The requirement of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ to úÌåÉøÈä-keeping rules out willful or deliberate rejection of úÌåÉøÈä / Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
Additionally, to qualify for ëÌÄôÌåÌø relative to a transgression against another person, the offending party is required to make restitution—plus a 20% punitive penalty—to the injured party before ëÌÄôÌåÌø can be obtained (5.24-25).
|
|
3.16-17 — "All of the çÅìÆá belongs to é--ä. It is a perpetual statute for all of your generations, throughout all of your settlements: you shall not eat any çÅìÆá nor any blood."
The astute reader might notice that, without the 1QIsa confirms the 𝕸 vowels, this term is spelled identically to çÈìÈá. In ancient times there were no vowels to distinguish the two. Authorities today identify çÅìÆá with the specific type of milk-like fat that surrounds certain internal organs. In 2.9, describing the completion ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï, the text specifies its çÅìÆá and the çÅìÆá of its ÷ÆøÆá, referring to its intestines.
While this prohibition may be new to our readers, kâ•sheirꞋ butchers have been well aware of it since those times.
|
|
pâ•suqꞋ 43.21:
òÇí æåÌ éÈöÇøÀúÌÄé ìÄé, úÌÀäÄìÌÈúÄé éÀñÇôÌÅøåÌ:
This week's
It is òÇîÌÄé áÀçÄéøÄé —Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ—who was, did, and is, to spread the fame of é--ä.
Stated conversely, this answers the questions 'Why were we created?' and 'What is our purpose in life?' He formed us for Himself—to spread His Tᵊhil•âhꞋ.
Who are you? Have you ever answered that question of yourself? You probably answer with your name. But what does that mean? Who is [your name here]? You're a student of (whatever)? You're a [your occupation here]? Is that all you are? You're a father, mother or homemaker? These are the reasons that the Creator created this vast and incredibly complex and orderly universe – and you in it?
How many times have you been at a social gathering and either asked a new acquaintance, or responded to the question of a new acquaintance: 'What do you do?' What should one answer? What one does to earn income? Ho-hum. Another boring evening.
I think that virtually everyone I ever met, in their heart, regards such conversation as trivial and tediously boring. Yet, who has the courage to give a meaningful and interesting answer? "I'm a servant of the Creator, ha-
Now there's an interesting conversation starter that won't be boring.
|
|
The popular quotation, Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 43.25, speaks of two kinds of a•veir•otꞋ: "I alone, I alone am He Who blots out ôÀùÑÈòÆéêÈ for My own sake, åÀçÇèÌÒàúÆéêÈ I will not remember."
The English translation of 43:26 misses a crucial concept evident in the original Hebrew:
Remind Me – ðÄùÑÈÌôÀèÈä together; recount [the îÄùÑÀôÌÈè] so that úÌÄöÀãÌÈ÷.
In other words, in the original Hebrew, Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu teaches justification through doing one's utmost (not being perfect) to keep îÄùÑÀôÌÈè (=Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ).
 |
 |
1QIsa confirms 𝕸. The only change is the reading from 1QIsa of éÇçÀãÌÈéå to 𝕸's éÇçÇã, which are synonyms, and the variation has negligible affect on the meaning.
43.26 – àÅéîÇø ëÌÀòÇï ðÀãÄéï ëÌÇçÂãÈà; àÄùÑÀúÌÇòÄé àÇúÌÀ, àÄí úÄéëåÉì åÀúÌÄæÀëÌÅéÓ
(Say we hold court here and now, as one; debate accommodatingly (!) whether you will be capable or worthy. – translation © 2014.02 ybd)
The Christian-Hellenized LXX (the earliest extant copy of which is bound in the same codex with the earliest extant copy of the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)) grossly perverted this pâ•suqꞋ misojudaically to imply that the non-Christian Jews were innately "Torah-less" and, therefore, "lost" without the "salvation" of their Jesus:
συ
δε
μνησθητι
και
κριθωμεν
λεγε
συ
τας
ανομιας
σου
πρωτος
ινα
διακαιωθης
There is no basis whatsoever in the original Hebrew or Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate and post-135 C.E. – condemned and vilified as "Judaizers" they regarded as "under the law of sin and death" (because of "the Torahlessness of [their] initial state"!
(KJ/V omits the misojudaic phrase, leaving it to be transmitted orally – as has, from at least 135 C.E. until recent years, been universally taught throughout Christianity: "Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou [→the Torahlessness of your initial state←], in order that thou mayest be justified.")
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
|
|
Viewing "Israel as a single responsible body, a collectivity culpable as a whole and not solely by reason of the activities of the individual parts," (cf. Neusner, in the úÌåÉøÈä section, 5765) is the pristine ancient view, before the Displacement Theology of Christianity perverted it into individualism or, even later, the second-order Displacement Theology of Islam reverted back to primitive tribalism.
The human body is a collection of cells. If the DNA of a cell mutates and becomes malignantly cancerous, it endangers the entire body. Malignant cells must be restored to health or excised for the body to live. The same is true of members of the body of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
Some members of the body of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ are hands, others are eyes while still others are teeth, etc. The Sages perceived the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ as the eyes of the body of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Of course, the Nᵊviy•imꞋ were also the eyes of the body of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. The Bat•eiꞋ-Din that succeeded the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ, guiding the body through the úÌåÉøÈä via Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, are the eyes of the body of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (see note to Artscroll Stone Ta•na"khꞋ wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 4.13). By extension, then, the teeth would be the police who enforced the laws handed down by the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ, and so forth.
Thus, the phrase in Shᵊm•otꞋ 21.24, wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 24.20 and Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 19.21 "Eye for eye.. tooth for tooth" assumes meaning not only individually but corporally as well, implying that subsequent Beit-Din and Nᵊviy•imꞋ may overturn earlier decisions found to be logically flawed.
 |
| Yᵊrushâlayim, Gei-Hi• |
At the corporal, body, level, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa seems to have lent these symbols a cryptic dimension in an era of Hellenization, Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa and unparalleled sanctimony. "If your right eye is a stumbling-block to you, excise it! Throw it away! For it is more comely for you that one of your body parts are lost than for your whole body to be thrown into Hinom-Ravine. If your right hand is a stumbling-block to you, cut it out! Throw it away! For it is appropriate to you that one of your body parts is lost rather than for your whole body to go off into Hinom-Ravine." (NHM 5.27-31; see similar teaching at NHM 18.6-8).
Similarly, "The oil-fed-lamp of your body is your eyes. If your eyes are single-purposed, the whole body shall be bright. If your eye is evil working, then your whole body will be dark. If the Or (light) in you goes dark then all of your ways will be dark" (NHM 6.23-24).
Goy•imꞋ aren't aware that, from the inception at Har Sin•aiꞋ, there have always been numerous local-level Bat•eiꞋ-Din in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. There are often disagreements between them, which often precipitate great animosity between their advocates, followers and adherents. In this context, we can consider another teaching of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: "Why do you see the speck of straw that is in the eye of your brother but don't see the beam that is in your own eye? How do you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that speck of straw from your eye,' when look at the beam that is in your own eye! Hypocrite! First, get the beam out of your own eye and then you will be able to see clearly enough to remove the speck of straw from the eye of your brother." (NHM 7.3-5).
|
|
"A•shᵊr•eiꞋ be the man who always fears falling into the hands of his own wrongful desires, and matures every day in fighting against it, in order that he doesn't develop a taste for kheit."
As memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët pᵊsâkh•imꞋ, the chapter on The Woman (87a), •marꞋ Mar Zutra Bar-Tovya, •marꞋ Rav, What is written? 'That our sons are like plants, growing in their youth; our daughters are like æåéú (zawit; corners), sculpted according to the tav•nitꞋ of the Hei•khâlꞋ.' (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 144.12).
'That our sons are like plants,' these are the bachelors of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ who don't have a taste for kheit. 'Our daughters are like æåéú (zawit),' these are the bachelorettes of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, who îâéãåú (majidot; narrate, announce) their gates to their bᵊal•imꞋ. And so it says, "they will be filled like a sprinkling-basin, like the corners of the Miz•beiꞋakh" (Zᵊkharyah 9.15).
If you wish, say, 'our îæåä (mᵊzaweh; corner-storehouses) are full, producing from kind to kind' ( Tᵊhil•imꞋ 144.13). 'Our daughters are like zawit' sculpted according to the tav•nitꞋ of the Hei•khâlꞋ.' This Scripture and that ascribes to them as though they are building the Hei•khâlꞋ in their days.
It is memorized in chapter Osin Pasin (Ma•sëkꞋët Ei•ruv•inꞋ 21b), Explained Raba, What is written, 'The duda•imꞋ gives a fragrance' (Shir ha-Shir•imꞋ 7.14); these are the bachelors of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ who don't have a taste for kheit. 'And above our gates are all îâãéí (mᵊgad•imꞋ; choicest-things)' (ibid.), these are the bachelorettes of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, who îâéãåú (majidot) their gates to their bᵊal•imꞋ.
'New and old [things] are cached for you' (ibid.). The ha-KᵊnësꞋët Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ states before ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu,, the Ribon of hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ; it is unveiled and known before you that I decided many more decisions concerning Myself than you decided about Me, and I perpetuated them.
A man should never believe in himself. Rather, he should forever be reverent of kheit. As it is recited in Ma•sëkꞋët Âv•otꞋ, chapter 2 (Mish•nâhꞋ 4), Hi•leilꞋ says, "Don't withdraw from society, but don't trust in yourself until the day of your death," etc.
Behold, we find the great generation was drowned in this abyss, as it is memorized, chapter part (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 107a), •marꞋ Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, •marꞋ Rav, Never should a man bring himself into the hand of testing. Behold, Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëꞋlëkh brought himself into the hand of testing and stumbled.
•marꞋ before Him, "Rib•on•oꞋ shël ol•âmꞋ. For what reason do we say, 'Ëlohei Av•râ•hâmꞋ, Ëlohei Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ, w-Eilohei Ya•a•qovꞋ' and not say, Ëlohei Dâ•widꞋ?
•marꞋ to him, "They testproved Me but you didn't testprove Me." •marꞋ to him, "Examine me, é--ä, and testprove my kidney and my heart" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 26.2).
•marꞋ to him, "I am trying you, and working something in you according to which they were not made known to Him. What I am making known to you is that I am trying you in a matter of direct lewdness." "And it was toward eveningtime, Dâ•widꞋ got up out of bed…" (Shᵊm•u•eilꞋ Beit 11.2).
•marꞋ Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, •marꞋ Rav that he exchanged a night bed for a day bed. Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ was disregarded as •marꞋ RabꞋi Yo•khân•ânꞋ, There is a small organ in man; sate it—it hungers, cause it to hunger—it is sated. "And he walked about on the roof of the Beit- ha-Mëlëkh and he saw a woman bathing from atop the roof" (ibid.).
(Translated so far)
|
|
|