|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
 408x253.jpg "L''g (33) la-Omer Hilulah of Shimon Bar Yokhai on Har Meiron") |
| Hi•lul•âꞋ of Shimon Bar-Yokhai on Har Mei•ronꞋ – on L"g [33rd day] la-•OꞋ mër. |
In the commentary of 5760 (which the reader should review before continuing), I explained the symbolism of the seven plus ì"â days that are set forth in this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ. I notice that I didn't explain the significance of their total: 40 days. The total, 40-day, waiting period symbolized the passing of a generation (40 years, see, for example, bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 14.33).
Neither did I explain well why a 40-day period is required after birth and (aside from the obvious) not every month. The answer to this, however, is plain in the symbolism of 40 versus the usual 7 (required by úÌåÉøÈä—in contrast to 14 demanded by the rabbis). úÌåÉøÈä specifies seven, symbolizing both the perfect number and a week, as the required symbolic mourning period—ùÑÄáÀòÈä—for the death of a human egg. When there is birth, there is no death of a human egg. So how is this related to ùÑÄáÀòÈä? The mourning period is extended from seven (for the death of a human egg) to symbolize – and recognize via a mnemonic 'prophylactic mourning' – the mortality of the newborn infant (representing a generation = 40)!
 |
 |
 124x150.jpg "First DNA homo sapiens NationalGeographic.com, Frank Bender (sculptor and photographer)") |
| First DNA homo sapiens (and photo) by forensic sculptor Frank Bender. © 1996-2005 NationalGeographic.com. |
 250x321.jpg "Mitochondrial Eve, ca. BCE 125,000 (bradshawfoundation.com)") |
 350x450.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Mitochondrial Eve – by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, Institute of Human Sciences, Oxford University |
While "original sin" is a Christian innovation blamed on •dâmꞋ and Khaw•âhꞋ , the basic theme may derive in part from this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ which teaches that every child begins life èÈîÅà. While the doctrines themselves are different, the consequences of both doctrines are the same (though neither community has yet demonstrated an ability to relate to the terminology and reasoning of the other).
Understanding the nature of this èËîÀàÈä is the essential key needed to grasp the very basis and principles of the operation of the qor•bân•otꞋ and ëÌÄôÌåÌø—which, consequently, then makes the explanation of the so-called enigma of the Pâr•âhꞋ A•dum•âhꞋ simple and obvious.
"R. Yo•seiphꞋ asked, 'Why is the contamination only seven days after the birth of a boy and fourteen days after the birth of a girl?'" No sage has ever provided a logically compelling answer. The reason for their failure to understand is that, lacking scientific and logical discipline and habitually male oriented, they exhibited tunnel-vision, asking the wrong question. The more enlightening question would have been, "Why is the contamination only seven days when one female is involved in birth and fourteen days when two females are involved in a birth?" Now the arithmetic is solvable by a fourth grader, and the question turns to understanding 'Why?'
 |
 human egg cell, 100 microns – about the diameter of a human hair (photo realscienceprograms.com) |
The answer lies in the most basic biological difference between the physiology of male and female: the creation of new life potential on a monthly basis, evidenced by the woman's menstrual period which ceases with conception. Today, we know this as the expelling of a human egg—a potential human life. In ancient times this was regarded as equating to a constructive death, and contact with this constructive death—not the menstrual flow per se—is the cause of a woman's èËîÀàÈä. Blood was considered, with perfect logical consistency, always a flushing-cleansing, washing away of èËîÀàÈä. Thus, blood was the sanctifying agent and remedy for èËîÀàÈä. (As in the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, this cycle is the reason for separation between the sexes during liturgy, as well as explaining why pre-Bat-Mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ girls are exempt from this separation.) Seven days was recognized as the standard period for ensuring the ordinary menstrual period had run its course.
 250x166.jpg "Human fetus at 40 days (Carolina Biological)") |
 640x426.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Human fetus at 40 days, ≅ 23mm (⅞ in.) – about the size of a large grape (photo Carolina Biological) |
While an unfertilized egg is not yet human, the ancients were right that the expelling of an egg is, though not a fully-human death, nevertheless a partially-human, or constructive, death. Contact with a dead human egg, therefore, contaminates the woman with death. The first 7 + 33 = 40 days are for the mother's expelling the partially-human constructive death, as usual. Because baby girls often issue a spot, or drop, of blood, the ancients considered that there may be the possibility of the daughter also expelling an additional, partially-human constructive death. Therefore, the second 7 + 33 = 40 days allow for the daughter's expelling partially-human constructive death.
The ancients considered that the menstrual blood then naturally flushed away the woman's contamination, leaving her cleansed. Corroborating this, úÌåÉøÈä teaches that, following a safe period for her issue to have run its course, she then took a miq•wëhꞋ, a culmination of the cleansing process, and was considered in a cleansed state even though a watch period was required to ensure there was no recurrence before she could return to marital intimacy with her husband.
There was no seven days for a son. That error is what misdirected the Sages, precluding discovery of the understanding of the sacrificial system, understanding of èËîÀàÈä, understanding of ëÌÄôÌåÌø and understanding of the operation of the Pâr•âhꞋ A•dum•âhꞋ until the prophesied time. See also my paper, ôÈøÈä àÂãËîÈÌä.
As a sanctifying agent, blood requires special, holy, treatment, but is never itself èËîÀàÈä. This is the central principle of the qor•bânꞋ system and the operation of ëÌÄôÌåÌø.
Only an issue of blood outside of the normal menstrual flow evidenced (not constituted) recontamination. For those who have read ôÈøÈä àÂãËîÈÌä, the cleansing and sanctifying property of the menstrual blood flow also explains the enigma of the Pâr•âhꞋ A•dum•âhꞋ.
It turns out that, while ò"ã is popularly criticized as a male chauvinist religion, the central pillar and foundation-stone concept of èËîÀàÈä and ëÌÄôÌåÌø, around which virtually every doctrine of úÌåÉøÈä orbits, is, in fact, intrinsically female! One could even say that males merely function as servants performing symbolic rituals representing these divinely-ordained principles while females represent and provide the essence of ò"ã. More objectively, each sex has its own, unique and essential but different, role.
 |
 Tâ•râphꞋ: |
 of Idu, Giza 200x256.jpg "Egyptian god emerging from sacred mountain into ''Holy of Holies'' through false door") |
 of Idu, Giza 314x402.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Egyptian god emerging from sacred mountain into ''Holy of Holies'' through false door |
While this may be surprising, it shouldn't be. Throughout the ancient world man sought to relate to supreme and unseen forces through the theme of being reborn among the gods, as eternal beings, in paradise. Being reborn, to a human, instinctively suggests sex as the causal paradigm leading to birth. That's how everything a human ever sees becomes born. While the Par•ohꞋs emphasized the phallus, many other cultures produced idols of woman with multiple sets of breasts and idols of beautiful and alluring women. Sex was also a dominant theme in many ancient pagan temples, replete with both male and female prostitutes.
ò"ã, however, represented a quantum leap away from such simplistic idolatry. Before explaining the quantum leap away from idolatry, however, one must first understand what it was that Jews leapt away from—idolatry. Christians today are smugly confident in their icons knowing that they recognize that the icons are merely symbols. It's true that, unlike the undeveloped world, Christians in the developed world don't really worship the wooden icon, or marble icon, or golden icon itself. The problem, however, is the Christian assumption—a wrong assumption—that the ancients were so stupid that they actually thought the wooden, stone or golden icon was itself a god. The earthshattering impact back to reality occurs when Christians finally recognize that the ancient pagans rationalized their idolatry with the identical argument! Where is the Christian unafraid of the eyes or power of a picture or crucifix of éù"å? Unafraid of its "unseen and inexplicable power"? Which Christian equates a picture or crucifix of éù"å as no more than any other piece of paper, clay or plastic; having no qualms about walking on it, throwing in the garbage or any other desecration of it?
When chalking up ancients as cavemen who couldn't distinguish a stone from a god, "modern" man forgets ancient achievements like the pyramids, the library at Alexandria, mathematicians like Euclid and Archimedes and hard evidence like the Antikythera mechanism. The ancient world appears to have been vastly superior to the church-suppressed, European medieval world. The ancients were no different—at all—in their motivation and orientation of worshiping idols than Christians today. Today, as then, idols—most particularly Jesus—take on non-factual, even contra-historical, fanciful and mythical attributes. Idolatry is a feast for the superstitious, for the ignorant, and for the irrational moths who fly into the flame of a self-contradicting god who insists on mysterious mumbo-jumbo and supernatural "miracles" which contradict the Creator's own Perfect Laws.
 |
 Antikythera analog computer that calculated and displayed positions of the seven then-known planets along with varying orbital speeds and moon phases; ca. B.C.E. 85 (!!!) See also Computer Tomographic X-rays that show 30 bronze gears. More photos and information in pâ•râsh•atꞋ wa-Yei•tzeiꞋ |
At about BCE 2,088, Av•râ•hâmꞋ had a revelation which would represent a quantum leap away from the simplisticism of idolatry, the seed of a system of relating to our Creator which would be refined over subsequent generations to culminate in the revelation at Har Sin•aiꞋ. Av•râ•hâmꞋ realized that the paradigm couldn't be post-death ritualistic sex with a god—sex which no one had ever witnessed, for which there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and which contradicted what evidence there was. No doubt there were reports by scientists of the time who observed diligently at the time the stars were properly aligned for the dead Par•ohꞋ in his pyramid to have sex with the star god—and dutifully reported, year after year after year, and decade after decade, that nothing happened. Probably it even dawned on part of the world that sex with a woman doesn't reproduce oneself. Hence, logically, sex with a god, even if it could be accomplished and produce offspring, still wouldn't bring about eternal rebirth of oneself!
There had to be a better paradigm. And there was. With only minimal intervention by the male, which the ancients considered introduced the seed, the entire life cycle could be observed in the female processes. Like "mother earth," the woman seemed to bring some life force to bear upon the seed, rendering the seed a living human being. This life force ebbed and flowed—was born and died—each month similar to the moon.
Death was the enemy, from which man has always sought to be delivered, saved. Death was the ultimate defilement. It brought about putrefaction and caused sickness to those who came in contact. Death caused contamination, and those who were contaminated required cleansing from their contamination. Sex with a star god and related idolatry was a simplistic non-starter, which lacked any concept of cleansing from contamination. The paradigm of the woman's menstrual blood flushing away the defilement of the monthly death which contaminated her obviously worked, since the life force within her rejuvenated the next month. Here was a working, hard-evidence, paradigm of victory over the contamination of death, demonstrated by subsequent rebirth!
It was clear to the ancient world that any god was by definition superior to mortals and, therefore, had infinitely higher standards which mortals, being inferior, simply couldn't attain on their own. "Making the gods angry" initially defined aveir•âhꞋ, and the consequences of "making the gods angry" was always something bad. To the ancients, a system of laws was nothing more than what the ruler demanded (peculiarly similar to what the gods demanded), plus whatever permitted social and business interaction, plus what kept the gods appeased (peculiarly similar to what the rulers demanded – and, remarkably, varying peculiarly like what rulers of various religions demand today). This forces the question: is one's god the Master of man? Or man's puppet (and invention), performing according to man's whims? Does man serve the Creator as Guide, Instructor and Master? Or is god a super-power intervening according to the bidding—prayers—of a chosen 'holy-man'? Is "My god beats your god proving I'm the chosen ruler?" still the primitive—moronic—debate? Have we still not progressed beyond the superstitious fear and idolization—idolatry—of some 'holy-man'—witch doctor paradigm—proven by some serendipitous coincidence?
 |
All of the evidence from the ancient world points to an almost inescapable conclusion, however, that until Av•râ•hâmꞋ (culminating in Har Sin•aiꞋ), no one had ever conceived the idea of a system of laws being divinely authored, whether governing relations between themselves or between themselves and the Creator. Indeed, even today, most laws, and legislators, are perceived only as being in the public interest, or at least in the interest of powerful interest groups; and morality is increasingly perceived as merely political correctness in the eye of the beholder. Even among religious Orthodox Jews who recognize the divine Hand in the revelation at Har Sin•aiꞋ it would be rare to find one who has grasped that the úÌåÉøÈä of Har Sin•aiꞋ is not merely divine laws but, so much more, a glimpse into the Logic of the Creator, a glimpse of the Creator Himself —what Mosh•ëhꞋ perceived at Har Sin•aiꞋ.
 |
Recognition that the Perfect Creator has ordered a Perfect set of Laws (logic, mathematical, physical are all one set of Perfect Laws) required a new, and far more profound Way of relating to our Creator. A vastly superior god would require a vastly elevated mortal in order for communion to occur. A Perfect Creator, by contrast, couldn't incorporate anything imperfect or it would render Him no longer perfect! The new understanding required not merely a great elevation for mortals as in the pagan idolatries, but achieving perfection—something clearly impossible for any mortal on their own. It can only be achieved for mortals, therefore, by the Perfect Creator.
While few have plumbed these profound depths of the realizations of Av•râ•hâmꞋ and the generations of his family culminating with Mosh•ëhꞋ, the implications were enormous. A•veir•otꞋ against the Perfect Logic of the Perfect Creator were no longer something to be simply discarded and forgotten. They were finally understood to be imperfections, which required divine intervention to eliminate. And here the paradigm of the life processes fit perfectly. Since blood naturally flushed away death and contamination in the woman, that could only be if it also, first, flushed away the offending aveir•âhꞋ against the Perfect Logic of the Perfect Creator.
In the world of Av•râ•hâmꞋ, the ultimate appeasement of last resort to the gods, when every other attempt had failed, was to sacrifice one's firstborn son (cf. Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 3.26-27; and as implied by MikhꞋâh 6.7 and Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 7.31). This strong pagan belief, which became an annual spring sacrifice of the firstborn (both sons and male sacrifice animals, aged from birth to 3 months) in Egypt, would one day trigger the ultimate and final plague that exposed the ultimate unavoidable falseness of Egypt's gods and culminate in the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ from Egypt.
The new paradigm, which Av•râ•hâmꞋ was figuring out, seemed to fit with the universal practice of sacrificing his firstborn son—Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Âv•iꞋnu. After all, should his dedication to é‑‑ä be any less than the goy•imꞋ dedication to their ël•oh•imꞋ? To syncretize some of the reasoning of the pagans around him, it seemed plausible that the Creator would flush away, with the blood of Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ, every offending aveir•âhꞋ against the Perfect Logic of the Perfect Creator, enabling Av•râ•hâmꞋ to commune with the Creator.
Yet, there was an unavoidable flaw in that reasoning. It was Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ whom Av•râ•hâmꞋ perceived was prophesied to carry on this new paradigm. Despite the persistence of the belief among all of the pagans around him in the efficacy of sacrificing sons, many thinkers must have noticed that no sacrificed son ever came back and, far worse (?), it didn't beat random serendipity in obtaining the desired response from the god. In other words, child sacrifice didn't work. This surely weighed no less heavily in Av•râ•hâmꞋ's thinking as he stood over Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ weighing these conflicting considerations. But he needed to find resolution.
In one of the rare and defining moments of history, Av•râ•hâmꞋ depended upon the Creator to resolve this dilemma for him, and, in a stroke of predesigned "natural serendipity" we call a ðÅñ, the rest is history. Animals would henceforth serve as a tav•nitꞋ , both to differentiate ò"ã from the goy•imꞋ and to symbolize the required flushing away of contamination, aveir•âhꞋ against the Perfect Logic of the Perfect Creator and consequent death until such time as his family, prophesied to continue eternally, could internalize the concept (write it in their hearts of flesh, Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 31.30-33) forever—something, we Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ believe, the Mâ•shiꞋakh brought within the spiritual and intellectual grasp of man – bringing "the kingdom of heaven" it had come! – into the hearts of those in ò"ã.
As goy•imꞋ accustomed in their idolatry, however, the Hellenists (Roman gentiles cum Christians) reverted back into their own mold, perverting this back to their native mythology of sacrificed sons becoming deified man-gods in order to give them eternal life. They merely substituted a demigod child sacrifice in place of their own child – thereby transferring the barbaric and evil deed from themselves to their God. Only goy•imꞋ would serve an evil God.
In ò"ã (úÌåÉøÈä), by contrast, the self-sacrifice of the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ far more parallels a Medal of Honor soldier, who has delivered his fellow-soldiers from death. This is what RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa accomplished, his self-sacrifice on behalf of his fellow Yᵊhud•imꞋ (not on behalf of goy•imꞋ as Hellenists believe!) assuaging the Romans' fear of an emerging rival "King of the Jews" and delivering a generation of Yᵊhud•imꞋ from Roman decimation and expulsion.
Discussion of the significance of the 33-day period (12.4) and its relation to an extra-large â (gimël = 3), found in every SeiphꞋër úÌåÉøÈä, in the word åÀäÄúÀâÌÇìÌÈç in pâ•suqꞋ 33 (of përꞋëq 13) is found in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)
note 28.1.2.
|
|
 541x382.jpg "numerology (theartofconsciousliving.com)") |
12.2 – åÀèÈîÀàÈä ùÑÄáÀòÇú éÈîÄéí
The underlying motif of the 7-day purification period of mei nidꞋâh, upon which all of this is based (e.g., see Artscroll, Vayikra [sic], for this passage) and which ties it all together, is covered in ôÈøÈä àÂãËîÈÌä. The 33-day period is alluded early in tradition, as an oversized â (giꞋmël; = 3) in pâ•suqꞋ 33 of this chapter. As Artscroll has also noted, this alludes to the upcoming festival of L"g la-OꞋmër (33rd day of the counting of the OꞋmër from the ùÑÇáÌÈú that begins with the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër to Shâv•u•otꞋ; loc. cit., p. 206-7).
The underlying motif demonstrated in the cited works implies a consistent symbolism for the numbers 33 & 40 (the latter = 7 + 33) as well as their doubled values for a female child. The coupled periods of 7 & 33, the latter conspicuously alluding to L"g la-OꞋmër, have explicit messianic implications demonstrated in the chronological calendar of events found in NHM 28.1.2.
The only remaining question is why the doubling of these purification periods for a female child? The answer lies in the motif of the mei nidꞋâh of the Pâr•âhꞋ A•dum•âhꞋ. One set is sufficient for a male child, whose attachment to the mother has been terminated with the cutting of the umbilical in order to become an independent life. As a part of the mother, only death—the abandoned placenta—remains. For a daughter, however, it was clear that the detachment was not only of the daughter, but also of the potential human life—the eggs—within that daughter being detached from the mother as well. One set of purification periods was for the daughter and the second set of purification periods for the eggs within the separated daughter.
The simplistic suggestion that a male child required only seven days of purification in order that he could be circumcised on the 8th day reverses the cause and effect—circumcision was set on the 8th day because that's the first day after the seven day initial period. Moreover, the simplistic suggestion fails to address the remaining 33 days.
As for the special nature of the number 33, it is the result of subtraction of an obvious special number, 7, from another special number, 40 (representing, according to ancient numerology, a "long time"). (See also 70. Numerology is also covered in pâ•râsh•otꞋ wa-Yei•tzeiꞋ and bᵊ-Ha•al•otᵊkhâꞋ.)
|
|
 500x468.jpg "numerology (farm7.staticflickr.com)") |
This ôøùä begins:
åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø é‑‑ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆä ìÌÅàîÉø: ãÌÇáÌÅø àÆì-áÌÀðÅé éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì ìÅàîÉø, àÄùÑÌÈä ëÌÄé úÇæÀøÄéòÇ,
The Sages have been at a loss to explain the significance of the numbers in the 7-day period of purification followed (ô' 4) by 33 days áÌÄãÀîÅé èÈäÈøÈä
 250x181.jpg "Red Heifer (American Brangus, 2012 Grand Champion, Houston)") |
 467x339.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Red Heifer (American Brangus, 2012 Grand Champion, Houston) |
First, ãÌÈí was regarded as a vehicle of purification and, therefore ëÌÄôÌåÌø. The ãÌÈí of menses was no exception, purifying the ðÄãÌÈä for her contact with a corpse—the potential, and expired, human-life egg she had passed. We find this association confirmed in the blood-colored îÅé ðÄãÌÈä ash-water from the chestnut-red cow—the Pâr•âhꞋ A•dum•âhꞋ (cf. bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 19:9; et al and ôÈøÈä àÂãËîÈÌä.
The standard purification period from contamination by a corpse was 7 days. For the menstruous woman who was being constantly purified during this period, her own natural îÅé ðÄãÌÈä, since it was clearly ordained by the Creator, was sufficient. Men, however , could only emulate this purification at significantly sacred intervals. Consequently, an additional purification by îÅé ðÄãÌÈä was required at the 3-day mark.
Now we can examine the significance of the numbers 3, 7, and 33. To understand them, we must review the numbers 1 and 2 that we covered in a previous issue.
"In mystical lore, according to John Mitchell [1988], the natural number 1 was called the monad (origin of all numbers)." Clearly knowing how to count, Av•râ•hâmꞋ may have induced from this that, likewise, Creation can only derive from a Singularity.
"The dyad 2 was the first feminine number and represented the fIrst stage of creation, the split into the mutually dependent opposites of positive⇎negative, hot⇎cold, moist⇎dry, etc." (Kappraff). It should be reasonably obviously that the dyad 2 first represents the recognition of distinguishing masculine⇎feminine.
Now we can examine the ancient perceptions of the significance of the number 3—"the first masculine number, represented the second stage of creation, the productive union of negative and positive, which follows the separation and refinement of these opposite elements." (Kappraff). This is vividly corroborated in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 2.24 when the two, â•dâmꞋ and Khaw•âhꞋ, åÀäÈéåÌ ìÀáÈùÒÈø àÆçÈã—i.e. a new human life that is a convergence of the two, to form a triad.
As importantly, the triad (3, viz., triangle) was recognized from ancient times as the minimun number that could define a solid base (plane).
Thus, 3 assumes also the ancient numerology of completion, further corroborated in the completeness of the universe as a triad: the heavens, the earth, and the abyss. Consequently, it can be seen that man was perceived to require purification in the îÅé ðÄãÌÈä on the 3rd—completion—day, when áÈùÒÈø may, once again, become àÆçÈã, thus defining a plane (triangle) upon which to proceed to the the next number, 4 (directions), that, together (3+4), point to 7 – and the 7th, perfect, day.
Seven was deemed a sacred number in ancient numerology, a combination of sacred numbers 3, defined above, and 4, which was associated with the 4 directions. Hence, 7 symbolizes the joining of the completion of the vertical heavens, earth and abyss with the 4 directions – namely, the entirety of the universe.
 |
| Constellation |
This was only one of many significant associations. From earliest times, the 7-day week was recognized as being in closest harmony with the Creator's (approx.) 28-day lunar cycle of any whole integer. The number was early associated with the "7 heavenly bodies" (sun, moon and 5 planets), and the Pleiades (ÂꞋmos 5.8) were thought to comprise 7 stars (EJ, loc. cit.). Thus, 7 was considered sacred from antiquity. Associated with the week in ò"ã, 7 also represented closure. The connotations of sacred, closure, and harmony with the Creator—and especially the producing of a new life—all likely impacted upon the symbolism attached to purification.
We can then see the number 33 as the remainder, after the initial 7, of the number 40 (!), where 40 represented "an important round number , indicating a fairly long period" (EJ, loc. cit.).
Purification from these two contaminations required one, or two, respectively, symbolic "fairly long periods" – 40 days each.
Moreover, remember that the dyad, 2, was the first feminine number . This (7 + 33 =) 40 day period, applied to the feminine 2, doubles the previous numbers, yielding (14 + 66 =) 80, the time required for purification after giving birth to a female.
The question we haven't yet answered is why wasn't the initial 7 (or 14) day period adequate? Why was one or two "fairly long periods" (40 days or 80 days, respectively) required after childbirth?
7 days was the period required after a normal menses cycle. Childbirth, therefore, required the next, and ultimate, "long period" (40 day) level of purification. Having bracketed the 33 day period (between 7 and 40), we'll examine it further in next week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ.
Yet, it is important to point out that this 33-day period of further purification is a time after the new mother immerses in the miq•wëhꞋ at the end of 7 days. For the remaining 33-day period after immersing in the miq•wëhꞋ "the new mother cleanses herself and is no longer contaminated, but she is still forbidden to consume sacrificial meat or úÌÀøåÌîÈä, because even the absence of contamination is not yet the fulfillment of man's goal. Cleansing is not completed until one has come to the resting place of [Ël•oh•imꞋ's] presence with an offering of [expiation] for the past and dedication for the future." (Vayiykra 1II(b), Artscroll, p. 185).
The last sentence is somewhat anachronous. It should more accurately read: Cleansing is not completed until one has brought an offering of ki•purꞋ for the past and rededicated oneself to do his or her utmost to keep úÌåÉøÈä in future – i.e., made tᵊshuv•âhꞋ – and, thereby, become the resting place of the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ of ël•oh•imꞋ!
The 33-day period of "further," or spiritual, "purification," namely, tᵊshuv•âhꞋ with resulting ki•purꞋ, parallels directly the 33 day period following the 7 days of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ – L"g la-•OꞋmër!!! And, thereby, directly relates to the Mâ•shiꞋakh!!!
Just as úÌÀùÑåÌáÈä, symbolized in the çÇèÌÈàÈä and àÈùÑÈí, weren't sufficient without the òÉìÈä, so today, in the post-Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ era, úÌÀùÑåÌáÈä isn't complete without a concomitant commitment and follow-through of doing one's best to keep úÌåÉøÈä.
|
|
12:3— åÌáÇéÌåÉí äÇùÌÑÀîÄéðÄé. Where was the last time you heard ùÌÑÀîÄéðÄé? Notice the connection between sons of the eighth-day áÌÀøÄéú îÄéìÈä in this passage with the eighth-day priestly preparation of 9.1-4. The eighth-day connection is obvious in the Hebrew, but there's no counterpart to the pâ•râsh•otꞋ in non-Jewish editions (that lack a pâ•râsh•atꞋ ùÌÑÀîÄéðÄé entirely).
The áÌÀøÄéú îÄéìÈä parallels and recalls the blood atonement qor•bân•otꞋ that expiated and purified the offerers so that é‑‑ä could make Himself known to those in this Judaic áÌÀøÄéú (only).
Medical circumcision outside of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, as practiced by non-Jews for example, does not satisfy the requirements of this Judaic áÌÀøÄéú îÄéìÈä any more than pagan qor•bân•otꞋ are acceptable to é‑‑ä (cf. Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 28.9).
A letter from last month that wasn't published in the newsletter stated "I believe there are only 2 groups—1. followers of god and 2. followers of anything else."
It's true that there are only two groups. However, it's a misperception to think that the Romans, Egyptians—or anyone else outside of these covenants—ever thought of themselves as goy•imꞋ idolaters. They, like everyone, regarded themselves as followers of the true ël•oh•imꞋ (English god[s]) and everyone else, including Israelis, as ignorant, deceived, wrong-headed and worshiping the wrong deity – since it wasn't their deity, which they insisted was the correct deity. (Sound familiar?)
There is an infinite chasm between virtually the entire world, most of whom regard themselves as followers of god, in contrast against, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, those who are included in the bᵊrit•otꞋ of Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ: the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage kindred of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, popularly called "Jews" and the "Jewish community."
Since MoshꞋëh at Har Sin•aiꞋ, those two groups have always fallen into either 1. the advocates of logical Oral Law who kept úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively, or 2. all others. This was true at Har Sin•aiꞋ, it was again confirmed in the teachings and practices of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, and remains true today and throughout eternity.
The only remedy for goy•imꞋ is to abandon their false religions and begin learning and practicing úÌåÉøÈä.
|
|
12:3— "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." Compare "eighth day" here with 8.35—9.4. The body of the Jew parallels the OꞋhël Mo•eidꞋ, the dwelling place of the manifestation of é‑‑ä. It would be fitting that this be especially true of the Mâ•shiꞋakh.
The spiritual nature of the Mâ•shiꞋakh parallels these three periods (explained in more detail in 1994.04.23 pâ•râsh•âhꞋ). Thus, every circumcision personalizes the qor•bânꞋ of é‑‑ä, cutting off a part of His own manifestation, the Mâ•shiꞋakh. Appropriately, it is this bᵊrit of circumcision that defines the Jew.
|
|
5.17-18: serves as the paradigm for a non-Jew who turns to úÌåÉøÈä but lacks personal freedom, being constrained by dependency on a non-Jewish master; and, by extension, a wife constrained by her husband (even, to a lesser extent, a husband who is, de facto, constrained by his wife) or a minor child constrained by his or her parent. Lacking the freedom to become fully and non-selectively úÌåÉøÈä-observant, (s)he remains a non-Jew. (This holds true only for as long as the period of dependency continues. Termination of such dependency then immediately places the onus on the úÌåÉøÈä-observant non-Jew to complete his or her transition to the full and non-selective observance of úÌåÉøÈä, including reasonable efforts to pursue Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage conversion and become a Jew.)
The paradigm of Na•a•mânꞋ is clear that he had turned to úÌåÉøÈä-observance, never again to serve any other god, even indirectly. Yet, as a servant of his king, he wasn't free from his duties to the king. The text makes clear that Ël•i•shâꞋ Bën-Shâ•phâtꞋ allowed Na•a•mânꞋ's inescapable duty to attend his king, even when his king worshiped an idol-god. On the other hand, it was equally clear (pâ•suqꞋ 17) that Na•a•mânꞋ would in no way participate in pagan worship, and made clear that even his obligatory presence in serving his king was solely his king's worship, which he was not free to avoid, and that, in no case would in any way participate in such worship himself. Na•a•mânꞋ was even meticulous to make clear that his obligatory service to the king in the temple of the pagan god of Thunder (Rimon, equates to Thor, whose day is the fifth day of the pagan week) not be misconstrued.
Clearly, a spouse – neither husband nor wife – is enslaved as Na•a•mânꞋ was. Hence, the responsibilities of a husband or wife toward a recalcitrant spouse merits tolerance, but certainly not the degree of the slave, Na•a•mânꞋ.
|
|
| Tor•âhꞋ | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
|
|
úÌåÉøÈä required (wa-Yiq•râꞋ 13.49) that any leather or fabric exhibiting characteristics of that tzâ•raꞋat be shown to a Ko•heinꞋ.
NHM 8.4 demonstrates that, contrary to Christian beliefs, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa recognized and respected the authority of the Ko•heinꞋ, proving that Displacement Theology is purely a Hellenist (Christian) fabrication.
The wording of NHM 8.4, "See this, don't tell just any man about these things. Rather, go to the Ko•heinꞋ and offer the qor•bânꞋ as é‑‑ä instructed Mosh•ëhꞋ," doesn't fit the traditional Christian simplistic interpretation of healing. "See this" refers to what? What was RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa showing him to say that?
People afflicted with tzâ•raꞋat perceived religious leaders and Kohan•imꞋ as healers; just as today they consult a physician—to diagnose symptoms. The healer or Ko•heinꞋ was perceived as an authoritative medical diagnostician. While RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa could have been referring to a patch of skin (often in spots the afflicted couldn't see without a mirror), he could just as easily been pointing out some detail in the fabric or leather of the man's garment as described in this week's pârâsh•âhꞋ.
In either case, contrary to what a Christian god would do, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa demonstrated his subordination to úÌåÉøÈä. He was a world-changing RibꞋi, not a Hellenist god that syncretized a few Jewish ideas presuming that their newly-syncretized god could save Constantine and subsequent Roman occupiers or the rest of the goy•imꞋ. (Study the history in the pages of our History Museum.)
|
|
Two world-changing events associated with the 40-day period, and linked to the 33-day period of L"g la-OꞋmër, are detailed in NHM note 28.1.2.
Both Mosh•ëhꞋ (Shᵊm•otꞋ 24.18) and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 4.1ff) fasted (a form of mourning) for 40 days, i.e. for the generation(s). Just as Mosh•ëhꞋ died before the realization of the generation of the promised land, so, too, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, the Mâ•shiꞋakh, died before the realization of the generation of the messianic era.
After RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa had been fasting for 40 days for the generation(s) of Israel, the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa—whom he bluntly calls "Sâ•tânꞋ" (NHM 4.1, 5, 8)—came to negotiate a deal with him ("See all of the legions, and their kingships, and governments, and all of the good things in them. It is mine; and if you will kneel down and bow to me one bow I will give it to you" NHM 4.8-9). Only the Hellenist Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa would have been authorized by the Hellenist Romans, who occupied Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, to offer what was under Roman control. The deal the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa offered was for RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa to become a collaborator with him in Hellenizing Israel—in other words, to become the first Roman pope. However, his identification of Hellenism as Sâ•tânꞋ ensured that the Hellenists could install no Hellenist pope to displace the Beit Din of the Jews so long as his Jewish Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ followers retained their influence in the Pᵊrush•imꞋ community (which endured until 135 C.E.).
Remaining faithful to úÌåÉøÈä, however, •marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, "Don't you know what is written in úÌåÉøÈä (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 6.13)? 'It is é‑‑ä Whom you shall revere, and it is Him you shall serve.'"
Here it is clearly documented that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa turned down the invitation to become the first Christian "pope." His arch-anthesis, Jesus, would be fabricated several decades after his death by the Roman Hellenists, based on a counterfeit patterned after Zeus (between c. 52 C.E. and 135 C.E.).
Authentic and Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa follow his teaching and say the same to the proponents of Hellenism today, the same Hellenist gentiles inextricably linked to the Romans—Christians!
Contrast the 'politically incorrect' and 'negative' resolve of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa against Hellenism with the 'Herd Instinct' of today's Hellenists—the Christians—who pray for the recovery of their pope (successor of the usurper of the fifteenth Pâ•qidꞋ—Yᵊhud•âhꞋ—of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ). The death of the pope will prove that the prayers of Christians aren't answered, that they don't grasp the Will é‑‑ä of because they cannot grasp that the Bible (Hebrew Ta•na"khꞋ)—Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 28.9—is true. Christians don't follow the Bible.
The key to effective tᵊphil•âhꞋ, explained in detail in NHM notes, is, first of all, discerning the Will of é‑‑ä, which can only be gleaned from úÌåÉøÈä, and then praying that our will be aligned with His Will so that we may serve Him effectively. That's the purpose of tᵊphil•âhꞋ, not to ask for our errant whims that transgress úÌåÉøÈä and—therefore—conflict with His Will.
Anyone who wants positive answers to their tᵊphilot, 100% of the time, can achieve it. The formula is úÌåÉøÈä and a detailed explanation is incorporated in the notes of NHM. There can be no greater success in life, no greater purpose in life, no greater happiness and no greater sense of fulfillment. It's the sole remedy for today's gravely sick society.
|
|
The Creator, Bless His Name, created hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ from nothing, formed man in it and gave him power to reproduce like himself, to perpetuate the kind, when he joins with his partner. And ha-Eil in His Intelligence, forms in him innards and bowels within the body of the fetus and gives it human form and puffs into it the breath of life. And our rabbis recount in this His wonders, as it is memorized in tractate Bᵊrâkhot, chapter Qama (10.1): Rav Shimei Bar Uqvâ was common [as a student] before RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ Bën Pâzi [studying] Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ and was regular before RabꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën Leiwi [studying] A•jâd•âhꞋ. He said to him: What [can be learned from what] is written "And all my innards [will praise] His holy Name" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 103.1)? He said to him: Come and see that the attribute of ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood; A man makes a shape, which has no innards and guts, and ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, makes a shape within a shape etc. as it is in the introduction of [this] composition.
In addition to this, He sustains [the fetus] in it's mother's stomach for a known [period of] time, folded and set in excellent guarding, so that it will come out to the air healthy and viable, as is memorized in the end of chapter on abortion, in Ma•sëkꞋët Nid•âhꞋ (30b): RabꞋi Shimlai taught: What does the unborn resemble in its mothers bowels? It is folded and set as a notebook. It's two hands on both of it's arms, and it's two sides of the arms on it's two knees, and it's two heels on the back of his legs, and it's head set between it's knees and it's mouth is stopped up and it's naval is open and it eats from what it's mother eats, and drinks from what it's mother drinks, and does not excrete excrement for it might kill it's mother. Because he came out to the air of the world, the stopped up is opened and the open is stopped up, for if it wasn't so he wouldn't be able to live for even one hour.
A lit candle is placed on his head and he observes and looks from the one end of the world to the other, as it is said: "As he cast his candle upon my head, I shall walk to it's light in the dark" (I•yovꞋ 29.3). And don't be baffled, since a man sleeps here and sees a dream in Spain. And you don't have days when a man is immersed in good, except for those days, as it is said: "who will give me as early moons, as the days of Ëlohah will save me" (ibid. 2). And what are the days that have moons [i.e. months] and don't have a year? That is to say: these are the moons [i.e. months] of pregnancy. And they teach him all the úÌåÉøÈä as a whole, as it is said: "And He shall instruct me and He said to me, My Sayings will support your heart" etc. (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 4.4). And says: "In the secret of Ëlohah on my tent" (I•yovꞋ 29.4).
Because he came into the air of the world, a ma•lâkhꞋ came and taps him on his mouth and makes him forget the whole úÌåÉøÈä as it is said: "khatât crouches in the opening" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 4.7). He doesn't come out of there until he is sworn, as it is said: "For to me every knee shall bow" (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 45:23), this is the day of the death, as it is said: "Before him everyone who descends into the soil shall bow" etc. (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 22.30); "Every tongue shall swear" (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu, ibid), this is the day of the birth, as it is said: "Clean hands and clarified heart" etc. (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 24.4).
To what oath is he sworn? Said to him: Be tza•diqꞋ and not râsh•âꞋ, even if the whole world is saying before you that you are tza•diqꞋ, you should deem yourself as râsh•âꞋ. And you should know, that ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, is tâ•horꞋ and His servants are tâ•horꞋ, and the nᵊshâm•âhꞋ that He put in you is tâ•horꞋ. If you preserve it in purity that is better, and if not I shall take it from you. A Tan•âꞋ from the house of RabꞋi Yishmâeil memorized: [it is an] allegory to a member Ko•heinꞋ who gave a tᵊrum•âhꞋ to a Ko•heinꞋ of the people and he tells him: If you preserve it in purity, it is best, and if not I shall burn it in front of you. RabꞋi Ëlâzâr said: What is the pâ•suqꞋ? "From the bowels of my mother you shear me" (ibid 71.6). What is [the basis of] "shear" meaning an oath? "Shear your consecration and throw it away" (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 7.29).
RabꞋi Ëlâzâr said: What does the fetus resemble in it's mother's bowels? To a nut placed in a cup of water, a man puts his finger on it and it sinks this way and that.
Rab•ân•ânꞋ have taught: [During] the first three months, the fetus dwells in the lower section, [during the] middle [months] the fetus dwells in the middle section, [during the] last [months] the fetus dwells in the upper section. And since his time comes to emerge, he turns over and descends and emerges and this is the grief [of giving birth] of a woman. Tan•âꞋ [says]: the griefs of a female are greater than those of a male. What is the reason for this? He comes [into the world] through his [position during] handling [i.e. the sexual intercourse, the male is face down, and the male is born face down], and she comes [into the world] through her [position] handling [thus the female must turn over, because she faces up], this one turns over and the other doesn't turn over. RabꞋi Ëlâzâr said: What is the pâ•suqꞋ? "That I was made in hiding, I was forged in the bottoms of the earth" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 139.15). It did not say 'dwell', rather ''forged'. What is unique regarding the griefs of a female being greater than that of a male? This is the same as what RabꞋi Ëlâzâr said: He comes through his handling, and she comes through her handling, (this one turns over) and that doesn't turn over.
And they have said about it: RabꞋi Khiyâ Bar Papâ: What [can be learned from what] is written: "Makes great [things] that cannot be investigated" etc. (I•yovꞋ 9.10)? Come and see, the attribute of ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood; A man puts his objects in a bundled wasterskin with its mouth facing up, part preserving part not preserving [the contents]; And ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, had made the fetus in its mother's bowels. The woman is open and her mouth is below and preserves [the fetus]. Another thing: A man puts his objects in a scale, as long as it is weighing on it [causing the scale to tip] downwards, and the fetus as long as it is weighing it goes up.
RabꞋi Yosei ha-JËlili taught: What [can be learned from what] is written "I shall thank You, for awesomeness, [My existence] was a wonder," etc. (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 139.14)? Come and see, the attribute of ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood; The attribute of flesh and blood puts seeds in a flowerbed, and each one rises with other species. ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, makes the fetus in a woman's bowels and they all rise to one species. Another thing: the painter gives the marks in the kettle, they all rise up to one color, and ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, made the fetus in the woman and every single one rises according to its species.
And it was said about it: RabꞋi Khaninâ Bar Papâ taught: What [can be learned from what] is written "You encompass my path and my repose" (ibid 3). It teaches, that not from all the drop a man is made, but from the clear [part] of it. A Tan•âꞋ from the house of RabꞋi Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ: An allegory to a man that sews produce in the barn, takes food and sets the waste aside. As RabꞋi Avâhu, that RabꞋi Avâhu pointed out: it is written "and you sewed me strength" (Shᵊm•u•eilꞋ Beit 22.40) and it is written "and you girded me strength" Tᵊhil•imꞋ 18.40)? Dâ•widꞋ said before ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu: You sewed me and speeded me up.
RabꞋi Avâhu taught: What [can be learned from what] is written "who counted the soil of Ya•a•qovꞋ" etc. (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 23.10)? It teaches that ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, sits and counts the quarters [i.e. the seasons of the intercourse] of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and says: When will come a drop that a tza•diqꞋ shall be made from. And for this the eye of Bilam became blind. He said: Whomever is tâ•horꞋ and his servants are tâ•horꞋ [whoever] will peek at this thing, his eye shall immediately become blind. It is that which is written: "The speech of the closed up eye" (ibid. 24.3). It is that which is said by RabꞋi Yo•khân•ânꞋ: What [can be learned from what] is written "And he laid with her that night" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 30.16)? It teaches that ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, helped with that act. "Yisâskhâr is the âøí of a donkey"—A donkey âøí of Yisâs•khârꞋ.
RabꞋi Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ said in the name of the house of RabꞋi Amei who said: A woman who is inseminated [passive] first gives birth to a male, and a when a man inseminates [active], she first gives birth to a female, as it is said: "A woman that will be inseminated and shall give birth to a male" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 12.2). Rabânân taught: At first they would say: A woman who is inseminated first gives birth etc. And the Sages didn't explain what the source of this thing is, until RabꞋi Tzâdoq came and explained it, as it is said "These are the sons of Lei••âhꞋ who bore children for Ya•a•qovꞋ in Padan Arâm and Din•âhꞋ his daughter" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 46.15), the written (i.e. the úÌåÉøÈä) conditioned the males with the female and the female with a male.
It is written "And the sons of Ulâm were heros of might, archers and had many sons and grandsons" (Divrei ha-Yâmim Âlëph 8.40). And is it in the hands of man to have many sons and grandsons? Rather, because they would linger themselves in order to inseminate their wives first so that their sons would be males, the written (i.e. the úÌåÉøÈä) treats him as though he has many sons and grandsons. It is the same as Rav Qᵊtinâ said: I could have the ability to make all the sons males? Râvâ said: Whoever wants to make all his sons males should husband and repeat.
RabꞋi Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ said (in the name of RabꞋi Amei): A woman doesn't become pregnant except near her period, as it is said: "For in âwon I was formed" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 51.7). RabꞋi Yo•khân•ânꞋ said: Near her tᵊvil•âhꞋ. As it is said: "In kheit my mother conceived me" (ibid). What is the basis that kheit means clean? As it is written: "And khitei the house" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 14.52) was translated as: 'And clean the house.' If you want, say from here: "Tᵊkhateini [you shall offer a kheit-sacrifice] with ei•zovꞋ [hyssop] and I shall become tâ•horꞋ" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 51.9).
RabꞋi Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ said in the name of RabꞋi Amei: Because a male comes, peace comes in the world. Male, this is a ëø, as it is written: "Send a ëø to the ruler of the land". And RabꞋi Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ said in the name of RabꞋi Amei: Because a male came, his ëø came with him. Male, this is ëø, as it is written: "åéëøä to them a large ëøä and they ate" (Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 6.23). A female comes and there is nothing with her, she came clean, until she knows how to pray, she shall not be given [things], as it is said: "ð÷áä your pay" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 30.28).
RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ Bar Yo•khaiꞋ's students asked him: For what reason did úÌåÉøÈä say that a woman who gave birth should bring a sacrifice? He told them: while she squats to give birth she pounces and swears not to need her husband, therefore úÌåÉøÈä said that she should bring a sacrifice [for swearing]. Rav Yo•seiphꞋ attacks this: Because her intent is malicious, her word depends upon her regret. Moreover, she should ask to bring a sacrifice for swearing. For what reason did úÌåÉøÈä say: A male for seven and a female for fourteen? A male, whom all are happy about brings regret for seven [days in which she cannot copulate with her husband again to have a male]; A female, whom not everyone is happy about, brings regret for fourteen [days]. For what reason did úÌåÉøÈä say: circumcision for eight [days]? So that not all will be happy while his father and mother are sad. Tanyâ RabꞋi Mei•ir says: for what reason did úÌåÉøÈä say that [a woman] should be nid•âhꞋ for seven [days]? Because if [a man could have her] regularly, he would be tired of her, therefore úÌåÉøÈä said: she shall be nid•âhꞋ for seven days, so that she would be as fond to him as she was on the day she entered the kup•âhꞋ.
Happy is he whose sons are mostly males. For several reasons they will have a great number [of sons]. It has been taught in Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ, përꞋëq 10 yu•khas•inꞋ (82b): Tanyâ RabꞋi says: You do not have a trade that goes from the world, happy is he who saw his parents in a fine trade. Oy to whomever says his parents were in a flawed trade. It is impossible to have a world without a perfume salesman or without a leather worker. Happy is he whose trade is in perfumes. Oy to whomever his trade is leather working [which smells badly]. You cannot have a world without males or without females. Happy is he whose sons are males. Oy to whomever has daughters. Thus, a man should be joyous in a birth of the male and also the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of circumcision.
One who is careful in nid•âhꞋ will be privileged in this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ, as those of blessed memory have taught on the pâ•suqꞋ: "Give a part for seven and for eight" (Qo•hëlꞋët 11.2). RabꞋi Yᵊhud•âhꞋ Bar Simon resolved to read in nid•âhꞋ.
ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, said: "Give a part for seven." Those are the seven days of nid•âhꞋ: "Also for eight", those are the eight days of îéìä. ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, said: If you keep the days of the nid•âhꞋ properly, I shall give you a male son, which will be circumcised upon eight days. If you will be quick in this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ you shall not know any bad things. As it is said: "a keeper of a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ shall not know anything bad" (ibid, 8.5). You don't have anything as bad as the punishment of Gei-Hi•nomꞋ, and you shall be saved from it on account of the îéìä.
Like those of blessed memory said: On account of the îéìä three [people] are saved from the punishment of Gei-Hi•nomꞋ: his father and mother and the moheil [circumciser]. As it is said: "You, too, in the dâm of your bᵊrit I sent forth your prisoners from a pit, which doesn't have water in it" (Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 9.11).
They said in përꞋëq 'Making Stripes' (Ma•sëkꞋët Ei•ruv•inꞋ 19a), that Av•râ•hâmꞋ Âv•iꞋnu, who doesn't let the circumcised into Gei-Hi•nomꞋ, only to the [person who] was husband to a goyâh, that his foreskin was pulled, as is said above (in the first candle [of this book], the part concerning the lust of intercourse, at the end of përꞋëq 5).
It is written in the Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ: "Every man and woman who comes to the king, etc. one is his religion to put to death" (Ës•teirꞋ 4.11) means to say, All of the goy•imꞋ, men and women, who are not called to receive the úÌåÉøÈä, one is their religion to be put to death with the real death—which is the punishment of Gei-Hi•nomꞋ. "Except îàùø éåùéè-ìå äîìê [with the golden scepter]," the abbreviation [for which] is îéìä. The women of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, who aren't circumcised, how do we know that they are spared? As it is written: " àú ùøáéè äæäá and lived" (ibid), [for which] the abbreviation is àùä, meaning to say, a woman who was not circumcised. Concerning this it is said in the bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ of : "Therefore in reward for this, Eil Khai our Portion, our Rock, has ordered to save," etc.
It is from the love of é‑‑ä, yitbbârakh to the seed of Av•râ•hâmꞋ, who loved Him, he signed his bᵊrit in their flesh as a sign and a bᵊrit in perpetuity. As it is said: "And my bᵊrit shall be in your flesh as a permanent bᵊrit" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 17.13), meaning to say, to [be a] sign and shield for them. This is what they said in bᵊ-Reishit Rabâ (46.9): "I gave you and your seed after you the land of Kᵊna•anꞋ for a permanent estate, and I shall be their Ël•oh•imꞋ" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 17.8). If your sons accept My Ël•oh•imꞋ-ness, I shall be a Ëloha to them and a Patron. Therefore, we must keep His úÌåÉøÈä and be joyous in his bᵊrit and accept His Ël•oh•imꞋ-ness and He shall defend us.
|
|
|