|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 Goat (Nubian buck kid) |
16.20-22— Perhaps to avoid the messianic symbolism of the Yom Ki•purꞋ òÂæÈàæÅì (1995.11 Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Newsletter), rabbis resort to a standard logical fallacy to avoid a question that challenges the scope of (it doesn't challenge the entire basis of) their authority—petitio principii. The Artscroll note to these verses is a prime example. The note reads: "Though the commandment to send a 'scapegoat' to Az•â•zeilꞋ is a çÉ÷, a decree that is beyond human intelligence';"—in other words, "Don't ask!"
The reader who lacks wisdom naively assumes this to be true and continues reading the sentence. The premise has then been begged with a well-known logical fallacy—ex falso quodlibet (a false premise allows any conclusion). The editors give no basis for their remark and, if pressed, could only quote others who have done the same—since the time of the Dark Ages. In actuality, however, úÌåÉøÈä contradicts their flawed assertion in Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 30.11-14, particularly verse 12.
 |
| Mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh in Teil Bᵊeir ShëvꞋa |
17.11-12— A contradiction among the rabbis concerns the principle of vicarious qor•bânꞋ. Jewish "anti-missionaries" often sacrifice úÌåÉøÈä on the altar of expediency, arguing that vicarious qor•bânꞋ is contrary to úÌåÉøÈä. As the Artscroll editors accurately note in these verses quoting Rashi, however, "Because life is dependent upon blood, G-d designated blood as the medium that goes upon the Altar for atonement, as if to say, 'Let one life be offered to atone for another.'"
When, in battle, a Jewish soldier sacrifices his life to save his fellow-soldiers, fellow Jews hail him as a hero and revere his memory. When a Jewish RibꞋi sacrifices his life to save his fellow Jews against the oppression and corruption of Roman Hellenists then some hate-mongering Jews revile that RibꞋi as an idolater—simply because of a perverted and idolatrous image in which the Roman Hellenists cloaked him. However, like Christians, Jews, too, are waking up to the Roman deception that was conceived ca. 64 C.E., with Paul, given birth in 135 C.E. and weaned as an independent, and predominant, Christian Church in 333 C.E.
18.29— "For all who shall do any of these to•eivot, the nᵊphâsh•otꞋ of those who do [them], åÀðÄëÀøÀúåÌ from within their am." There are a number of a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä for which the penalty is ëÌÈøÅú. Without tᵊshuv•âhꞋ—which declares a cessation of the aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä and a return to doing one's utmost to keep úÌåÉøÈä—there is no ki•purꞋ, on Yom Ki•purꞋ—or any other day.
That necessarily means that Jews, including "born Jews" (and geir•imꞋ) who are guilty of these particular a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä and have not made tᵊshuv•âhꞋ to keeping úÌåÉøÈä are, by the declaration of úÌåÉøÈä, no longer Jews!!!
For those who live úÌåÉøÈä to acknowledge as Jews trangressors, whom úÌåÉøÈä and heaven have excised, is itself an aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä. (Note, however, that not all a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä carry the penalty of kâ•reitꞋ; only a•veir•otꞋ that úÌåÉøÈä defines as committed knowingly, particularly severe and without tᵊshuv•âhꞋ.)
 |
 |
Recall that the Biblical terms ç÷ and îÄùÑôÌÈè together comprise Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh—more popularly known as Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. The only legitimate geir•imꞋ, then, are those recognized within the authority of the only uninterrupted chain of ç÷ and îÄùÑôÌÈè, going all the Way back to Har Sin•aiꞋ and endorsed by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Those desiring to become legitimate geir•imꞋ should, therefore, ensure that they come to understand the following pâ•suqꞋ in sharp focus:
(Clauses separated as indicated by cantillation.)
18.26: åÌùÑÀîÇøÀúÌÆí àÇúÌÆí, àÆú-çË÷ÌÉúÇé åÀàÆú-îÄùÑÀôÌÈèÇé, åÀìÉà úÇòÂùÒåÌ, îÄëÌÉì äÇúÌåÉòÅáÉú äÈàÅìÌÆä — äÈàÆæÀøÈç, åÀäÇâÌÅø äÇâÌÈø áÌÀúåÉëÀëÆí:
While Christians believe that they are not "under the bondage of the law," the truth is:
Christians don't realize that Tor•âhꞋ only requires, for ki•purꞋ , that one do his or her utmost (not perfection) to keep Tor•âhꞋ non-selectively. Tor•âhꞋ does not expect anyone to keep Tor•âhꞋ perfectly in order to receive ki•purꞋ (see the Shᵊm•aꞋ : "with all your heart, all of your nëphꞋ ësh and all of your utmost").
The alternative to recognizing the authority of úÌåÉøÈä is to be in bondage to its contradiction: Sâ•tânꞋ!!!
|
|
åÌîÄæÌÇøÀòÂêÈ ìÉà-úÄúÌÅï ìÀäÇòÂáÄéø ìÇîÌÉìÆêÀ —18.21
The Artscroll editors assert that this "is the only sin in the entire chapter that does not involve sexual immorality'" (Vayikra [sic], p. 330). More accurately, this chapter deals with distinguishing familial (i.e., reproductive) holiness from the profane, in keeping with wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 10.10; 11.47 & 20.24-26. Though perhaps a bit more subtle, this admonition also proscribes distinguishing familial holiness from the profane. While husband and wife should enjoy sex, the primary purpose of sex is to produce produce holy seed—children—for é‑‑ä.
Like our very nëphꞋësh, our æÆøÇò is loaned from é‑‑ä. To use an agricultural metaphor, all men are tenant-farmers (an allusion used by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in some of his parables), planting the Creator's seeds, which He made, in fields, which He made and which also belong to Him. Beyond that, in saving the áëåøéí (bᵊkhor•imꞋ) of the Jews at the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ, all of the firstborn males of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ belong to é‑‑ä. To give what belongs to é‑‑ä to an idol, or to a profane partner, violates the proscription of distinguishing familial (reproductive) holiness from the profane—plus constituting A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ!
 |
| Gei-Hi•nomꞋ, looking south from Ir Dâ•widꞋ toward Beit-LëkhꞋëm. Photograph © 1983 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. |
Beyond this, the term æÆøÇò, rather than "sons" or "sons and daughters" is instructive. From other analyses, many scholars have concluded that the fire and burning associated with îÌÉìÆêÀ is allegorical, not literal (see, for example, "Moloch, Cult of", EJ 12.230ff). They correctly connect the worship of îÌÉìÆêÀ with Ishtar / Ashtarte (Easter), Zeus and the sun-god (all of which, by the way, later became intrinsic symbols – merely renamed to conceal the connections – of Christianity).
"The Book of [Yo•veilꞋ] 30.7ff. connects intermarriage, in the form of marrying off of one's children to goy•imꞋ , with the sin of îÌÉìÆêÀ." The common denominator of all these traditions is the understanding of îÌÉìÆêÀ-worship as the transfer of Jewish æÆøÇò (the essential factor being raised in úÌåÉøÈä) to paganism, either by delivering them directly to pagan priests (as hierodules) or by procreation through intercourse with a pagan woman. The burning must be taken in the figurative sense. This is supported by the fact that, in some cases, it is explicitly specified that the offender will dedicate his sons as priests to Adad and his daughters as hierodules to Ishtar" (loc. cit.).
The aforementioned "pagan woman," symbolized in Ishtar / Easter, is alluded in pᵊsuq•imꞋ 7, 8 & 20 as a ùÑÄ÷ÌåÌõ. The noun counterpart meaning an abominating thing is ùÑÆ÷Æõ, and the fem. counterpart of this úÌåÉøÈä definition is the more familiar ùÑÄ÷öÈä. These definitions date back to ÂꞋmos ha-Nâ•viꞋ (cf. 5.26 with citation above from Ency. Jud.).
Hence, we learn from this passage the prohibition against the familial and sexual immorality of
åÌîÄæÌÇøÀòÂêÈ ìÉà-úÄúÌÅï ìÀäÇòÂáÄéø ìÇîÌÉìÆêÀ —18.21
not "passing" our "æÆøÇò" to goy•imꞋ ! Assimilation and intermarriage is the "passing of our children into the lake of fire" (of Gei-Hi•nomꞋ, literal location)—the "sin of îÌÉìÆêÀ"!!!
|
|
 |
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins:
åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø é--ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆÑä, àÇçÂøÅé îåÉú,
16:16— Commenting on the flicking of blood upon the ôÌÈøÉëÆú, similar to 4.6 & 17, the Artscroll editors note that R. Elazar Ben Yose is recorded to have seen the ôÌÈøÉëÆú in Rome, which the Romans had plundered from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini, and that it had blood stains on it (xM-Yom 57a; Artscroll Vayiykra [sic] IIIb:298). There's no record that the ôÌÈøÉëÆú, along with the rest of the valuables plundered by the Romans from the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ , were ever removed from the Vatican.
 250x85.gif "Colosseum inscription stone (Ritmeyer)") |
 772x264.gif "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Colosseum entrance stone – Reconstruction, from the placement of holes, of the original brass letters that were attached by pins to the holes. The brass letters were removed by a later emperor, who then engraved his own inscription into the stone – but he couldn't remove the holes. (Ritmeyer) |
However, there is supporting hard evidence of a reconstructed inscription of an entrance stone from the Colosseum, discovered and deciphered by historian Professor Geza Alfoldy of the Heidelberg University, that states that Vespasian melted down the gold pillaged from the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ to pay the costs of building the Colosseum in Rome — as a monument to conquering the Jews and destroying the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ (see article by Prof. Louis Feldman, BAR, 2001.07-08)! Visitors to the Colosseum today don't realize the blasphemy of "enjoying" this monument to the expulsion of the Jews from the Holy Land by the Roman occupiers, their renaming "Judah" to "Palestine," and their destruction of the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ .
 250x76.gif "Colosseum inscriptions reconstruction (Prof. Geza Alfoldy, Heidelberg Univ.)") |
 378x115.gif "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Colosseum inscription restoration (Ritmeyer) |
"After Nero committed suicide the new Emperor Vespasian began construction on The Flavian Amphitheatre sometime around 70CE. Funds for this monumental effort came from the Jewish temple when it was sacked by his son Titus. Evidence comes from the Arch of Titus, which presents images of the looting of temple treasure, and a stone found with remnants of an inscription from the original dedication (pictured above) The marble stone was found broken, and had been inscribed when the structure went through renovations almost 500 years after construction. The original bronze letter mounting holes are still visible and were deciphered by Professor Geza Alfoldy of the Heidelberg University. The translation (and reconstruction) of the text reads as "The Emperor Caesar Vespasian Augustus had this new amphitheatre erected with the spoils of war”. Experts agree that this was the same war depicted in Titus’s Arch. The workforce needed to build this colossal building was well over 10,000 and were concurred Israelis from the war." (Stanford University).
18.3-4 — Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim, the land from which Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ was fleeing, and Kᵊna•anꞋ, the land to which Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ was coming, represent the goy•imꞋ on all sides of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
18.3 — "ëÌÀîÇòÂùÒÅä… ìÉà úÇòÂùÒÌåÌ." As used in Shᵊm•otꞋ 18.20 and in the Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, îÇòÂùÒÅä was the Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ term corresponding to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ among the Pᵊrush•imꞋ.
The Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ are likely the same as the Kha•sid•imꞋ mentioned in Tᵊhil•imꞋ, and even in úÌåÉøÈä.
Consequently, we must understand îÇòÂùÒÅä in this pâ•suqꞋ to be telling us that we may not adopt îÇòÂùÒÅä (religious doings, traditions) of the goy•imꞋ around us. Nor may we even syncretize into Judaic îÇòÂùÒÅä "like" their îÇòÂùÒÅä. We cannot emulate, adopt or adapt the goy•imꞋ around us.
The Artscroll editors quote R. Hirsch on this passage: "You may imitate the nations among whom you live in everything which has been adopted by them on rational grounds, and not on grounds which belong to their religion or are immoral; but do not imitate anything which is irrational or has been adopted on grounds derived from their religion, or for forbidden or immoral purposes. You may not, therefore, join in celebrating their holy days, or observe customs which have their basis in their religious views." (Vayikra [sic], IIIb:321).
The next pâ•suqꞋ (18.4), goes on to stipulate "àÆú-îÄùÑÀôÌÈèÇé úÇòÂùÒåÌ…".
 |
That úÌåÉøÈä commands keeping îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí – case law judgments determined by a Beit Din – demonstrates that îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí is one of two major types of mandatory Biblical Oral Law. This passage is one of many examples where Ta•na"khꞋ requires obedience to Oral Law. îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí paired with çË÷ÌÄéí, constituting Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, the authoritative—the correct—interpretation of Ta•na"khꞋ, handed down by the Beit-Din, reached through case law decisions and legislation, respectively, of the Beit-Din.
Pâ•suqꞋ 4 continues "åÀàÆú-çË÷ÌÉúÇé úÌÄùÑÀîÀøåÌ…".
çÉ÷ refers to that part of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ—the authoritative interpretation of Ta•na"khꞋ handed down by a Beit-Din—derived through legislation of a Beit-Din.
Mere intellectual awareness, or even acceptance, of these Ha•lâkh•otꞋ is not enough. Pâ•suqꞋ 4 continues: ìÈìÆëÆú áÌÈäÆí; to walk—as in Ha•lâkh•otꞋ—in them).
Even that isn't enough:
18.5 — …åÌùÑÀîÇøÀúÌÆí àÆú-çË÷ÌÉúÇé åÀàÆú-îÄùÑÀôÌÈèÇé,
— "which, if hâ-â•dâmꞋ shall do them, then he shall live in them."
This cannot refer to life in this world because even the goy•imꞋ live in this world—without doing His çË÷ÌÄéí and His îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí. Here, then, is the promise in úÌåÉøÈä of eternal life—along with how one obtains eternal life! In this light, one can better understand the formulaic phrase contained in many bᵊrâkh•otꞋ:
"… ,àÂùÑÆø ÷ÄãÌÀùÑÈðåÌ áÌÀîÄöÀåÉúÈéå ,…"
Orthodox Jews know that while we must do our utmost to keep His îÄöÀååÉú in order to qualify for His Khein, it is He, not our works, "àÂùÑÆø ÷ÄãÌÀùÑÈðåÌ".
Contrary to the simplistic and accusatory misojudaic Christian slanders of "salvation by works," this ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ is granted to those who do their utmost to obey His çË÷ÌÄéí and His îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí—Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ—by His khein. Contrary to Christian misojudaism, those (precious too few) Jews truly knowledgeable in úÌåÉøÈä know that it isn't our works that bring ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ at all. But our sincere struggle to please é‑‑ä by obeying His wishes removes the barrier of our free will, a barrier He has chosen never to countermand, thus enabling Him, in His khein, to bestow ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ upon us, and, thereby, grant us eternal life. Christians who, in their free will, reject keeping His çË÷ÌÄéí and His îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí, however, can in no way be considered to be doing their utmost to keep His çË÷ÌÄéí or His îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí and, therefore, disqualify themselves from the promise of eternal life! It's something they can fix by learning and implementing úÌåÉøÈä in their life to the utmost of their ability.
A homiletic meaning is also seen. "Homiletically, [Khidushei ha-Rim] interpreted this commandment to teach that a person should not perform commandments apathetically. Rather, we are enjoined to find in the commandments our primary source of joy, enthusiasm, and life—you are to live through the commandments." (Artscroll, Vayikra, IIIb:323).
|
|
16.2— employs an interesting play on words that are equivalent in gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ (700), ôÌÈøÉëÆú and ëÌÇôÌÉøÆú: "And é‑‑ä said to Mosh•ëhꞋ, 'Speak to A•har•onꞋ your brother, then he shall not come in every òÅú to:
to the face of the ëÌÇôÌÉøÆú that is òÇì-äÈàÈøÉï so he won't die, for in the cloud I will cause Myself to be seen òÇì äÇëÌÇôÌÉøÆú."
 |
| Mi•shᵊkânꞋ / OꞋhël Mo•eidꞋ (model from M. Levine, MᵊlëkhꞋët Mi•shᵊkânꞋ, Tel Aviv, 1968) |
îÄáÌÅéú ìÇôÌÈøÉëÆú defines ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ, the outer vestibule of the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ and áÌÅéú äÇîÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ, popularly called "the holy place," which housed the ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ äÇ÷ÌÈãÈùÑÄéí
How (beside gi•maꞋtri•yâh) is ôÌÈøÉëÆú equivalent to ëÌÇôÌÉøÆú? The ôÌÈøÉëÆú protected A•har•onꞋ and the Kohan•imꞋ from being killed when é‑‑ä caused Himself to be seen. ëÌÇôÌÉøÆú (and the cognate ëÌÄôÌåÌø) serves the same function. Further, when there was a provision of ëÌÇôÌÉøÆú, A•har•onꞋ or the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ could proceed beyond the ôÌÈøÉëÆú without dying. é‑‑ä doesn't change (Ma•lâkh•iꞋ 3:6 & Tᵊhil•imꞋ 89:35). Therefore, the same is true through the provision of é‑‑ä for ëÌÇôÌÉøÆú subsequent to the elimination of the symbols (the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ with its animal qor•bân•otꞋ)—the Mâ•shiꞋakh, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.
16:9-10 — For a discussion of why two goats, the symbolism of the two goats and Az•â•zeilꞋ, as well as the Messianic parallels cf. the 95.11 newsletter (pâ•râsh•atꞋ To•lᵊd•otꞋ).
17:8 — While tᵊphil•âhꞋ doesn't displace blood ëÌÇôÌÉøÆú (that would be Displacement Theology, contradicting úÌåÉøÈä—no different from the Displacement Theology of Christianity!), tᵊphil•âhꞋ is the only qor•bânꞋ we can offer since the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and the yu•khas•inꞋ of the Kohan•imꞋ.
To be accepted, the qor•bânꞋ of tᵊphil•âhꞋ may not be offered by just anyone, nor just in any way, nor just in any place. Both Jew and geir were required to bring their ol•âhꞋ or qor•bânꞋ to the entrance of the OꞋhël Mo•eidꞋ. Instructively, no others beside Jews and geir•imꞋ were even permitted to offer qor•bân•otꞋ. In particular, the geir wasn't permitted to offer his own qor•bânꞋ at a place of his choosing.
The same is true regarding the qor•bânꞋ of tᵊphil•âhꞋ. Regular community tᵊphil•âhꞋ in a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage min•yânꞋ , whether daily, on Shab•âtꞋ and holy days, or as travel limitations permit, is today's "entrance to the OꞋhël Mo•eidꞋ." Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 28.9 is harsh in describing all other prayer. For further guidance, see The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)
note 21.22.2.
17.11 — There is so much controversy associated with this pâ•suqꞋ that I will provide a complete translation, phrased according to cantillation, with explanation of each word.
ëÌÄé-ðÆôÆùÑ äÇáÌÈùÒÈø áÌÇãÌÈí äÄåà, åÇàÂðÄé ðÀúÇúÌÄéå ìÈëÆí òÇì-äÇîÄæÀáÌÅçÇ, ìÀëÇôÌÅø òÇì-ðÇôÀùÑÉúÅéëÆí; ëÌÄé äÇãÌÈí äåÌà áÌÇðÆôÆùÑ éÀëÇôÌÅø:
ðÆôÆùÑ was translated into LXX as ψυχη – popularly "soul."
"Life," in Hebrew is çÇéÌÄéí, always used in the plural (except as a number in gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ), and, contrary to English translations, is not found in this verse. This phrase means "Because the psyche of the flesh…"
There are 102 instances of the verb ëôø in Ta•na"khꞋ, all found in only five constructs:
Directly with a noun,
With the direct object indicator àÆú
With the preposition òÇì (61 instances),
With the preposition áÌÀòÇã, and
With the prepositional prefix □áÌÇ
Only the òì (#3) and á (#5) constructs are found in this pâ•suqꞋ.
60% of the instances of ëôø (61 of the 102) are followed by the preposition òì, where it consistently means (expiate) over or concerning. This includes the first, of two, instances in our pâ•suqꞋ.
The five instances of á are easily enumerated:
1-3— In wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 6.23, 16.17 & 27, ìÀëÇôÌÅø áÌÇ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ clearly means "to expiate in the ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ." There is no basis for versions that render the English "sprinkle."
4 — In wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 7.7, éÀëÇôÌÅø-áÌåÉ clearly means "he shall make expiation in it" (i.e. in the misstep-sacrifice or the guilt-sacrifice).
 |
 Blood sacrifice drove home the gravity of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ⇒expiation in the receptive nëphꞋësh |
5 — Our pâ•suqꞋ: áÌÇðÆôÆùÑ éÀëÇôÌÅø
Therefore, this pâ•suqꞋ does not translate to "the blood expiates for the psyche." This pâ•suqꞋ means "because the blood is what, in the psyche, will expiate." The expiation takes place in the psyche. The shedding of blood is the trauma that drives home the seriousness and consequences of the transgression of úÌåÉøÈä.
This construct is also similar to Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 16.6: "áÌÀçÆñÆã åÆàÁîÆú éÀëËôÌÇø òÈåÉï." When used with ëôø, á consistently means "in," not "for."
To put it all together, this pâ•suqꞋ (17.11) is accurately rendered: "Because the nëphꞋësh f.s. of the flesh,m.s. in the blood m.s. it f.s. [is], and I, gave it m.s. to you, on the Miz•beiꞋakh, to make ki•purꞋ, òÇì your nᵊphâsh•otꞋ;f.p. because the blood m.s. is what, in the nëphꞋësh f.s. will make ki•purꞋ."
To smooth out the English a little: "Because the nëphꞋësh of the flesh, it is in the blood, and I gave it to you on the Miz•beiꞋakh, to make ki•purꞋ òÇì your nᵊphâsh•otꞋ; because it is the blood that will make ki•purꞋ in the nëphꞋësh."
Thus, blood òÇì the Miz•beiꞋakh made ki•purꞋ òÇì the nëphꞋësh, because the [shedding of] blood made ki•purꞋ in the [receptive] nëphꞋësh.
How do we know that this can't be rendered "it is the blood-in-the-psyche that will make ki•purꞋ"? The first part of the pâ•suqꞋ stipulates that the psyche was considered to be in the blood, not the reverse. Hence blood, containing (not "in") the psyche of the qor•bânꞋ's flesh, expiates in the receptive psyche of the beneficiary of that qor•bânꞋ.
It is appropriate here to reinforce a point made about this pâ•suqꞋ by R. Singer (Outreach Judaism): wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 4.1-2. Ki•purꞋ is limited to those who misstep áÌÄùÑÀâÈâÈä, not by willful decision to transgress úÌåÉøÈä (which explicitly subsumes transgressing Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ). There is no expiation for knowingly (i.e., willfully) transgressing Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ until one makes tᵊshuv•âhꞋ—which includes turning to the practice of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ – no longer willfully neglecting Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
|
|
wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.11 is a problematic verse for rabbis, that they never openly address. On the other hand, Christians insist on grossly misunderstanding this verse , interpreting it as a magic meaning (supernatural = magic blood) prohibited by úÌåÉøÈä.
Yet it answers one of the most basic questions in Judaism: Why are Jews prohibited from eating blood?
According to úÌåÉøÈä, the answer is twofold:
åÇàÂðÄé ðÀúÇúÌÄéå ìÈëÆí òÇì-äÇîÄæÀáÌÅçÇ, ìÀëÇôÌÅø òÇì ðÇôÀùÑÉúÅéëÆí; ëÌÄé äÇãÌÈí äåÌà áÌÇðÆôÆùÑ éÀëÇôÌÅø:
Is there anything wrong with singing Gospel songs, sending Valentines, chocolate Ishtar bunnies and Ishtar egg hunts, "Khanukah Bushes," St. Patrick's day, Halloween, Christian church services, eating tâ•reiphꞋ foods with Christians over which they have recited idolatrous prayers and the like?
Whether or not one is aware of it, these all pertain to the Christian religion, Christian saints, and the like.
The paradigm is found in both the Egyptian Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ and pre-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ Kᵊna•anꞋ, úÌåÉøÈä echoes its own Oral proto-úÌåÉøÈä tradition (18.3): îÇòÂùÒÅä of the land of Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim where you've dwelled ìÉà úÇòÂùÒåÌ! And îÇòÂùÒÅä of the land of Kᵊna•anꞋ to which I bring you ìÉà úÇòÂùÒåÌ! Moreover, åÌáÀçË÷ÌÉúÅéäÆí ìÉà úÅìÅëåÌ
To the contrary, úÌåÉøÈä (18.4) admonishes:
àÆú-îÄùÑÀôÌÈèÇé úÇòÂùÒåÌ, åÀàÆú-çË÷ÌÉúÇé úÌÄùÑÀîÀøåÌ ìÈìÆëÆú áÌÈäÆí; àÂðÄé é‑‑ä àÁìÉäÅéëÆí:
And that isn't all. úÌåÉøÈä continues (18.5):
åÌùÑÀîÇøÀúÌÆí àÆú-çË÷ÌÉúÇé åÀàÆú-îÄùÑÀôÌÈèÇé, àÂùÑÆø éÇòÂùÒÆä àÉúÈí; äÈàÈãÈí åÈçÇé áÌÈäÆí; àÂðÄé é‑‑ä:
All people live in this world, whether they keep the îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí or not. Clearly, therefore, this promise, distinguishing those who do their utmost to keep the îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí, goes beyond life in this world. Here is the clear promise of life for those who will watchguard and do the çË÷ÌÄéí of (úÌåÉøÈä and) îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí (Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ)!
úÌåÉøÈä also states unequivocally (18.22):
åÀàÆú-æÈëÈø, ìÉà úÄùÑÀëÌÇá îÄùÑÀëÌÀáÅé àÄùÑÈä; úåÉòÅáÈä äÄåà:
 |
 |
Does úÌåÉøÈä declare that individuals who experience homosexual desires or temptations are a úåÉòÅáÈä? Read it more carefully. The dictionary defines a homosexual to include someone who has homosexual temptations. However, mere temptation doesn't constitute a aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä. úÌåÉøÈä declares a homosexual act to be a úåÉòÅáÈä. It is acting on the temptation, not the mere temptation itself, that constitutes an aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä and, therefore, a úåÉòÅáÈä.
This inspires an interesting question: How is it that the Noakhide Law for sexual conduct is interpreted inclusive of mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ given to Jews while the Noakhide Law concerning dietary conduct are interpreted exclusive of mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ given to Jews? I.e., Why, for "Noakhides" (synonymous in úÌåÉøÈä with goy•imꞋ), is homosexuality out but non-kâ•sheirꞋ food is in?
Homosexual temptation, like any other temptation, may sometimes overwhelm one's will power. Exclusive of the act, however, the person who merely has homosexual tendencies, but without yeilding to them, isn't a úåÉòÅáÈä. The homosexual is no different than any other person facing temptations. A person tempted to pedophilia, rape, murder, etc. isn't guilty unless the temptation is acted upon. However, when the homosexual allows the temptation to be realized, the homosexual act is, inescapably, a úåÉòÅáÈä! We are judged by our actions, not our temptations.
Thus, it is homosexual activity, not the person merely tempted by homosexuality, that is a úåÉòÅáÈä. Homosexual activity must be resisted by homosexuals just as others must resist their temptations. Conversely, tᵊshuv•âhꞋ is available to the homosexual just it is available to those who commit other úåÉòÅáåÉú.
The justification of submitting to such temptations, the high-handed, flaunting of wrong-doing, is the ultimate depravity—whether homosexuality, murder, armed robbery, or any other crime.
Moreover, the excusing of wrong-doing (whether homosexual, murder or whatever) due to abusive childhood relationships, poverty , drug-addiction, insanity and the like ignores the victims and signals the decay of a legal system and the civilization promulgating it. Excusing crime due to insanity is particularly nonsensical. Declaring murderers sane is insane. Murder is an insane act. A murderer, then, is someone who is insane by definition. But lawyers successfully argue that some murders are sane (usually the poor and minority ones), and the (usually more affluent) rest should be excused on some legal technicality.
Furthermore, while defendants are represented by their own lawyers suited to their financial class, victims can only watch helplessly as run-of-the-mill lawyers representing a vague entity called "the people" often ignore their plight. Why doesn't the legal system, in addition to prosecutors for the state, provide for the aggressive participation of victims' lawyers in prosecuting trials?
Why isn't there justice and why, then, aren't capital punishments carried out? Of thousands of convicted murderers on death row, a couple of executions per year is a sick joke. The same perverse bleeding-hearts who pour over criminal predators totally lack meaningful compassion for victims. One must bear in mind that it is certain that the blood of thousands of victims every year, killed by the predators the legal systems sets free, is on their hands.
Care about the victim's relatives. Why aren't the victim's relatives permitted, when they wish, to remove the clip in lethal injections, pull the switch in electrocutions, etc?
The ancient úÌåÉøÈä, Beit-Din court system, and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ is often wrongly distorted by misojudaics as "an eye for an eye." The Judaic system of justice, however, proved far superior to "modern" adversarial (Hebrew "Sâ•tânꞋ") legal systems. úÌåÉøÈä and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ curbed crime and provided genuine security, free of fear for ordinary people without the affluent incarcerating a large fraction of the population—two enormous failings of modern "adversarial" legal systems.
|
|
Note: When combined with pâ•râsh•atꞋ Qᵊdosh•imꞋ, the Maph•tirꞋ and Haphtâr•âhꞋ of the latter is read.
In 22.2, Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ envisages the Mâ•shiꞋakh, describing himself as a certain bën-â•dâmꞋ who is äÂúÄùÑÀôÌÉè; i.e., the Judge, who shall adjudicate according to Oral Law, in the highest, ultimate and eternal, Beit Din. In other words, this was Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ's descriptive metonym for the Nâ•siꞋ of the Beit Din hâ-Jâ•dolꞋ (Hellenized to "Sanhedrin"). This form is unique to Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ.
 |
 |
Thus, 22.2 should be read: "So now, a bën-â•dâmꞋ is äÂúÄùÑÀôÌÉè – äÂúÄùÑÀôÌÉè of the òÄéø äÇãÌÈîÄéí" – ("the City of Bloods" = Roman ⇒ Muslim ⇒ Crusader -occupied Yᵊrushâlayim).
The Mâ•shiꞋakh is prophesied to be the executor of çË÷ÌÄéí and îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí (which, together, constitute Oral Law or Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh—known today as Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ).
As Artscroll's "Yechezkel" notes (at 22.12, p. 350), "Compare the eleventh blessing in Shᵊmon•ëhꞋ Ësᵊr•eihꞋ, where the tᵊphil•âhꞋ for Ël•oh•imꞋ's Kingship is preceded by the tᵊphil•âhꞋ that Ël•oh•imꞋ restore Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ (executors of îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí, i.e. judges of the Beit-Din) to Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu (11:3-5) envisages the Mâ•shiꞋakh's most exalted task to be the inauguration of an era of absolute justice and fairness."
To acknowledge that this is intractably contradicted by Christian doctrine is an understatement.
|
|
Christians frequently cite verses like this to support their Displacement Theology, which asserts that Jews should not practice the laws of their fathers. Yet, a simple check of the context reveals that the fathers in this verse are, specifically, only those who had strayed from úÌåÉøÈä (4ff., 8ff. and 13ff.). The call of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ is "Don't walk in the çË÷ÌÄéí of your fathers, and don't keep their îÄùÑôÌÈèÄéí – åÌáÀâÄìÌåÌìÅéäÆí don't contaminate yourselves!"
Here, úÌåÉøÈä explicitly instructs children, when faced with the dilemma of whether to follow one's parents or úÌåÉøÈä when they are mutually exclusive, that as soon as they are of age, they are to forsake the ways of the parent(s) who have strayed from úÌåÉøÈä. They are instructed to make tᵊshuv•âhꞋ to úÌåÉøÈä.
This is exactly opposite to, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, Christian Displacement Theology perversions of this passage, which assert that they, Christians, are the spiritual Israel "sons," of the "New Covenant," whom this passage is forbidding to follow the "fathers" – Jews – with their "law of sin and death"—by which they mean úÌåÉøÈä.
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
|
|
Every year, when wa-Yiq•râꞋ 18.16 is recited in Beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët, no one relates "the nakedness of your brother's wife" to the Εd•omꞋite ruler who built Tiberius and killed Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Mat•bilꞋ' Ben--Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ (Hellenized to "John the Baptist")—a significant event in 1st-century Judaic history.
Herod-Antipas was one of 4 sons of King Herod the Great, builder of the KoꞋtël, an Εd•omꞋite.
Those familiar with the Bible will remember that an Εd•omꞋite is a descendent of Εd•omꞋ, that Εd•omꞋ means "red" and the association traces back to the red lentil stew for which Ei•sauꞋ, following in the footsteps of his uncle Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ, abandoned his inheritance: the bᵊrit, and was consequently the first to be kâ•reitꞋ from the family of Yitz•khâqꞋ.
This phony, pretend-Jew and "King of the Jews," was Herod-Antipas who, in blatant violation of úÌåÉøÈä, was having relations with the estranged wife of his brother; and "having taken hold of Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Mat•bilꞋ' Ben--Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ, bound him, and put him away in a dungeon on account of Herodias, the estranged wife of his half-brother Herod-Philip. For Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Mat•bilꞋ' Ben--Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ, had told Herod-Antipas, "You should not have her."
|
|
The Haphtâr•âhꞋ Tei•mân•itꞋ for Shab•âtꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ begins at Ma·lâkh·iꞋ 3.4, with "Then'" The astute reader should immediately ask what transpired earlier that led up to "Then'"???
The answer is Ma·lâkh·iꞋ 3.1 (ca. B.C.E. 449), echoing the earlier prophecy of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 40.3 (ca. B.C.E. 720)—which Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ quotes in NHM 3.2-3 speaking of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: "Clear the Way of é‑‑ä, grade a road in the A•râv•âhꞋ (Dead Sea plain) for our Ël•oh•imꞋ."
Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ was a maternal cousin of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Miryâm and àìéùáò (Ëlishëva) could have been daughters of a Ko•heinꞋ. Alternately, however, Ëlishëva may simply have married a Ko•heinꞋ. (Ëlishëva was Hellenized to Ελισαβεθ—Elisabeth, which was then anglicized to Elizabeth.)
 |
| Qumrân Caves. Photograph © 1994 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. |
In any case, Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ was a Qumrân Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ-type ha-Ko•heinꞋ—squarely in opposition to the phony "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa," who weren't even genealogically qualified and had been installed by the Romans, who appointed the leadership of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ. Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ was also the cousin of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, who had become a Pᵊrush•imꞋ RibꞋi of the Beit-Hi•leilꞋ, ordained by Jamliyeil, the Nâ•siꞋ of the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ. What these two had in common, beyond being cousins, was that each had risen to a prominent leadership position in the two sects that opposed the Roman-sycophant "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa," and the Romans who maintained the corrupted priesthood. Consequently, the Roman occupiers, with great prodding from the phony Roman-installed "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa" (as they were known by the rest of the Jewish community), would one day contrive a machination to execute each of them and other members of their followers.
The Sages agreed that Ma·lâkh·iꞋ 3.1 refers to Eil•i•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ. The chapter concludes with the famous prophecy (pâ•suqꞋ 23).
Speaking about his cousin, Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ, Ë•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 11.11), "So what have you come forth to see? A Nâ•viꞋ? Truly, I tell you, [Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ] is greater than a Nâ•viꞋ. This is he about whom it has been written, 'Behold, I will send you Eil•i•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ before the coming of the great and terrible Day of é‑‑ä.'"
|
|
Everyone who has eyes to see, it's up to him to flee from willful transgressors, who don't fear punishment, for all of them have repulsive things [that fly] in the face of everyone who knows—statutes that aren't good, things that defile, desensitivizations to wrong, and [promotion of] false beliefs.
Although úÌåÉøÈä wasn't shining upon them, it was up to every educated [person] to flee from them, for they are in idolatry, with its attendant [things], and everything that is similar to it, all of the things that they call the 'ways of the Ëmori': "åçáø çáø, or a consulter of àåá, or of éãòðé, or ãøù àì-äîúéí or a îòåðï, or a îðçù, or a îëùó"—Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 18.10-11.
Everything similar to these are all things lacking any benefit. There is no reality in them. Those who follow these, and similar, things, may be looking for reality, but these are misleading things that intrinsically result in their becoming an illustration of the punishment coming upon them for getting started in this kheit; and it is one of the â•wonꞋ for which they will be punished, for they haven't enough will to make tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, as it is said, "äùîï the heart of this kindred," etc. (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 6.10).
However, for the kindred who are adhering in truth [this] cannot be for him, as it is memorized in tractate Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion, chapter 4, The Dead (57.2) and in Pirqa Qama, Profanities (7.2), The woman who pursues gold weighs ore from her box like it was her friend. For which RabꞋi Khanina •marꞋ to her, No assistance for my cheap [state] is likely. "There is none other beside Him" (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 4.35). And what amar Rabi Yo•khân•ânꞋ? Why is it called ùîï of aspidomancers? Are the celestial entourage [all] thin? For I am RabꞋi Khanina which her considerable merit is found, for he cannot harm a straight man. And therefore those of blessed memory say, He who is strict keeps the strictnesses of it; but he who isn't strict doesn't keep the strictnesses of it. It seems his imagination is activating it. They alluded to this in tractate Vows, chapter 4, Vows (32.1), Âmar Rabi Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ, all of äîúîéí are with him. ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, is îúîéí with him. As it is said, "With the khasid, be khësꞋëd, with the mature [person who is] úîéí, úúîí!" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 18.26).
RabꞋi Yᵊshayahu) says, all of the îúîéí are with him, the hour stands for him, as it is said, Walk about before Me and be úîéí" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 17.1). And it is written, "And you were for a father of myriads of goy•imꞋ" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 17.4).
•marꞋ RabꞋi Leiwi, Every îðçù? [It means] he has a ðçù, as it is said, "For there [shall be] no ðçù in Ya•a•qovꞋ" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 23.23). Isn't it written in 31? Rather measure for measure… Every man who does not îðçù, he is brought into the partition, that even îìàëé äùøú cannot enter it, as it is said: "Now it shall be said to éò÷á and to éùøàì what àì has done" (ibid).
And they have also said in îñëú îëåú, chapter 'these are the exiled' (10b): Rabi Elazar said: from the úÌåÉøÈä and from the Nᵊviy•imꞋ and from the Kᵊtuv•imꞋ, in a way that a man wants to walk, he is led.
From the úÌåÉøÈä, as it is written: "You shall not walk with them" (ibid., 22:12). And it is written: "Get up and walk with them" (ibid., 20); From the Nᵊviy•imꞋ, as it is written: "I am é‑‑ä your Ël•oh•imꞋ who teaches you to benefit your guide on the path you shall walk" (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 48:17); From the Kᵊtuv•imꞋ, as it is written: "If to scoffers, he will scoff" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 3:34). And it is memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Yom•âꞋ, in the end of chapter 'told them the superior' (38b): Said øéù ì÷éù: What [teaching can be derived from] is written: "If to scoffers he shall scoff and to the humble he shall give grace"? He who comes in order to become èîà, they open [the path to do so] for him. He who comes to cleanse, they assist him. A úðà from [the Beit-Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ of] Rabi Yishmael: A parable of a man who measured naphtha and [one who measured] balsam. He who came to measure naphtha, they said to him; 'Go measure for yourself.' But in [the case of the one who measured], balsam they said to him: 'Wait so that me and you will become drunk.'
And we said about it. Rab•ân•ânꞋ memorized: "Do not become èîà in all of these" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 18:24), a man causes himself to become èîà a bit, he is made very èîà; [he causes himself to be èîà] from below, [then] he is made èîà from above; [he causes himself to be èîà] in this world, [then] he is made èîà in the next world. Rab•ân•ânꞋ memorized: "Then åäú÷ãùúí and you shall become ÷ãåù for I am ÷ãåù" (ä') (ibid, 11:44). A man makes himself ÷ãåù a bit, he is made very ÷ãåù; [he causes himself to be ÷ãåù] from below, [then] he is made ÷ãåù from above; a man makes himself ÷ãåù in this world, [then] he is made ÷ãåù in the next world. From this you have learned that the one who is immersed in a thing of transgression and sticks to it, he should be left [at it], as the way a man wants to walk is given to a man's freedom, but one who knows and walks a good path, he is assisted and saved from the accidents. Thus, anyone intelligent has [the choice] to choose good and abhor the bad, as one who chooses a straight path, not out of fear of punishment.
And if many of éùøàì failed these things during the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ hâ-Rishon, the reason was the temptation of the followers of the baꞋ•al and the false security, until their faith was engraved in their hearts, so that they couldn't set themselves apart from it, as is memorized in chapter 'part' (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 102b): Rav Ashei finished the chapter until he reached the three kings [who don't have a part in the next world, Yᵊrovam, Akhav and Mᵊnasheh]. He said: tomorrow we shall inquire into our friends who were the ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ of Khakhamim like us.
Mᵊnasheh came to him in a dream, and said to him: And you reckon that we will be your friends or your father's friends? From where in the loaf should you part for ha-Motzi? He [Rav Ashei] said to him: I don't know. He [Mᵊnasheh] said to him: Have you never completed the blessing of ha-Motzi, that you don't know from where to part the loaf, and you call us friends? He said to him: tell me sir anyway and for tomorrow teach it from your name in the chapter. He [Rav Ashei] said: from where the loafs face is formed in the oven [meaning the side facing up in the oven, but not in the middle of the loaf, so that if they brought before him a piece of bread, he shall part from the rims of the loaf and not from the middle]. He [Mᵊnasheh] said to him: but why would you serve òáåãä æøä? He [Rav Ashei] said to him: If this had a [limited] time [to be accomplished within], you would have raised the rim of your robe between your legs so you could run more easily, and would run there. (For he had said, 'Tomorrow, we will inquire of our rabbis.')
It was found that the éöø äøò of òáåãä æøä would control them, by the reason of temptation because they were not so gullible that they couldn't eventually see that òáåãä æøä does not have any substance to it, as is memorized in chapter 'Four Deaths' (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 63b): Rav Yᵊhudah said Rav said: Israel knew that òáåãä æøä did not have substance to it and they served òáåãä æøä only in order to allow them incest in public, Rav îùøùéà raises an objection: "As remembering among them their altars" (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 17:2). And Rabi Elazar said; As a man who has yearnings for his son (after they had stuck to [the òáåãä æøä]? And they were so adherent to it until [the point that] they said: "And from then we ceased to burn incense to the kingdom of äùîéí, etc. we lacked all" (ibid., 44:18). And all this was according to their imagination.
And also a man has to uproot from his heart this belief, for the one who believes in nothing from the things in òáåãä æøä or the one who thinks that there is a government and ability besides ä' alone, uproots the ability from the Creator, blessed be he, or gives Him a partner. And this is complete heresy and false belief in the eyes of all who know. Because it has already become clear in the concise wonders that there is a Creator of the world and a Mover for all that moves, and He is a Leader and Ruler of all. There is no counterpart to him. And thus the leadership is equal and straight. And the warninig of an oath in vain and a lie and the blessing of ä' [meaning the opposite, but it should not be written], and the awe from the Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and the sanctities in it and all the things that were called 'çéìåì ä, the mind bound [to think], even without the fear of punishment, that a man should revere his Creator, Who is his Provider and Sustainer and Keeper, more than a flesh and blood king, and that a man should beware from touching all the things that the eye of the mind [sees as] beyond his dignity.
And the îöååú that He warned the ëäðéí about, that they should be more separated from all the people, from the èåîàåú and the couplings and their dressings, all this is needed from the servants of àì, because those who serve stand in the court of a king are separated from the crowd in all their traits and tricks, even moreso what should be done and separate those who stand always in the Court of the King of Kings, ä÷ãåù áøåê äåà. And the îöååú that He warned for all of Israel, from eating dispicable things and from becoming close to known women, all of then have a reason close to the mind, that they are good advice so that Israel will be healthy and clean from any filth, and ÷ãåùéí and èäåøéí from every èåîàä and distanced from all the material lusts.
And the îöååú that He warned in the matters of the Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ and the deception and revenge and bearing of a grudge and hate and the coveting of money, they need all these to settle the world and the leadership of state and to bring peace and to all good measures of the world. And all are included in the pâ•suqꞋ: " You shall love your companion as yourself" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 19:18): What evokes [lit. walks] hate, you should not work upon your friend. As Hi•leilꞋ the elder taught a âåé who came to him and asked of him to convert him so that he would teach him úÌåÉøÈä on one foot [in a nutshell], as it is in chapter 'With what do you light' (Shab•âtꞋ 31a). And all of these and their likes, they are compelled from the mind even though úÌåÉøÈä did not warn against it. And one who lusts the money of anyone, it is from a bad ðôù that he has, as it is written: "a bad ðôù lusted bad" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 21:10).
Concerning all of these, a man should keep himself from touching any branch of the serious things that destroy the principles of faith, that our rabbis (r.i.p.) decreed upon them—that one should be killed rather than transgress them. As is memorized in chapter 'éåí äëôåøéí' (Ma•sëkꞋët Yom•âꞋ 82a) and in chapter 'Every Hour' (Ma•sëkꞋët Pᵊsâkh•imꞋ 25a): For many [transgressions] have occurred, said Rabi Yokhanan: they all heal except for òáåãä æøä, incest and spilling of blood.
As is memorized: Rabi says: "For when a man comes on his companion to kill him," etc. (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 22:26). And what does the matter of a murderer have to do with an engaged girl? Rather, this comes to teach and is found to be taught: compare an engaged girl to a murderer, like a murderer should be killed rather than transgress [murder], thus the engaged girl should be killed rather than transgress [incest]. And the murderer of his own body from where [do we know that he should be killed rather than transgress—kill himself]? It is thought, that one who came before Rava told him: The governer of my town told me: go kill a person and if not, I will kill you. Rava told him: be killed but don't kill [lest] it seem [to you] that your blood is redder than your friend's. Perhaps the blood of the other person is redder!
And it is memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion, chapter 'a son who is rebellious and a shooter' (74a): Rabi Yokhanan said on behalf of Rabi Shimon Bën-Yᵊhotzᵊdaq: they were counted and finished [i.e., killed] in the attic of áéú ðúæä in ìåã: All the transgressions in the úÌåÉøÈä, if they say to a man "Transgress and you won't be killed, then he should transgress in order not to be killed—except for òáåãä æøä, incest and the spilling of blood.
On the account of three things the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ hâ-Rishon was destroyed, as is memorized in chapter 'Qama DᵊYoma' (9b): and the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ hâ-Rishon, why was it destroyed? Because it had three things in it: òáåãä æøä, incest and bloodshed. òáåãä æøä, as it is written: "for the bed is short from sprawling" (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 28:2). And Rabi Yokhanan said: this bed is [too] short for two companions to sprawl out on it as one; "and the mask was narrow as it gathered" (ibid.,). Rabi Shmuel Bar Nakhmani said: …
(Translated so far)
|
|
|