|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
(Hover over or click on the Hebrew words below for translation. Clauses separated as indicated by cantillation.)
20.26 – åÄäÀéÄéúÆí ìÄé ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí, ëÌÄé ÷ÈãåÉùÑ àÂðÄé é--ä; åÈàÇáÀãÌÄì àÆúÀëÆí, îÄï-äÈòÇîÌÄéí ìÄäÀéåÉú ìÄé:
 0250x237.jpg) |
 1949x1846.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Tzitz•itꞋ with pᵊtilꞋ tᵊkheilꞋët, tied No•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ |
Frequently I receive the kind of response from Christians typified by a recent inquirer (paraphrased from memory): "I'm no second class citizen and I'm not about to spend the rest of my life kissing some Jew's tzitz•itꞋ!"
"The Jews are the 'Chosen People'. That's what the Good Book says." Really? That's not how most Jews read it, because that isn't what Ta•na"khꞋ says. Ta•na"khꞋ says that the Jew must do their utmost to be ÷ÈãåÉùÑ because é‑‑ä is ÷ÈãåÉùÑ, and that, consequently, we belong to Him and serve Him. Through the ages the misojudaic misconception of "The Chosen People" has brought indescribable suffering to the Jews. Why?
Because, they say, "The Jews sinned, so god has rejected the Jew."
Beside the logically intractable contradiction of this premise contrasted against the inviolable eternal promises of an unchanging and perfect Creator, why has misojudaism dogged the Jewish people through the ages, from Bil•âmꞋ (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 22) to Persian (Iranian) Hâ•mânꞋ (cf. Ës•teirꞋ) to the Syrian Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod (both "the Great" & Antipas) the Εd•om•iꞋ (1st century recrudescence of A•mâ•leiqꞋ claiming to be "King of the Jews"), the idolatrous Roman Empire & Hellenist Christian Church, Hitler and the recrudescence of the Iranians (Persians) in the person of Akhmad-dinejad (better: Hâ•mânꞋ-dinejad 
) and his fellow Muslims and Arab sympathizers?
"Anti-Semitism" is a term coined in 1879 by a German proto-Nazi named Wilhelm Marr "to designate the then-current anti-Judaic / anti-Jewish campaigns in Europe" ("Anti-Semitism," Ency. Jud., 3.87). Since Arabs are Semites, yet not typically the victim of "anti-Semitism," this is clearly an incorrect term. If Israeli land were the core problem, Muslim Arabs wouldn't be warring against "Christian Crusaders" in New York City, Washington, D.C., London and Madrid with a "holy war" (jihad). This demonstrates that most Arabs, being Muslims, hate what Jews stand for—i.e., úÌåÉøÈä = Judaism and things Judaic that invalidate Islam—yet, by definition, these Semites aren't anti-Semitic self-haters.
Judeo-phobic means "fear of Jews." Haters of Jews don't fear Jews in the slightest. They simply hate Jews because of Judaism. More accurately, they hate the Judaism; Jews are loathed merely as its assumed product (whether the particular "Jew" is religious or not). The correct prefix for hatred, derived from Greek, is μισω- (miso-, meaning hate [of/for…]). Since they claim not to hate Jews who are "anti-Zionist," it's clear they hate Jews devoted to the land of Israel as defined in úÌåÉøÈä; i.e., Judaism (in contrast to Islam or Christianity) and all things Judaic (in contrast to Islam or Christianity): i.e., misojudaism and misojudaic.
"Even in the days of Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh and ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-MëꞋlëkh, the land of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ contained a substantial 'Gentile population' in ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ they were contemptuous of the Jewish population, whom they regarded as an isolated people that eschewed civilization and refrained from all contact with the outside world. Moreover, the non-Jews who dwelt in ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ knew that the Jews looked upon that land as their divine inheritance. In the eyes of the Jews, as these Gentiles knew, their pagan religions and practices rendered them "unclean"; intermarriage, and even socializing, with them was forbidden and, as a consequence of the dietary laws, social intercourse was impossible; the course taken by Antiochus Epiphanes [was to undertake] to abrogate those laws of the úÌåÉøÈä that he regarded as misanthropic. To this end, he had sacrificed a hog on the Miz•beiꞋakh in Yᵊrushâlayim and ordered that juices from the sacrificial flesh be sprinkled over the books containing the statutes that were directed against the Gentile world (Diodorus, Bibliotheca, 23:1, 1ff.)." ("Anti-Semitism," Ency. Jud., 3.87ff).
"No other nation at that time denied the gods of its neighbors; on the contrary, it recognized them, identifying them with its own deities. This ecumenism was used with considerable success by the Hellenistic ruling authorities to create a social bond between the various peoples in their domains. None of the neighbors refrained from dining at one table with their neighbors and from partaking of the sacrifices offered to their gods, except the Jews. None of the people refused to send gifts to its neighbors' temples, except the Jews. None of the peoples was unequivocally hostile to intermarriage, except the Jews. They characterized it as a misanthropy, a flagrant denial of the Hellenic principle of the unity of mankind" (ibid., 3.88). This theme repeats incessantly throughout all of the pogroms against Jews from time immemorial, including many centuries before the Christian innovation of blaming it on "killing Christ." We find this theme, consistently, from the earliest history of Israel all the way to, and including, the ùÑåÉàÈä.
Today, the word "racism" is thrown around a lot as a consequence of the ùÑåÉàÈä. Yet, relative to ancient Jewish history, racism is a quite recent, 18th-century, innovation based on a much older theme ("Race, Theory of," Ency. Jud., 13.1483). Racism, per se, is a more general aberration, which finds Jews as only one of several groups targeted for hatred. In all of the Biblical instances the cause behind hatred of Jews was the isolationist requirements imposed on Jews by úÌåÉøÈä—i.e., Judaism. It is obvious that this is the same cause in the instances from Bilâm (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 22) to Hâmân (in the story of Ës•teirꞋ) to Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman Empire / Christian Church and Hitler.
The problem isn't hatred of Jews as a race, since Jews (having always admitted proselytes) aren't a race! One can become a Jew. One cannot change races. Hatred of Jews is hatred of what Jews as a people stand for: úÌåÉøÈä = Judaism!
The correct term for hatred of what Jews stand for, Judaism, therefore, is misojudaism and misojudaic.
Seen in this light, it is precisely Jews as the ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí required in wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 20.26 who are hated by the very ones who claim to follow the god of the Jews – all while declaring they are "not about to spend the rest of [their] life kissing some Jew's tzitz•itꞋ"!
On the one hand, Christians declare that they have displaced Jews as the "Chosen—spiritual—Israel" while, at the same time, hating the very requirement which defines Israel and the Jew!
In fact, Christians and the Church were originally spawned by Hellenism of the Roman Empire, which converted the unifying forces of Hellenist ecumenism into an even more unifying imperialism of ecumenical-syncretizing Christianity. As Jewish historian, Salo Baron, noted: "Constantine and his successors doubtless realized that, by promoting Christianity, they would weaken the local autonomy based upon local worship and enhance the central powers of the growingly absolutist regime. Indeed, Roman imperialism readily lent itself to being translated into Christian imperialism" ("A Social and Religious History of the Jews," II.152). The people who were most resistant and disruptive to Constantine's strategy, of course, were the Jews—and, consequently, it was inevitable that Jews would be persecuted—like countless times before and since… and for the same reason.
This seductive assimilation is the legacy of Bil•âmꞋ, whose recrudescences continue to plague Jews today.
When trying to understand the dietary laws of úÌåÉøÈä, Sages have always emphasized that these may be understood not solely in terms of health considerations, but in terms of preventing unnecessary social intercourse and assimilation with goy•imꞋ. (Essential courtesy in business dealings, as well as general civility—but not socializing, can be maintained without compromising the dietary laws.)
 |
 |
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins:
19.1 – åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø é--ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆä ìÌÅàîÉø: 2 ãÌÇáÌÅø àÆì-ëÌÈì-òÂãÇú áÌÀðÅé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì; åÀàÈîÇøÀúÌÈ àÂìÅäÆí, ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí úÌÄäÀéåÌ;
What does ÷ÉãÆùÑ mean? Holiness, sacredness, consecration, sanctification? These English terms fail to adequately convey what's involved—and who accomplishes it.
The verb ÷ÈãÇùÑ means "be consigned or consecrated. especially to é‑‑ä." The noun ÷ÉãÆùÑ means "something consigned to é‑‑ä." One can commit only oneself, or something one owns, to be consigned to é‑‑ä! Not only can we, numerous times úÌåÉøÈä explicitly commands us to do so!!!
é‑‑ä has chosen never to countermand our free will. Therefore, you and I are the only ones who can consign ourselves, or something we own, to é‑‑ä!
As the Artscroll editors put it, "a Jew should not define 'holiness' as something other-worldly, something that is reserved for saints and legendary characters" (Vayikra IIIb:xxx).
When this consignment is effected, i.e. made exclusive to é‑‑ä (for example a qor•bânꞋ was consecrated – irrevocably set apart and devoted – exclusively to Him), the verb used was äÆçÀøÄéí – from which the modern English term, "harem," derived.
The ðÈæÄéø was a kind of quasi-çÅøÆí (with rare exceptions, only temporarily). Mortals must be content to be, and satisfied with being nothing less than, ÷ÉãÆùÑ.
Since both ÷ÉãÆùÑ and çÅøÆí have bad connotations as well as good connotations, we sometimes find each rendered as "curse" or "excommunicated" – sort of like "bless his heart" can register admiration, gratefulness, pity or just be sarcastic. The meaning depends on the context—how, where and to whom a person or thing is consigned. One can be consigned to prison or to inherit a fortune.
The only Way one can consign himself or something (s)he owns to é‑‑ä is by following His Instruction—úÌåÉøÈä (Hebrew, of course)—the defining authority of how to do it. That means consigning ourselves and that which we own to the service of é‑‑ä; and what is the service of é‑‑ä? Doing our utmost to keep the îÄöÀååÉú!!! In this light, one can better understand the phrase found in the blessings:
"… ,àÂùÑÆø ÷ÄãÌÀùÑÈðåÌ áÌÀîÄöÀåÉúÈéå ,…"
Does being holy then imply becoming sequestered from the world like the cults? To the contrary, as the Artscroll editors again note, "the úÌåÉøÈä asks us to be like é‑‑ä, your [Ël•oh•imꞋ], meaning that [Ël•oh•imꞋ] is accessible to people, and He demands the same sort of holiness [being accessible to people] from us" (Vayikra IIIb:xxxiv). I'm not one to often quote Christians, but, as Roy Harthern (father-in-law, and probable mentor, of Benny Hinn) used to admonish his congregation in Winter Park, FL, "Don't become so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good." That's at least one place that "Duh" and his "Heaven's Gate" followers went wrong.
Everything else lacks ÷ÉãÆùÑ, is not consigned to é‑‑ä, and is, therefore, ordinary—çì (khol)—unholy (cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 10.10). In this light, Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 28.9 becomes conspicuous.
é‑‑ä has promised in úÌåÉøÈä to honor our consignment as long as we are doing our utmost to follow His úÌåÉøÈä. Therein is the khein of "… ,àÂùÑÆø ÷ÄãÌÀùÑÈðåÌ áÌÀîÄöÀåÉúÈéå ,…"
As the first pâ•suqꞋ of this pâ•râsh•âhꞋ concludes, ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí úÌÄäÀéåÌ! Now see Shᵊm•otꞋ 19.5-6!
|
|
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins
åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø é--ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆä ìÌÅàîÉø: ãÌÇáÌÅø àÆì-ëÌÈì-òÂãÇú áÌÀðÆé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì; åÇàÈîÇøÀúÌÈ àÂìÅäÆí ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí úÌÄäÀéåÌ;
The LXX Hellenizes ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí to αγιος.
This pâ•suqꞋ in Ta•na"khꞋ declares that every Jew is expected to be a "saint"! The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)
27.52 and 25.31 can properly be understood only in this context.
 |
Only Tor•âhꞋ -keeping Jews are "saints"; not idols with halo and wings, idolatrous goy•imꞋ in Roman Catholic garb, or even Jewish hypocrites in medieval costumes who presume to add to or delete from Tor•âhꞋ (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1). |
References in the NT where the 2nd-4th centuries CE Roman Hellenist Christian redactors used αγιος understood it in their own, native Hellenist, sense; usurping the term as referring to themselves. Yet, in LXX—250 years before Paul—it could only have referred to "holy Jews"; Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ , not Hellenist (i.e., idolatrous) goy•imꞋ Greco-Roman Christians of the 2nd-4th centuries C.E. calling themselves "spiritual Israel."
A review of these passages exposes the Hellenist Romans' distorted and idolatrous (mis)understanding of ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí to refer to goy•imꞋ. This became a corroboration, by 2nd-4th centuries CE Hellenist Romans, of their similar and complementary arrogations of Ελλενης and εθνος as, likewise, usurped to include goy•imꞋ where "Hellenist" Jews or Jews "among the goy•imꞋ," respectively, were originally intended (see How Romans Syncretized Judaic Elements Into Their Hellenism to Create Christianity: αγιος, Ελλενης and εθνος).
These deceptive mistranslations explicitly transformed the texts into Displacement Theology, injecting the complexion, and orientation, of the misojudaic Roman Hellenists into their NT—purporting to invalidate Judaism and alienating Jews to create an artificial basis for gentile Roman Hellenism – Christianity.
At wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 19.34, the English translation misrepresents the Hebrew: ëÌÀàÆæÀøÈç îÄëÌÆí shall be to you äÇâÌÅø äÇâÌÈø with you, and you shall love him as yourself, ëÌÄé-âÅøÄéí äÁéÄéúÆí in the land of Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim.
àÆæÀøÈç means citizen. In the Biblical context, this pâ•suqꞋ refers explicitly to a citizen of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ – what many rabbis and Jews today racistly distort to "born Jews". However, this pâ•suqꞋ doesn't equate a âÌÅø to a "born-Jew" (as rabbis wrongly do today – see the Biblical definition of geir), but rather commands that the âÌÅø be recognized as a full-fledged citizen of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ—and be adjudicated identically with the "born Jew"—of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ.
Readers must understand: Rut was born a gentile. She became an àÆæÀøÈç of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ. She was, thereafter, an àÆæÀøÈç Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ – no longer a âÌÅø (or "convert")!
Confirming last week's findings vis-à-vis homosexual activity (rather than homosexuals themselves) being the to•eiv•âhꞋ, 20.13 also describes homosexual activity, not the tendencies and desires, as a to•eiv•âhꞋ. This reinforces our finding that homosexuals can avoid being involved in a to•eiv•âhꞋ by resisting—rather than giving in to, fabricating justifications for, and flaunting—homosexual tendencies.
While homosexuals argue that theirs is a special case, every criminal I've ever met felt that their case was specially justified. Every crime, when it finally became impossible to deny the crime, was blamed on some unique and overpowering temptation or circumstance that forced the perpetrator to commit their crime. Some were abused. Others were helpless against their craving for drugs. The list is endlessly ingenious – and irrelevant.
There is no justification for transgressing úÌåÉøÈä, neither ignorance of the law nor even in cases in which it was impossible to know beyond suspicion whether the law was broken. R. Abraham Chill, in his book The Mitzvot, illuminates this area. Based on wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 5.17, 25 & 7.1, there were two types of guilt-offerings:
The àÈùÑÈí úÌÈìåÌé was required when a person admitted to having had contact with something unlawful but was in doubt as to whether he had actually committed a violation of the law. Example: A man had seen two pieces of fat before him, and had eaten one of them. He later learned that one of the two pieces of fat he had seen had been tâ•reiphꞋ but he had no way of finding out whether the piece he had eaten had been the kâ•sheirꞋ or the tâ•reiphꞋ one. As long as he had no possibility of knowing, he had to bring a contingent àÈùÑÈí úÌÈìåÌé.
If, and when, he found out beyond doubt that the piece he had eaten had been the tâ•reiphꞋ piece, then he had to bring the sacrifice appropriate for the transgression—even though, when he originally ate the piece of fat, he had no way of knowing he was violating Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ! Lesson: Ignorance is no excuse!
(The àÈùÑÈí åÇãÌÇàé was brought for four specific types of confessed transgression—Chill, p. 153-4):
"carnal knowledge of an handmaiden who had already been married to a Jewish slave;
swearing falsely that one was not in possession of an object which, in fact, he had stolen or borrowed;
unintentional appropriation for one's own use, or benefit from, an object that was the property of the [Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ] or of the [ko•heinꞋ];
a [Nâ•zirꞋ] who had contact with a corpse. This offering also had to be brought by a [mᵊtzor•âꞋ] at the time of his purification."
Though one may understand, or even sympathize with, how such a violation could occur, that does not justify the aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä. TzëdꞋëq – a term synonymous with Mâ•shiꞋakh – requires tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, including restitution (+20%) to the injured party (victim), and a punitive penalty.
These were the requirements of the sacrificial system to qualify for Ki•purꞋ concerning violations of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
20.23 reiterates an earlier teaching: You are not to walk áÌÀçË÷ÌÉú äÇâÌåÉé
In this connection, pâ•suqꞋ 24 is related: "I am é‑‑ä your Ël•oh•imꞋ, äÄáÀãÌÇìÀúÌÄé àÆúÀëÆí îÄï-äÈòÇîÌÄéí – just as äÇáÀãÌÈìÈä differentiates the conclusion of the ÷ÉãÆùÑ of Shab•âtꞋ from the khol of weekdays.
 |
| Havdâl•âhꞋ Tei•mân•itꞋ (Ha•dasꞋ is the spice; no European "castle spice box." While a sprig of myrtle is preferred, any fragrant herb or spice will suffice.) |
Pâ•suqꞋ 25 gives this äÇáÀãÌÈìÈä between èÈäåÉø and èÈîÅà as the reason for the distinctions we commemorate in the äÇáÀãÌÈìÈä liturgy (cf. also wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 10.10; 11.47):
åÌáÅéï àåø ìÀçÉùÑÆêÀ,
åÌáÅéï éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì ìÀâÌåÉéÄí
úÌåÉøÈä gives the reasoning (pâ•suqꞋ 25-26): just as we must differentiate tâ•horꞋ animals and birds from the tâm•eiꞋ animals and birds, "I have differentiated you," as the am tâ•horꞋ, from the goy•imꞋ tâm•eiꞋ. Therefore, [Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ] shall be ÷ÉãÆùÑ to Me because I, é‑‑ä, am ÷ÉãÆùÑ; and I differentiated you from the òÇîÌÄéí so that you would be Mine."
@ wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 20:24, LXX renders διοριζω. This verb is not used at all in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).
@ wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 20:25, LXX renders αφοριζω. When we trace the latter into the NHM, we find this verb used in 13.49 and 25.32.
@ wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 10.10 and 11.47, LXX renders διαστελλω. Understanding the derivation of διαστελλω from äÄáÀãÌÄéì, and the latter's association with the distinction between Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ differentiated from the goy•imꞋ, is one key to understanding VI Shaul 10.12 and 3.22 as they were intended (or at least understood among the Hebrew-speaking, anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•imꞋ) when it was allegedly authored by the 1st-century Hellenist Jew, St. Paul the Apostate.
 |
 Inscribed stone from the Sorëg (stone-lattice) surrounding the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini warning (in Greek):
This ancient inscribed stone from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini is located in Museum Tschinili-Kirschk. Istanbul, Turkey. |
The other key is to recognize the meaning of Ελλην, which is widely known to mean "Hellenist" and, therefore, to include Jews who were sympathetic to the Hellenist influence and culture, merging them together in a ecumenical confluence. Webster's New World Dictionary defines a Hellenist as a Jew!
Distorting this into "gentile-Greek" or "Gentile" served conspicuous Displacement Theology in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) passages such as Yn. 6.4; Ma•a•vârꞋ 18.4 and 19.10. (For further discussion and documentation, cf. NHM note 1.0.2.) We now see this verse in its more pristine state as the Hellenist Jew, St. Paul the Apostate, likely argued for his Hellenism position: "For the ha•vᵊdâl•âhꞋ is not between Yᵊhud•iꞋ and Ελλην" This is a quasi-true statement, since the greater differentiation is between Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and the goy•imꞋ. However, it is misleading in the sense that úÌåÉøÈä requires ha•vᵊdâl•âhꞋ between ÷ÉãÆùÑ and khol—whether khol happens to be goy or Ελλην (e.g. today's non-Orthodox Jews).
Being written to Jews and geir•imꞋ of the Gâl•utꞋ in Rome, the Hellenist St. Paul the Apostate clarified in his 6th letter (Rom. 3.22) that both Jews and geir•imꞋ (not gentiles) are included among "those who trust, for there is no Havdâl•âhꞋ" between Jews and geir•imꞋ. Although differentiated from Jews, geir•imꞋ were included in the yu•khas•inꞋ – counted among the 10 classes (Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ 69a-b) of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Consistent with previous findings, the Havdâl•âhꞋ is between those found in the yu•khas•inꞋ (tree) of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, the Book (Tree) of Life, in contrast to the goy•imꞋ.
Beyond the Christian Hellenization of Ελλην—Hellenist Jew—evolving it first into "Greek" (NT Rom. 10.22) and then into "gentile" (NIV, ibid.) to read "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile," this Displacement Theology can also be debunked by reductio ad absurdum. In a parallel premise, the same writer similarly declared (NT Gal. 3.28): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." By the same reasoning, Christians cannot, therefore, condemn homosexuality—since there's no difference between male and female! This passage also reads Ελλην; not αλλογενης, cf. NHM note 1.0.2).
|
|
19.12— åÀìÉà… åÀçÄìÌÇìÀúÌÈ àÆú-ùÑÅí àÁìÉäÆéêÈ
Non-Jewish readers of English translations seem to assume "profane" refers to a prohibition against disparaging remarks about the Name, or perhaps cursing using the Name. However the Hebrew prohibits the casual, or ordinary, use of the Name in a common (profane) context.
In the time of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa the Mâ•shiꞋakh, during the time of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ and prior to the rabbis (Pᵊrush•imꞋ) attaining predominance (ca. 20 C.E.) in the Beit Din hâ-Jâ•dolꞋ, this restriction was interpreted to mean that the Name was actually uttered only on Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ, and then only by the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ, and then only in the QoꞋdësh ha-Qâdâsh•imꞋ, and then only in the Mu•sâphꞋ Service. This was the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ in the time of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa the Mâ•shiꞋakh and there are no indications that he diverged in any way from any logically-valid Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
There are three ways to approach this issue:
The misojudaic – ad ignorantiam – way, contradicting logic: assume Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ wrong unless the rabbis can prove it correct from Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ.
The rabbinic way is identical to the Christian way I've seen on Christian calling cards, merely substituting some rabbi(s) instead of Jesus – no matter how fantastical the claim: "He said it. I believe it. That settles it!"
The consequence of this folly is the reality Israel has faced for two millennia: if a rabbi can simply override Ta•na"khꞋ, then so could Jesus and Muhammed! That's a logical truism that is indisputable. (The inescapable solution is that rabbis cannot override Ta•na"khꞋ any more than anyone else!)
The logical, scientific—and, hence, Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ—Way, to continue the known, Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, in terms of:
if there is a logical basis in Ta•na"khꞋ forming a reasonable premise (preventing ex falso quodlibet), and
unless it is contradicted by Tor•âhꞋ shë-bikh•tâvꞋ.
Subjected to this criteria, the current Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of not uttering the Name and writing the Name only in Ta•na"khꞋ and Orthodox Jewish liturgical texts is upheld by the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ as valid.
 |
19.16 — ìÉà-úÅìÅêÀ øÈëÄéì áÌÀòÇîÌÆéêÈ
If an individual is overcharging, doing poor or negligent work or otherwise ripping people off, harming people or profaning the Name (khi•lulꞋ é‑‑ä), then one has the obligation to his or her kindred to alert them so that they can avoid being injured, financially and/or literally. But unless one is communicating true and positive information or preventing potential harm to an innocent party by imparting true information, it is prohibited by Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ to simply pass on gossip to another—no matter how "juicy" or how close the friend you wish to tell (spouses—and, for minors, parents—are excepted, as secrets are never justified between spouses or from minor children to parents). Such an individual should not be hampered in his or her tᵊshuv•âhꞋ by an unnecessary stigma caused by an unnecessarily loose tongue.
19.18 – åÀàÈäÇáÀúÌÈ ìÀøÇòÂêÈ ëÌÈîåÉêÈ
This is the quote cited by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in NHM, and the correct translation.
19.19 – … åÌáÆâÆã ëÌÄìÀàÇéÄí ùÑÇòÇèÀðÅæ, ìÉà éÇòÂìÆä òÈìÆéêÈ:
In LXX, ùÑÇòÇèÀðÅæ is rendered as κιβδηλος.
From Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 22.11 we learn that this hybrid specifically refers to the mixing of wool and linen together in one fabric. Particularly as the source texts for NHM were redacted by the Romans, the passage at NHM 9.16 may be a corruption of, or perhaps a generalization based upon, today's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ.
Several rationalizations have been offered by various sages over the past millennia to explain the significance of the prohibition against ùÑÇòÇèÀðÅæ, however none are logical.
However, a key to a down-to-earth, common sense, answer is found in the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ, which isn't obvious even in the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text. ùÑÇòÇèÀðÅæ is also an acronym representing the first of two words: ùòèð"æ â"õ (Sha•atnei"z Gei"tz), which together form the conventional mnemonic to remember which seven letters are decorated with crownlets in the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ.
ùÑÇòÇèÀðÅæ represents the first five of these seven letters (ù, ò, è, ð, æ), and the second word of the acronym, â"ö, represents the final two of these seven letters.
The crownlets distinguish these letters in direct relationship to this pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, and the second word of the acronym unlocks the meaning, in today's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ.
â"ö is the abbreviation for âÌÅø öÆãÆ÷!
Putting this together, the prohibition is then against ùÑÇòÇèÀðÅæ â"ö
The mixture of wool and linen in ùÑÇòÇèÀðÅæ, then, is associated with the remnants of a geir's former religious culture (wool) in contrast to the precepts of Judaism (linen), respectively.
The warning of this passage may be paraphrased as: "You shall not intermix your animals, you shall not intermix your plants and you shall not allow the treachery of an 'intermixed Geir tzëdꞋëq' to come up over you." The admonition here is that the Geir Toshâv who has been studying Judaism but has not abandoned tenets of his former religion and who still mixes the two together, must not be recognized as a Geir tzëdꞋëq.
To reinforce the symbolism of this prohibition against intermarrying perpetually, we are prohibited from wearing garments mixing wool and linen.
|
|
Note: When combined with pâ•râsh•atꞋ A•khar•eiꞋ Mot, this Maph•tirꞋ and Haphtâr•âhꞋ is read.
There are many groups today who pride themselves as "Sabbath Keepers" and/or "Keepers of the Holy Name." Yet, these ignore the words of é‑‑ä:
20.19 – áÌÀçË÷ÌåÉúÇé ìÅëåÌ; åÀàÆú-îÄùÑÀôÌÈèÇé ùÑÄîÀøåÌ åÇòÂùÒåÌ àåÉúÈí:
As we can never explain too often, îÄùÑÀôÌÈè and çÉ÷, required in the pâ•suqꞋ cited here (and numerous other passages), comprise—in an uninterrupted chain—today's Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (see Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN) and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-LinkT (ABNC).
|
|
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 here reveals that the fathers in this verse are those who had strayed from úÌåÉøÈä (4ff., 8ff. and 13ff.). The call of Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ is "Don't walk in the khuq•eiꞋ of your fathers [who had strayed from úÌåÉøÈä], and don't keep their mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ, and don't contaminate yourself áÀâÄìÌåÌìÅéäÆí.
Here, úÌåÉøÈä explicitly instructs children, when faced with the dilemma of whether to follow one's parents or úÌåÉøÈä when they are mutually exclusive, as soon as they are of age, to forsake the ways of the parent(s) who have strayed from úÌåÉøÈä and make tᵊshuv•âhꞋ to úÌåÉøÈä. This is exactly the opposite of Christian perversions.
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|
The first NT was a 4th century C.E. product of gentile Hellenist Romans based on a few Hellenist fragments (papyri) and 4th century C.E. stories from Hellenist Jews. Two 4th century C.E. copies constitute the earliest extant NTs: א and β. Before that, there was nothing but a handful of scattered papyrus fragments in the entire middle east. Meanwhile, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ had vanished two centuries before the first NT appeared.
Thus, it should be remembered that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was interpreting úÌåÉøÈä. Accordingly, his teachings can only be understood within the constraints of úÌåÉøÈä—not the reverse (úÌåÉøÈä expanded from the teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa).
|
|
"•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, "From the first seed he produces '÷ fruits, from the second seed 'ñ fruits and from the third seed 'ì fruits' " (NHM 13.23).
Completely lost in the Greek-based NT—but conspicuous from the Hebrew in NHM—RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa utilized gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ associations that were well known by everyone in his first-century audience of religious Jews. These three associations found in this pâ•suqꞋ have long been lost, even to the most knowledgeable Orthodox rabbis and Sages—until I reconstructed them in NHM.
The number 100 is written in Hebrew by its gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ symbol: '÷. Those who have discovered NHM, revealing the long-lost, authentic teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, already realize that '÷ represents not only 100, but cryptically (as its first letter) stands for ÷ÉãÆùÑ. The ËvꞋën Bo•khanꞋ confirms that the fruits of '÷ (i.e., ÷ÉãÆùÑ) are good Ma•as•ëhꞋ (see, again, NHM note 13.23.1).
The number 60 is written in Hebrew by its gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ symbol: 'ñ. The most significant term associated with úÌåÉøÈä and represented by 'ñ is ñÀúåÌîÈä, which refers to a portion of úÌåÉøÈä that, cryptically, doesn't begin on a new line. "Closed" within it is some encrypted meaning that cannot be understood until it is "opened," i.e., the concealed meaning is decrypted. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, in addition to demonstrating his mastery of gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ and affinity for numerology, "closed" within this analogy not only a hidden meaning but also the keys to understand two different passages of úÌåÉøÈä (for which see NHM 13.18-23 with note 13.23.1).
The number 30 is written in Hebrew by its gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ symbol: 'ì, which stands for ìÅá.
NHM note 13.23.1 explains in more detail. But here are some hints:
2 x 'ì merging into one = 'ñ (= 60, closing a "sealed" meaning).
The basic duration for purifying one's ìÅá as a Nâ•zirꞋ was 'ì days.
One wishing to have a son would add another 'ì days, totaling 'ñ days.
The traditional period for ÷ÉãÆùÑ was '÷ days.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa demonstrated the inextricable interdependency and interrelationship of all of these concepts, which reveals the "closed" explanations of why åÈàÈùÒÅí is spelled defectively in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 24.47 as well as why ÷ÇöÀúÌÄé is spelled with a tiny '÷ in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 27.46. For the details, read NHM 13.18-23 with notes.
|
|
Great is the îÄöåÈä to kibud your father and mother. Our Rabbis have called the father and mother partners with ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, in producing the birth. As it is memorized in tractate Nidah, chapter The Sowing (31.1), The Tana•imꞋ taught, There are three partners in mankind: his father, his mother and ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu.
His father sows whiteness, from which are the bones, sinews, nails, the brain that is in the head and the white of the eyes. His mother sows redness, from which is the skin, the flesh, the blood and the darkness in the eyes. Ha-Qadosh, Bâ•rukhꞋ hu, gives him a RuꞋakh, and nᵊshâm•âhꞋ, countenance, eyesight, hearing, speech, ambulation, knowledge, understanding and intelligence'
[Note: It is clear from the above that corrections are in order to reconcile ancient scientific perspectives with modern scientific findings. However, these don't affect the point of the argument. Correcting the text to read that the father contributes semen and the mother contributes the egg and ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu empowers the rest doesn't alter the basic premise of the three-way partnership.]
(Translated so far)
|
|
|