|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
Evolution proves that lone individuals, according to nature, aren't viable. They cannot reproduce naturally.
According to evolutionary scientists, evolution produced gender out of the need for survivability. Evolutionary scientists assert that this imposition of gene-mixing optimizes the survivability of the species. Lone individual humans cannot reproduce. Thus, lone individuals, irrespective of their gender, cannot by themselves epitomize or embody the human species.
The first distinction that must be drawn is between unacceptable aloneness as a self-initiated goal versus aloneness or isolation the result of religious rejection neither imposed nor deserved by the rejected individual.
A single parent teaches, by example, complete self-dependence with no partner and no complement. The spiritual // is the atheist and, on a societal scale, the isolationist (ghettoist) Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ and Christian Quakers and other separatists – all cults trying to live alone and apart from the real world; the rational, logical, scientific universe of the Creator.
Although the single parent may intensively attempt to instill religion into his or her child, the parent's example corroborated by the child's experience and limited perspective contribute to increasing atheism and humanism. The example is not limited to the children of single parents alone. The increasing proportion of single, independent, separatist parents who view themselves as in the right (elitist) influences greater society as a whole – toward independent, separatist, elitist, isolationism.
 |
Enshrining isolationism, whether by ghettoism or cloistering, leads to Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Quakers (Kha•reid•imꞋ ) and Christian Quakers, monks and nuns each living in a pretend-utopia ghetto, cloister or convent. Living in incorrigible religious denial of reality, these types belligerently remain hopelessly out of touch with the Creator's real – rational and logical – world and the human beings He created in His Image. Such religious-elitists put their blind faith in a human leader – by definition, cultists. Most frequently, religious elitists are raving racists; and invariably, religious elitists are abusively contemptuous of anyone outside of their elite-cult, regarding them as lesser humans. Often dressing in special religious costumes, the true anchor of their faith, they would be more appropriate donning aluminum foil beanies to ward off "the evil eye," demons, aliens and the myriad mystical superstitions of their conjurations.
The perverseness of homosexual unions // agnostic humanists, presuming to be spiritually agamogenetic.
These are no more a spiritually-viable perspective than it is evolutionarily-viable. Moreover, just as a family is designed to reproduce, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught that the spiritual family unit must be "producing fruit." Those who are not producing, he taught, would be pruned away and thrown into the fire.
Evolution proves that monosexual families aren't viable. They cannot reproduce.
Scientists cite evolution as authority for what is, and isn't, viable. Life that is viable can reproduce. Life that isn't viable cannot. All other sexual manifestations are non-viable, therefore perverse, abuses of sex. Humans are not hermaphrodites like some lower life forms. To argue that homosexualism exists, therefore it must be ok is the same as arguing that, since pedophilia, cocaine use, rape, murder and the like exist, therefore they each must be ok.
For two adult males or two adult females to attempt to raise an adopted offspring is necessarily less evolutionarily viable than two adult single brothers or two adult single sisters raising an orphaned niece or nephew.
Scientists have shown conclusively that males and females have different perspectives. Males and females process information differently and excel in different areas. Even their brains are different. Raising a child in a monosexual environment robs the child of the benefits of one of these perspectives.
Lone humans are no more a spiritually-viable perspective than they are evolutionarily-viable.
Marshalling and coordinating the power (skills, force) of people is similar in some ways to marshaling and coordinating magnetic forces. Like a magnet, every individual has attributes that are attractive to others as well as attributes that are more oriented toward commanding respect (or fear; i.e., a repellent force). Similarly, coordinating these forces among people, particularly complementary people, has natural similarities with coordinating the forces of a grouping of magnets. In the following sections I will attempt to show how magnetism // individual force and how, like the complementary polar forces of a magnet, forces of complementary individuals can be coupled to accomplish more than possible by any lone individual.
Complementary roles, essential in both vertical (Divine / human) and horizontal (man / woman) relationships, are like the poles of a magnet – no magnet is a magnet without both complementary poles. Physicists can confuse one of the poles so that it is ineffective, but then it is posited to be a hypothetical monopole; it is no longer a magnet (and it's disputed whether it even qualifies as a true monopole).
| a | b | c |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
Computer scientists use a "truth table" to illustrate the basics of logic in determining the answers to questions such as "if a and b, then c," which cases of a and b imply c. This "and" truth table (0=false, 1=true) illustrates all (4) possibilities. (Tip: second possibility reads: "If a is false and b is true, then c is false." Note: this corresponds to binary multiplication.)
For example, we could let a = "the Divine Complement is é--ä," b = "the human complement as stipulated in úÌåÉøÈä is [your name]" and c = "there is a úÌåÉøÈä-validated meld." Substitute all of the permutations to see how the "and" truth table works. This logic is mathematically precise because it maps to binary mathematical multiplication.
| a | b | c |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
When we liken Divine-human or man-woman complements to the poles of a magnet we consider a magnetic polar table – which corresponds to an "xor" (exclusive or) truth table. (Note: this corresponds to binary addition.) Another difference from the "and" truth table is that there is no non-divine pole to é--ä, ruling out a vertical application. A priori, the horizontal application relates to the male-female complements.
One might argue that some people // a monopole, invalidating the magnet as an illustration. However, monopoles are hypothetical and, arguably, don't exist in the real world. Physicists have managed to confuse one pole of a magnet, rendering one pole ineffective. However, it's not at all clear that this is a monopole. Even if a person // a monopole, like poles still repel each other, it's unlike poles that attract each other and the person who may be like a monopole would have one half of its (?) personality "confused." Thus, one may conclude that if there are "monopole" people, they wouldn't be viable.
In the magnetic polar table, we can let "S" = female and "N" = male (or the reverse, whichever floats your boat).
Homosexuals' arguments for "unions" advance a perversity of two hypothetical monopoles of the same polarity abutting their "confused" ends! I can't help wondering if estrogens in the water is by incompetence or insidious design.
We often hear that our complement opposite-sex mate "completes" us. This, I assert, is more valid and vivid and than you might expect. úÌåÉøÈä is replete with examples of both Masculine and Feminine Traits and Attributes of é--ä. As individuals, it seems plausible to posit that men may be more greatly attracted primarily to the Feminine-associated Attributes of é--ä but relate better to, and be more respectful of (somewhat repelled by), the more Masculine-associated Attributes, while women may experience more or less the reverse. Neither men nor women have the complete set of traits and attributes, nor do either experience attraction to the complete set of é--ä's Attributes (or there wouldn't have been the need to include both). Thus, there is only one way to experience complete and balanced appreciation of é--ä – as a man-woman meld (i.e., marriage) sharing with each other.
 1280x782.jpg "2010 BMW hybrid car motor") | 2010 BMW hybrid car motor (radially-oriented, alternating electromagnets). Click image to enlarge. |
Husband (N pole) and wife (S) functioning as a team, contributing their respective strengths (force) to the operation of the family unit, present an alternating force, and face, of the family – // an electromagnet! Properly coordinated teamwork // the alternating current that transforms electromagnets into an electric motor – far outstripping the capability of the simple magnet.
 164x164.jpg "PMQ radial field for centering (pbpl.physics.ucla.edu)")
 486x449.jpg "Halbach PMQ (physics.technion.ac.il) alt=")
There is still a further //. Scientists in PBPLs use a radial PMQ magnet to focus their beams. We can understand a radial multipole magnet as // polygyny; the husband projecting himself radially in several directions, each of which must be complemented by melding with a woman. Again, by more effectively alternating the face of the family, proper coordination, though geometrically more difficult to achieve, produces a far more sophisticated and powerful electric motor – as well as the centering and focus of the PMQ.
 |
| Electromagnetic multipole fields – Unlike electromagnetic fields, configuring an attractive external force (or set of forces) would, when switched on, create a gravity-like anti-force (or set of anti-forces) within. Perhaps, we are the anti-matter and anti-energy? |
All of these postulated //, scientists should note, are experimentally testable and quantifiable to ascertain their degree of social-magnetic correspondence in combining complementary forces to increase accomplishment in each case.
With this in mind, one may more vividly appreciate the emphasis of úÌåÉøÈä on Qᵊdush•âhꞋ in marriage and raising QoꞋ dësh seed.
 |
 Multipole Fields – Applying an attractive force to external circle would create a pulling-apart, introducing reactive forces in the central region that did not exist until the external attractive force was introduced. |
Many are then forced to ask what this implies about religiously intermixed marriages. Do these // a theological monopole attempting to abut the Divine? Does such a male-female meld suffer from inability to properly relate and spiritually meld to half of the Traits and Attributes of é--ä? It seems that such a meld is at a serious disadvantage due to the lack of contribution of one partner. The pivotal question is whether the meld holds (as one magnet) in the eternal, incorporeal realm. Time, and perhaps additional research, will tell. Certainly, remedying the confused end of the monopole would profit the couple as a melded unit.
Male-male or female-female partnerships // (and, therefore, teach) a humanist demigod-to-demigod partnership displacing a mutually-complementary, but unequal and non-equivalent, Divine-human relationship. The equivalent roles of a monosexual cluster (in contrast to complementary roles in an evolutionarily-viable family unit) limits perceptions to, similarly, imagining equivalence in spiritual experience and perceptions. Cluster members can only think in equally perverted equivalent spiritual counterparts: e.g., humans are divine, humanism rules, religion is superstition, etc. Biblical principles become necessarily contradictable, selectably avoidable and selectivity unavoidable. The whole idea of inherently complementary roles, intrinsic to any spiritual relationship with the Creator, is entirely absent from their perspective.
Both male and female perspectives—including husband/father-wife/mother—are essential to fully relate to various facets of
Monosexual human partnerships are no more a spiritually-viable perspective than they are evolutionarily-viable.
Adultery is betrayal of love (which includes trust).
The Bible frequently alludes to the parallel of adultery to describe the worship of anything other than the Ël•oh•imꞋ of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì – which is a•vod•
Divorce is interesting in that humans sometimes cannot make their relationship work; but, for the Creator, that eventuality isn't viable. Only the human can spoil and terminate the relationship.
Christians make a fatal mistake in being misled to put their faith in a post-135 CE Hellenist promise that contradicts úÌåÉøÈä. "Once saved" is not "always saved." That non-existent promise, contradicting úÌåÉøÈä, is found nowhere in úÌåÉøÈä. The promise is that those who are doing (an ongoing and continuing action) their utmost to practice úÌåÉøÈä receive ki•purꞋ . For those who choose not to practice úÌåÉøÈä, however, é--ä never overrides their free choice; yet He will hold them accountable for their choice. Refusal by goy•imꞋ to practice úÌåÉøÈä precludes being party to the áÌÀøÄéúÄ in the first place. Moreover, neglect or abandonment of practicing úÌåÉøÈä by Jews, ìÀäÇôÀøÀëÆí
àÆú-áÌÀøÄéúÄé: (wa-
The spiritual implication is that those who divorce either weren't in a proper spiritual relationship when they married or weren't in a proper spiritual relationship when they divorced. (Those who marry someone not in a proper spiritual relationship are, by definition, themselves not in a proper spiritual relationship.)
polygyny is Biblically approved and has been practiced among Teimân•imꞋ until monogamy was imposed by Ash•kᵊnazꞋim rabbis in recent decades. Monogamy among Christians and, as a result of Christian imposition (!), Jews of European descent derives from Roman Hellenist (i.e., Christian) imposition.
Blaming polygyny for child abuse, spouse abuse, rape, abandonment, pedophilia and the like is no different than blaming the principle of corporations or CEOs for sexual harassment at work; or the principle of kingship for genocides, rapes, pillaging, etc. The problems derive from abuse of power, not corporate CEOs, kingship or polygyny. Husbands are no less obligated to care for their wife, or each and every wife, than a king is obligated to care for his people. (Unfortunately, that isn't appreciated either these days.)
The polygynous family unit gave birth to more than one offshoot; as Av•râ•hâmꞋ, Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ and Ya•a•qovꞋ did.
perhaps significantly, the progeny suggests that the polygynous families were more effective and successful than the bigynous (two-wived) families.
As pointed out earlier, the progeny of the evolutionary-viable family unit has the advantage of learning the essential perspectives within his or her family unit. Thus, the example of the patriarchs and their progeny suggests that the polygynous family is more effective and successful in setting the example, providing the perspectives and training up successful progeny; for example in instilling the value of membership, cooperation, self-value, relating to others and contribution as an element of a team effort. This advantage in one's raising and nurturing within the family is the essence of the áÌÀøÄéú of úÌåÉøÈä.
 |
 12 Tribes emblems (fineartamerica.com) |
The spiritual parallel is that the Husband-Father Element, 
).
However, we find that modern, "advanced" (monogamous) peoples have become distant from ancient values to the point that they rule out polygyny and don't understand its implications. It is the goy•imꞋ who, originally (imposed by the Hellenist Romans and Church), "opted out" of that family possibility!
This suggests that the patriarchs understood something about relating to
Geir•imꞋ of any ethnicity (mother culture) can qualify, if they choose to make the necessary changes, to join the úÌåÉøÈä family.
"Don't boil a kid (i.e., geir) in its mother's milk (ethnic background)!"
Examining yet another parallel is appropriate in this regard. As well as being portrayed as a bride and wife of
When this am is riddled with schisms and internecine hate-mongering and fighting, what is the parallel to a family? Answer: either being in a polygynous marriage to implacable enemy wives (witness Sarah and Hagar) or a monogamous marriage to a woman with multiple personality disorder! When the conflict is intractable, only one wife, and only her progeny, can remain in the family (i.e., in the áÌÀøÄéú).
Since the time of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (ca. 20 C.E.), this sole, theologically monogynous, wife of
A family's firstborn son is generally considered the family's primary legacy—good or bad; unless disinherited.
In antiquity, in desperation when all else failed, to demonstrate their unreserved commitment to their god, Pharaohs and kings appealed to them by sacrificing their firstborn son—their primary legacy—to their idol.
While any person can overcome their disadvantages, the progeny of perverted unions described earlier are born and raised in a perverted environment with perverted perspectives; a huge hole for any child or young adult to dig their way out.
The progeny of the evolutionary-viable family unit, by contrast, has the advantage of learning the essential perspectives within his or her family unit; a decided advantage over children in perverted units.
We find, in 3.12, that
Ignorant fundamentalists, especially ignorant Christians and Muslims, assume that evolution contradicts the Bible. It's true that many non-scientists who know almost nothing about evolution claim that evolution contradicts the Bible. However, the truth is that there isn't one evolutionary scientist willing to make the claim that the theory of evolution can explain the origin of life—much less the origin of all matter, energy and the universe. It's way overdue for intelligent, rational and scientific-minded followers of úÌåÉøÈä to realize that part of evolution that has been demonstrated shows us a little bit about how
Simultaneously, evolutionary science corroborates some of the moral principles of úÌåÉøÈä while contradicting or threatening nothing in úÌåÉøÈä.
Whether one looks at the downward-spiraling moral vortex—black hole—of contemporary America or the last days of the Roman Empire, degeneracy in morality and family signaled the resulting degeneracy and breakdown of society, culture and governance.
What has survived from ancient times? America is only 200 years old, a current blink in time. Of the ancient peoples and cultures and civilizations we may look at Iraq, Syria, Iran, India, China, etc. True, the peoples and lands survived, but what about their belief systems. Most can be seen to have changed dramatically over time as they were found to be wanting and… wait for it… evolved. What is, perhaps (?), the only ancient belief system to continue uninterrupted and unchanged in its fundamentals from ancient times? Does evolution itself prove úÌåÉøÈä?
 |
 |
åÀäÇæÌÈø äÇ÷ÌÈøÅá éåÌîÈú (see also bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 1.51; 3.10, 38)
"pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu, I'm a Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and I'd be interested in joining if you would change your position concerning…"
"pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu, I'm a geir and I'd be interested in joining if you would change your position concerning…"
"pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu, I keep the Seven Noakhide Laws and that's all that gentiles have to do."
 |
 |
Such a self-proclaimed "Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ" or "âÌÅøÄ" is a æÈø not a âÌÅøÄ; a Christian fraud and a charlatan. Unless one has petitioned our Beit Din, committing to keeping úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively according to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, and been accepted and recognized by our Beit Din, he or she is not a Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ!
Self-proclaiming oneself to be a Christian is acceptable and expected in Christian circles because Christianity is a form of Displacement Theology. But self-proclamation doesn't carry over to Judaism. Just as becoming a representative of Microsoft requires Microsoft's acceptance into a contract with Microsoft, entering the áÌÀøÄéú of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì requires the acceptance of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì—via a Jesus, by whatever name, is Displacement Theology or, as I also like to call it, Pretend Theology ("Pretend Jews" in a "Pretend Israel").
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who has represented himself or herself to be a Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ andor a geir. Both the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and the geir (whether sponsored by a Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit-Din or by another Orthodox Beit-Din) are designations defined by Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ – Orthodox rabbis or a
Moreover, the method for determining the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ position in every matter was set by the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, headed first by Pâ•
Then there is the æÈø who claims to keep the Seven Noakhide Laws, knowing neither that the earliest documented treatise on the Seven Noakhide Laws was laid down by the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ ("Noachide Laws," Encyclopedia Judaica 12.1190) nor that the Seven Noakhide Laws were interpreted by a Beit-Din—which meant that the Noakhide Law requiring promulgation of courts of law implies subjugating oneself to a
In this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, úÌåÉøÈä declares explicitly, repeatedly and unequivocally, that the æÈø who approaches shall die. There are úÌåÉøÈä solutions, which I will explain to you shortly; but the true solution isn't predicated on the premise that
If you haven't been recognized by a
úÌåÉøÈä provides for a Beit-Din to recognize a worthy candidate who is a æÈø or æÈøÈä and either educate and transform him or her into a Jew(ess) or, if he or she cannot qualify (usually due to a marital situation), upgrade him or her to a âÌÅø or âÌÅøÈä, respectively. ) that the geir is included within the community—and áÌÀøÄéú—of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì. By contrast, úÌåÉøÈä defines the æÈø within òÂáåÉãÈä æÈøÈä, not, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, úÌåÉøÈä. (Further details are found in our Kha•vᵊr•
|
|
1.18: Then all of äÈòÅãÈä äÄ÷ÀäÄéìåÌ, on the first of Secondmonth, åÇéÌÄúÀéÇìÀãåÌ (i.e., registered their éÀìÈãÄéí in the Yo•khas•
Secondmonth, on the Judaic calendar, became known after the Babylonian captivity by its Babylonian (assimilated) name—Iyar. The first day of a month is more often called øÉàùÑ çÉãÆùÑ. This year, øÉàùÑ çÉãÆùÑ Secondmonth falls on the secular calendar the day after this Shab•âtꞋ, 2000.06.04.
Either you're in the X-generation (ages 22-34), the Y-generation (ages 21-22), or probably closely related to someone who is. Certainly the world you wake up to each morning, and decisions you make daily, are heavily impacted by the influences of the X & Y generations.
According to Jane Rinzler Buckingham, owner of Youth Intelligence and publisher of the Cassandra Report (annual corporate subscription $20,000) and Student Monitor ($20,000/copy—and you thought The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) was expensive? No, I didn't obtain a copy of the Cassandra Report), the X+Y generations total about 85 million, with the Y generation market alone estimated at around $300 billion/yr.—which explains her ability to command the hefty pricetags for her unique information (hâ-ÂꞋrëtz newspaper magazine, 2k.05.26, p. 20ff). (If a trend report is worth $20,000, isn't NHM, the exclusive extant source containing the authentic teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, a treasure worth more than that?)
With these kinds of numbers, no matter what religious geezer-tutions (geezer institutions) are doing, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ must always remain relevant—not necessarily trendy when a trend is air-headed, as trends often are, but relevant—to the great markets like the X & Y generations. It's no less critical for the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ to remain relevant to these large numbers of people than it is for IBM, General Motors or Marks & Spencer who are willing to pay $20,000 a pop for insights into these markets. Too many synagogues in the U.S., for example, are "graying out," congregations turning increasingly gray and devoid of youth, turning out their lights and locking their doors for the last time like the last episode of a TV series which has been canceled. They haven't future-proofed their perspective, their interpretations or their message relative to a dynamic world. The outgoings by death is a constant. With youth incomings disappearing—which is dependent upon relevancy to the X and Y generations, outgoings eventually reduce these congregations to below critical mass, and they can no longer survive.
Therefore, while one might, from personal taste or at first glance, ordinarily dismiss such fashions and trends, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ take them S-E-R-I-O-U-S-L-Y. Moreover, better than reading about 'in,' is being at the cutting edge of 'in.'
In intellectuality, research and the philosophical arena, no one else is even in sight. Some of the vernacular you read here is original. Can you discern which is which? When you have to explain a term to an X-gen or Y-gen, smile patiently. Most of these 'in' terms were culled from trendy usage uncovered by JR (Buckingham).
X/Y-genners are anxious learners, hungry to discover what they don't already know about being 'in,' and you'll have established that, in some ways at least, you're more 'in' than they are. So don't be (or remain) an intellectual geezer. Granted, physically younger is widely regarded as more attractive. But the biggest reason young is 'in' is because they're thinking hasn't yet ground to a halt and become set in concrete! 'In' is more about thinking than about one's inexorably fleeting cosmetic appearance.
So what is 'hot' to X-gens & Y-gens, at least according to the highly paid JR?
 |
| Youth Technology Interface |
It's no surprise to find that technodgets (techno-gadgets) head the list: computers, the Web, Talkabouts (or cell phones) and palm organizers. Today's trendy food is Indian. Funny, I obtained my authentic Indian curry recipes from an authentic Indian who lived in the penthouse next to mine in Toronto back in the early 70s. Been there. Moved on. Since then, I've added Teimani-Jewish cuisine (while still enjoying Indian curry). I've been eating authentic curry, not the store-bought and restaurant stuff (no such spice as "curry powder"), for 3 decades. So the X/Y-gens are, in reality, overconfident, s-l-o-o-o-w in getting in on what's 'in.'
"Hip-hop music is dearly beloved of the trendsetters. But tomorrow rock'n'roll is coming back big." That's about as earth-shaking as predicting that Impressionist paintings will become popular again. Shades of Monet! For these obvious nuggets, corporations shell out the big bucks. "What the trendsetters like to do for a good time is to wander around the city." (That's what lost people, the homeless, and those with no place to go do. Analyzing who she interviews for these trends, the odd balls who are different, whom she regards as 'trend setters,' that's not so far-fetched. $20,000 for this advice?!?) "But the next thing is going to be dinners at home-sweet-home' Along with cruising the Web, they will avoid shopping malls and will prefer shops that sell locally made items." Uh-huh.
"In the streets of New York, you can hardly miss those bags that are carried diagonally across the bodies of (mostly) pubescent girls. But if you want to stay in (and are of the right age and pubescence), start thinking about getting a body belt of the kind that used to to be in fashion and that many Israelis get for trips abroad." Big news. Fashion and trends eventually manage to track what's intelligent and sensible—usually by an agonizingly circuitous path—as 'in.' The biggest difference in trends today is that X-gens and Y-gens are more technically proficient, educated, globally-connected, as well as not yet set in concrete. Hence, they're quicker than those with ideas set in concrete to figure new things out.
"Goods that are not mass-produced and ethnic pride are the coming things' Small shops instead of monster stores. In fact, Buckingham says, personal and intimate is making a comeback. 'At a time like this, friends and family become important again.' People want to do things at home instead of going out. 'An ideal weekend is an intimate gathering with friends around the table, not a raucous club.'" New trend this isn't! "What we are seeing in high-tech will spread to other fields and in a big way."
 |
| Buckingham seems to have missed something |
But here's what most relates to this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ: "The major phenomenon forecast by the latest Cassandra Report is' a 'sexplosion.' After years in which the X generation was anxious and reserved about sex because of the AIDS epidemic, 'sex is coming back. And that's only the beginning,' Buckingham predicts. In the meantime, the Y generation are trying to understand who they are and what they are through their sexuality.' They are into TV shows like 'Sex and the City,' they talk a lot about sex, 'sometimes more than they actually do it. And they are more optimistic. They believe a cure for AIDS will be found and that you can avoid getting it by using protection.' The economic implications of this vision are familiar enough: Sex sells. And now it's going to sell even better." This, I suspect, will have an adverse effect on the endurance of eventual relationships – by whatever name (marriage, unions, partnerships, etc.). So emphasizing the potential for a meaningful and enduring future relationship – and contrasting it starkly with the alternative of growing old and dying alone – is one way to counter, in a positive way, this disturbing, not very new trend (I remember so many parents being distraught about it in the 60s).
What primarily propelled Rav ShmulꞋi Bo•teiꞋakh ("Boteach") to celebrity status was his book about the relevancy of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ to sex—'Kosher Sex.' Sex does sell. Even in religious circles. Contrary to Victorian perspectives, Ta•na"khꞋ has always been one of the sexiest books ever published. Not prurient lewd. Romantic and genuine love sexy. I still remember with fondness, as a high school teen in Orlando, my first sweetheart communicated love-notes to me by citing passages from Shir ha-Shir•imꞋ. Anyone who's ever read Shir ha-Shir•imꞋ, and has any flicker of romance within them, can hardly miss the sexy romanticism which permeates the book. Usually, only when one gets older does (s)he begin to appreciate the symbolic parallels to the relationship between
 |
| Free-Will Choice |
Modern translations of the Ta•na"khꞋ, particularly Christian "OT," besides Christianizing the text in their translations, perpetuate Victorian attitudes toward sex which were unknown, and would have been considered bizarre and alien, in Judaism of the 1st century and previously. The ancient Biblical characters were real people, with the same needs, desires, feelings, pains, doubts and appetites as you and me; human beings no different, except for their devotion to the Creator, than you or me – and neither you nor I have to be any different from them! Whether you are different from them is your free-will choice – for which you will be held responsible and accountable.
Ya•a•qovꞋ described Râkh•eilꞋ not as ÷ÀãåÉùÑÈä, nor ðÈàåÈä, nor even éÈôÈä. Rather, Ya•a•qovꞋ described her saying (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 29.17) "Lei•âhꞋ has soft eyes, but Râkh•eilꞋ had a éÀôÇú-úÌÉàÇø – she had a great body; she was hot – åÄéôÇú îÇøÀàÆä! Ya•a•qovꞋ saw Râkh•eilꞋ as 'Whoa girl' sexy! As a modern éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì might say: "!éÅùÑ"
But while 'Sex and the City' and other—more subtle and insidious—TV sitcoms of the superficial trend chasers desensitize their viewers to homosexuality, casual sex, conspicuous hedonism, and sex that is empty of its romance, intimacy and especially its ÷ÉãÆùÑ, Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ injects deeper meaning and purpose into sex, elevating sex to a vehicle of ÷ÉãÆùÑ and ÷ÈãåÉùÑ through which we can sanctify ourselves, our spouses, and our resulting children produced from a sanctified union, as yet another form of service to
 |
| Kᵊtub• |
From Biblical times, Judaism has provided a legal framework for love, in a statement of law called the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä. This term derives from the verb ëÌÈúÇá. In analyzing the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä one can begin to recognize Ta•na"khꞋ as the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä that accompanies the áÌÀøÄéú of marriage given by
"The ëÌÀúËáÌÈä is a unilateral agreement drawn by witnesses in accordance with Jewish civil law, in which they testify that the husband guarantees to his wife that he will meet certain minimum human and financial conditions of marriage, 'as Jewish husbands are wont to do' "—Maurice Lamm, "The Jewish Way in Love & Marriage" (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980, p. 197). "It is not a ceremonial document of scripture or prayer. That is why it is written in Aramaic, the technical legal language of talmudic law, rather than in Hebrew, the language of [Shir ha-Shir•imꞋ]. Neither is it a state document establishing the new relationship of man and woman. It makes no mention of the confirmation of [Ël•oh•imꞋ] or of society. It is not an instrument of the privileged class, as in ancient societies, but one obligatory on every person. It is also not an affirmation of perpetual love. It is a statement of law that provides the framework of love" (ibid.). As a framework within which to better understand love, young lovers would do well do study the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä before making impulsive decisions that will impact upon them, and their potential children, forever.
Similarly, the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä provides the framework of love, paralleling úÌåÉøÈä itself, between éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì and
The ëÌÀúËáÌÈä restates the fundamental conditions that are imposed by the úÌåÉøÈä upon the husband, such as providing his wife with food, clothing, and conjugal rights, which are inseparable from marriage. It includes the husband's guarantees to pay a certain sum in the event of divorce, and inheritance rights obligatory upon his heirs in case he dies before his wife" (ibid.). While the last clause isn't applicable to
Significantly, "It is not a mutual agreement; the wife agrees only to accept the husband's proposal of marriage. It is assuredly not a bill of sale; the man does not purchase the bride. In fact, the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä represents the witnesses rather than husband or wife. Through this instrument they attest to the groom's actions, promises, and statements, and to the bride's willing acceptance of the marriage proposal.
"It is a charter of woman's rights in marriage and of man's duties. The ëÌÀúËáÌÈä is designed for woman's protection, and every legal nuance in this matter was developed so that her husband shall not regard it as easy to divorce her. In a male-oriented society, the woman always needed more defense against the violation of personal rights than the man" (ibid.). How much more so between mortals and
The one thing which a ëÌÇìÌÈä does bring, and is then recorded in the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä, is her ðÀãåÌðÀéÈà. "The ðÀãåÌðÀéÈà is included in the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä, and is the property of the ëÌÇìÌÈä, technically 'leased' to the groom for the duration of the marriage" (ibid.).
In our relationship with
With respect to determining the amount of the ëÌÀúËáÌÈä, as well as resolving disputes of adultery and paternity, "From the beginning of Jewish history, the ascertainment of an Yisra•eili's yikhus, i.e., genealogy or pedigree, was considered of utmost importance, as is evidenced in Scripture (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 1.2, 18 and
|
|
3.12 – åÇàÂðÄé äÄðÌÅä ìÈ÷ÇçÀúÌÄé àÆú-äÇìÀåÄéÌÄí, îÄúÌåÉêÀ áÌÀðÅé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì úÌÇçÇú ëÉÈì-áÌÀëåÉø;
It's widely acknowledged that the earthly rituals of úÌåÉøÈä were paradigms,
The Mâ•shiꞋakh is described as the áÌÀëåÉø, representative of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, in Tᵊhil•imꞋ 89.28-29 and Zᵊkhar•
The paradigm of the replacement of the áÌÀëåÉø of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì by the ìÀåÄéÌÄí, then, has messianic implications.
 |
 Ancient Cosmology |
Among pre-Sin•aiꞋ pagans (e.g., the Egyptians, Canaanites, Syrians, etc.), "Owing to his favored status, the first-born was considered the most desirable qor•bânꞋ to a deity where human qor•bânꞋ was practiced. In a prophectic passage [also with messianic implications, ybd], the qor•bânꞋ of the first-born is singled out as that offering which might be supposed the most efficacious for expiation ([
"In the [bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ] narrative one sees how primogeniture was disregarded in the clan of [Av•râ•
"[é--ä] acquired title to the [áÌÀëåÉø of] éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, human and animal, by having spared them when He struck the [áÌÀëåÉø] of the Egyptians ([bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ] 3.13). Biblical legislation gave the [áÌÀëåÉø] a special status with respect to inheritance rights and certain cultic regulations. The latter, a part of a complex of cultic requirements, also applied to the first issue of the herds and the flocks'" (ibid. 1306).
"The priestly tradition goes on to explain that the [ìÀåÄéÌÄí], as a group, were devoted to cultic service in substitution for all the [áÌÀëåÉøÄéí] of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 3.12—this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ). This would seem to be the historicization of a situation that in fact obtained independently of the particular events surrounding the [Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ]. The laws governing the redemption of the [áÌÀëåÉø] (Shᵊm•otꞋ 13.15; 34.19; Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 15.19) presumably derived from a cultic matrix. At one time first-born sons were actually devoted to cultic service as temple slaves, Nazirites, and the like; subsequently other arrangements were made for supplying cultic personnel while the erstwhile ÷ÉãÆùÑ of the [áÌÀëåÉø] was lifted through redemption (cf. [wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ] 27.1-8). This underlies the priestly traditions of the history of the [ìÀåÄéÌÄí] and their selection for cultic service." (loc. cit.). It also illuminates the religious obligations and importance attached to the [áÌÀëåÉø] by the patriarchs and other personalities in Ta•na"khꞋ.
The ransom (pop. "redemption") of the [áÌÀëåÉø] is called pid•yonꞋ ha-BeinꞋ.
This religious obligation of the [áÌÀëåÉø] also illuminates the decision of Ei•sauꞋ. "Since the exercise of the birthright involves a corresponding greater liability for the debts of the estate, the [áÌÀëåÉø] may escape such additional liability by way of renouncing his prerogative before the division of the estate ([ 26.39.
"In [bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ], [Ya•a•
We find, therefore, that, just as the ìÀåÄéÌÄí were appointed to stand in place of the physical áÌÀëåÉø of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, there must be some parallel group in the heavenly realm to stand in place of the heavenly áÌÀëåÉø of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì—the Mâ•shiꞋakh. Such group, of course, could only qualify if they were recognized as practicing
 250x238.jpg "Omer (barley or wheat)") |
| òÉîÆø |
"The Hebrew term [áÌÀëåÉøÄéí] and related terms for the 'first-fruits' derive from the same root as [áÌÀëåÉø]' On the same general principle that the [áÌÀëåÉø] of a man and beast belonged to [the Ël•oh•imꞋ] of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì and were to be devoted to Him, the [áÌÀëåÉøÄéí], including the first grains to ripen each season, were to be brought as an offering to [Ël•oh•imꞋ]' The offerings of [áÌÀëåÉøÄéí] were both an individual obligation and a part of public festival celebrations, particularly the celebration of Shâv•u•otꞋ, also called [Khag ha-áÌÀëåÉøÄéí], 'the [khaj of] first-fruits' ([Shᵊm•otꞋ] 23.16; 34.22; [wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ] 23.16-17; [bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ] 28.26).
"An [òÉîÆø] of new barley harvest was offered on the second day of the [Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ] ([wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ] 23.10-11, 15-16), the festival of Shâv•u•otꞋ was the first date for this offering" ("Firstfruits," Ency. Jud. 6.1312-13). We are, of course, now in the course of daily counting the òÉîÆø as Shâv•u•otꞋ approaches.
|
|
This ôøùä begins
åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø,
3.11-12, The First-born of
To further confirm this, 3.13b stipulates of "ëÈì-áÌÀëåÉø áÌÀéÄùÒÀøÈàÅì" that, ìÄé éÄäÀéåÌ – Mine shall they be!
In the example of Ya•a•
This, of course, refers to the Mâ•shiꞋakh—and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is the only possible person having a still-extant éåÉçÂñÄéï by úÌåÉøÈä criteria, establishing from verifiably ancient éåÉçÂñÄéï, an authentic Davidic lineage.
Just as
Concerning this first-born, the Mâ•shiꞋakh RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, we read in Zᵊkhar•
|
|
Notice how the tribes are laid out in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 2.1-31:
No matter from which direction an enemy might attack the camp, they faced one tribe head-on and on each flank at least one tribe, if not two.
Mathematician Jay Kappraff wrote Connections (McGraw-Hill, 1991) based on his research of numerology. He notes that the Mâ•geinꞋ Dâ•vidꞋ comprises two interlocking tetraktyses (10-pin formations). The tetraktys "represented the cosmos and macrocosmos" (ibid., p. 4). It is also easy to see from the lay-out of the tribes (graphic above) that there were 12 tribes surrounding the 13th tribe that included the ìÀåÄéÌÄí, Kohan•imꞋ and the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ.
I wonder if this configuration should more accurately be called the Magein MoshꞋëh!
In the general context of the Haphtâr•âhꞋ, for our analysis of R. Singer's citation of Ho•sheiꞋa ha-Nâ•viꞋ 3.4-5 (Outreach Judaism, p. 12), see my pâ•râsh•atꞋ Mishpat•imꞋ (96.02).
(See also Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Ab•u•havꞋ, ch. øô"ã, part 3 in Pâ•râsh•
The name ëÌÈðÀéÈäåÌ (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 22.24, 28; 37.1) — also spelled éÀëÈðÀéÈä (Yi•rᵊmᵊ
The most serious question that "anti-missionaries," such as R. Singer, raise relates to Yi•rᵊmᵊ
This is the significance of the traditional Christian basis for insisting that Jesus was born of a virgin—that, therefore (Christians claim), this patrilineal curse couldn't affect him! This is one explanation. Considering
On the other hand, it is not the only explanation, and while there is abundant evidence of the tradition of virgin birth in pagan mythology, no one has yet uncovered any such tradition in Judaism. Worse, as the concept is generally interpreted, it contradicts the immutable physical laws of the Immutable Perfect Creator of the universe.
|
| 12 Tribes emblems (fineartamerica.com) |
In this connection, R. Singer correctly points out (Singer's p. 46) that patrilineal descent determines tribal identification, based on bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 1.18 ("by their fathers' houses"). By this, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is shown to be of the tribe of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ and of the lineage of 1). R. Singer reminds us (ibid.) that the Davidic Covenant Passes exclusively through ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-mëꞋlëkh based on Shᵊmu•
However, R. Singer doesn't acknowledge in this context what he hails under his different section on "Oral Law" (Singer's p. 68): that "Jewish identity passes exclusively through the mother" based on ËꞋzᵊr•â 10.2-3 (non-Jewish wives cast out with their offspring). This paradigm demonstrates that an exclusinary curse would be passed down matrilinearly—but RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's matrilineage doesn't include ëÌÈðÀéÈäåÌ!!! This is why both lineages had to be given. The curse could not have passed down to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa!!!
Further, according to
Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 37b: "•marꞋ R. Yokhânân, The gâl•utꞋ makes ki•purꞋ for everything, for it is written [Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 22.30], 'Thus •marꞋ
This is confirmed in úÌåÉøÈä. éÀëÈðÀéÈä not only had a son, his great-grandson, ùÑÀàÇìÀúÌÄéàÅì áÌÆï-æÀøËáÌÈáÆì —ËꞋzᵊr•â 2.2; 3.8; 5.2) became the ôÌÆçÈä of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ (Khaj•aiꞋ 1.1, 12, 14; 2.2, 4, 21-23; Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 4.6-10)—whom
The exile of Tzi•dᵊq•i•yâhꞋ while ëÌÈðÀéÈäåÌ was still alive was a merciful act, since ëÌÈðÀéÈäåÌ could thus teach Tzi•dᵊq•i•yâhꞋ úÌåÉøÈä (Ma•sëkꞋët Git•inꞋ 88a; "Jehoiachin," Ency. Jud. 9.1318-19).
Moreover if this, the only surviving scientifically, archaeologically and Biblically (Nᵊkhëm•
|
|
Each book of úÌåÉøÈä is called by its first pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, and each pâ•râsh•âhꞋ is called by one of the most important of its first few key words.
This week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ describes the arrangement of the tribes in the camp. There were three tribes on the east of the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ, three on the south, three on the west and three on the north. A bit of experimenting on paper will show that the most intelligent configuration for warding off attacks, quick reinforcement of nearby tribes under attack, and rallying quickly from all parts of the camp to reinforce any point of attack strongly implies the Mâ•geinꞋ Dâ•vidꞋ (Shield of David, pop. Star of David).
As explained in Connections (Jay Kapraff, p. 4 ), the Mâ•geinꞋ Dâ•vidꞋ is formed from two inverted, interlocking, tetraktys. A tetraktys is a triangular arrangement of ten points, most easily explained as the arrangement of ten bowling pens. The Hebrew gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ for 10 is é. The doubling of 10 (using two, overlapped, tetraktys) likely implied emphasis, as does the doublet in Hebrew.
According to Kapraff, the twelve points of the Mâ•geinꞋ Dâ•vidꞋ, representing "the signs of the zodiac, surround a thirteenth, representing the 'source of all being."' Of course, the more obvious symbolism is the twelve tribes surrounding the Tribe of .)
For saving the first-born of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì on the first pësꞋakh in Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim, all of the first-born of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì belonged to
|
|
3.41— And you shall take the ìÀåÄéÌÄí for Me, I am
During a Dᵊvar-úÌåÉøÈä with my daughter, Yâ•eilꞋ, I asked her if she knew what ùîéðé (see pâ•râsh•atꞋ ShᵊminꞋi 1994.04) was about. She mentioned that
The ìÀåÄéÌÄí, which included A•har•onꞋ and the Kohan•imꞋ, were cut off, in a sense, from the main body of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì as a qor•bânꞋ (the act, not the foreskin per se) to
Further, the áÌÀøÄéú Mil•âhꞋ serves as a continuing substitution instead of sacrificing the firstborn.
The Messianic parallels, which include L"g la-OꞋmër, are discussed in the L"g la-OꞋmër link in our Calendar and in NHM 28.1.2.
|
|
1.1 — "And
Notice that the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ use the same notation for month names as úÌåÉøÈä. This provides not only faithfulness to the early practice but also continuity for the reader to better relate to úÌåÉøÈä via the Judaic calendar (obtainable in the Jewish community from synagogues, Jewish funeral homes, Jewish book stores and Jewish gift shops – essential for finding the weekly pâ•râsh•
PërꞋëq (chapter) 2—Note that there were three tribes in each direction from the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ. In what kind of defensive configuration would three tribes be set up on four sides? In a line? In an circle? Would this configuration have any symbolic significance? We may infer these things from the careful instructions here in úÌåÉøÈä regarding how to set up the camps.
Here I'm going to suggest that Pythagoras, in the 6th century B.C.E., may have borrowed from úÌåÉøÈä for some of his mathematics. I'll quote excerpts from the book Connections: The Geometric Bridge between Art and Science (Jay Kapraff, 1991, McGraw-Hill). "Pythagoras singled out the triangular array of 10 points which he called the tetraktys. This pattern, the basis for the array of modern ten-pins bowling, is the fourth in a series of triangular numbers so that the series is (1,3,6,10).
While ancient mystical numerology has long since proven faulty, it remains important in order for us to understand the perspective of the ancient writers; to distinguish their mistaken ideas from their advances.
|
| Ancient Cosmology |
"In mystical lore, according to John Michell [1988], the natural number 1 was called the monad ( origin of all numbers). 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. 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. The sum of the first feminine [2] and the first masculine [3] number, 5, represented man, microcosmos, harmony, love, and health, while inanimate life was represented by the number 6. The tetraktys, 10, represented the cosmos and macrocosmos, while two interlocking tetraktyses formed the Star of David, in which 12 evenly spaced dots, representing the signs of the zodiac, surround a thirteenth, representing the 'Source of all being."' (One of the tetraktys must be inverted. Rather than the zodiac, however, these 12 nodes represented the 12 Tribes of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì in their proper configuration around the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ—the thirteenth node in the center.
|
|
øÄéáåÌ áÀàÄîÌÀëÆí —2.4
"Your mother" implies existence of the mother's offspring. This command is addressed exclusively to the offspring of this mother; not to anyone else. Therefore, when
It is clear from the context (the first three pᵊsuq•imꞋ) that the "you" refers to éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì. Therefore, the "mother" can only be éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, who (pâ•suqꞋ 4) is supposed to behave accordingly, being, relative to
The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ have demonstrated, and proven, that, despite their specious claims, Christianity and Islam are displacement theology offspring of Hellenist mythology, bypassing éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì and claiming supersession, not offspring of áÌÀðÅé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì (see our Khav•rutꞋâ). Therefore, it is only áÌÀðÅé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì (including geir•imꞋ, who are counted among them) who are authorized by this pâ•suqꞋ to contend with this mother—éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì.
Having excluded Christians and Muslims from this contention, we can now examine how áÌÀðÅé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, unknowingly, is already satisfying this prophecy of the Messianic Era—corroborating yet again that we are, indeed, already in the Messianic Era.
 0250x188.jpg "Rabanut ha-Reishit Heikhal Shlomoh (Ariel Horovitz)") |
| Ra•bân• |
One has to understand a little background of the process that resulted in the present two offices of Chief Rabbi in Israel. Always (at least) a step ahead,
"'the way in which many religious men relate to Israel's Chief Rabbinate. On one hand, they take the time to study or the tests given by the rabbinate in order to be recognized as rabbis. On the other hand, they are alienated from the secular Zionist state that gives the rabbinate its powers.
The end result is a basically cynical attitude toward the rabbinate, which is seen as nothing more than a means of getting a job in some type of state-funded rabbinic capacity.
probably one of the main reasons for the underlying cynicism felt by many religious men, both haredi and modern Orthodox, toward the Israeli rabbinate is a direct result of their disgust with its politicization, especially in the way the chief rabbis are elected.
The Chief Rabbinate was established by the British Mandate'
Back in 1955, the Tel Aviv Rabbinic Court ruled that Chanoch and Miriam Langer—who were both born to Otto Langer when their mother was still married to Avraham Burkovsky, a convert—were bastards (mamzerim). As such, they were unable to marry according to Israel's marriage laws, which are determined by Jewish law.
Chanoch, a career officer, involved then-defense minister Moshe Dayan in the affair. Then-prime minister Golda Meir attempted to put pressure on the two chief rabbis' but failed.
[In 1972,] Rabbi Goren, who promised to find a solution, garnered the ruling Mapai's support and was elected. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who was seen as a representative of haredi interests, was pushed in to counteract Goren.
Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the most respected halakhic authority at the time, led the fight against Rabbi Goren' Last year, it was ironically Rabbi Elyashiv's support that enabled Rabbi Yona Metzger to ascend to the chief rabbinate position. Rabbi Eliyashiv explained his choice of Rabbi Metzger, who is not known as a significant Torah scholar, by saying, 'the chief rabbi is nothing but a [ôÌÈ÷Äéã].'
As the philosopher Eliezer Berkovitz has pointed out, historically, the rabbinical authority was never ecclesiastical. The rabbi was no cleric."
Update 2013.05.06: "…Haredi candidate, Yona Metzger, whose reputation for corruption, poor scholarship and accusations of sexual harassment was so glaring that many believed he was pushed forward in a deliberate attempt by the Haredi leadership to discredit the institution of chief rabbi, a central symbol of religious Zionism." (J.J. Goldberg)
Berkovitz may have been a good philosopher (?), but he was certainly no historian, nor was he competent in logic. The term ôÌÈ÷Äéã predates the first rabbi) by millennia, originating with the functions established by MoshꞋëh and the term ôÌÈ÷Äéã is found 13 (numerologists note) times in Ta•na"khꞋ (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 41.34; Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ 9.28; Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 25.19; Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 20.1; 39.36; 52.25; Nᵊkhëm•
Both Berkovitz and [author of JP article] Wagner make the logical error of equating the rabbinate to Judaism, instead of recognizing that following
"'The reality in Israel is that many citizens feel no connection whatsoever to religion. Rabbis on all levels, from the neighborhood rabbi to the chief rabbi, are chosen for political reasons. They are not chosen by the congregations that they serve.
Since political forces, and not personal attributes, are often the deciding factor in the choice of chief rabbi, controversy and lack of real spiritual leadership—as we are experiencing now and as we have experienced since the establishment of the state—are likely to remain the lot of Israel's Chief Rabbinate" (Wagner, loc. cit.).
Now, what does
 |
| Chief Rabbi Shlomoh Amar |
To bring readers up to the present, costumes are superficial; they don't make a man the servant of god father denying wrongdoing, Rabbi Amar attempts to deny responsibility for the mob-like beating—which, by the way, was perpetrated by his son who, years ago during his teens, turned secular (another example of estranging the flock).
See also 'Ë•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa' section.
|
|
Look deep inside and be honest with yourself. Are you unsatisfied because you don't really know
2.21-22 – åÀàÅøÇùÒÀúÌÄéêÀ ìÄé ìÀòåÉìÈí; åÀàÅøÇùÒÀúÌÄéêÀ ìÄé áÌÀöÆãÆ÷ åÌáÀîÄùÑÀôÌÈè, åÌáÀçÆñÆã åÌáÀøÇçÂîÄéí åÀàÅøÇùÒÀúÌÄéêÀ ìÄé áÌÀàÁîåÌðÈä; åÀéÈãÇòÇúÌÀ àÆú é--ä!!!
So there's the prerequisites. That's how you can do it. It's not about "belief" or "faith." It's all about your practice. úÌåÉøÈä requires only that you do these things to your utmost (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 6.4-5; 11.13 & bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.39). When you do these things, it is because you have come to know
|
|
Serving
 |
| Heart of Flesh |
Rather, serving
Why? So that He will enable and empower us to want to keep His khuq•imꞋ and mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ (Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 36.27)! Then we aren't forcing ourselves to do something we don't really want to, or keeping ourselves from something we really want. Rather, we want to do our utmost to please Him, Whom we love with all of our heart. Just as in physical marriage we naturally want to have sex, the spiritually enabled and empowered Jew (and legitimate geir) have an even more consuming desire to please àÄéùÑÄé. This heart is one deeply and profoundly in love, with
And it is in the context of such a profound love that we may understand this passage from this week's Haphtâr•âhꞋ, which is included in our tᵊphil•inꞋ (2.21-22): Speaking to éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì (!), "I will betroth you to Me forever; and I will betroth you to Me in öã÷ (tzëdꞋëq) and in îùôè (mi•shᵊpâtꞋ) and in çñã (khësꞋëd) and in øçîéí (rakham•imꞋ), and I will betroth you to Me in àîåðä (ë•mun•âhꞋ); and you [éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì and the geir•imꞋ legitimately recognized within the Yo•khas•
|
|
 |
 òÅîÆ÷ òÈëåÉø, north of Yᵊri• |
The Haphtâr•âhꞋ (Ho•sheiꞋa 2.16-17) prophesies that, in the time Dân•iy•
Which valley, in the vicinity of Yᵊri•
Ho•
"And I will remove the names of äÇáÌÀòÈìÄéí from her mouth and they shall no more be recalled by name." To comply with this pâ•suqꞋ (as well as Shᵊm•otꞋ 23.13; Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 12.3 and Yᵊho•shuꞋa 23.7) and discourage recalling äÇáÌÀòÈìÄéí by name, we find ways to cross-out, or otherwise corrupt, non-Judaic god-names to remind readers not to pronounce them.
At the time that Dân•iy•
For those who do their utmost to keep úÌåÉøÈä, receiving ki•purꞋ—i.e., Kha•sid•imꞋ, this marriage is realized in the spiritual realm; viz., at the end of one's life. This is why death of a Khâ•sidꞋ is described as Hi•lul•âꞋ.
|
|
| Ta•na"khꞋ | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
| EiꞋmëq ha- Yizrᵊël looking northeast; hay at foot of Har Mᵊgido, with mountains of Aphula in distance. Photographed © 1983 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. |
Ho•sheiꞋa 1.4—Call his name éÄæÀøÀòÆàì; because in a little while, I will pâ•qadꞋ.
The context demonstrates that this refers to the exacting of accountability for the A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ permitted to continue by YeiꞋhu, (Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 10.29; review the story in ch. 9-10). Thus, Ho•sheiꞋa cites éÄæÀøÀòÆàì to symbolize the seed sown by Eil, úÌåÉøÈä, contrasted against A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa likely derived his teaching in NHM 13.24-30 from this Haphtâr•âhꞋ.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa further elaborated this theme with a mâshâl based on éÄæÀøÀòÆàì being like a field sown with good seed, úÌåÉøÈä-teachings, contrasted against, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, the sowing, by the evil one, of hay-grass —which, Ho•sheiꞋa implies, is A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ—overtop of the good seed. This perfectly presaged his sowing of úÌåÉøÈä being later (post-135 C.E.) sown overtop with the idolatrous Displacement Theologies of Christianity and Islam.
|
|
Again,
Both of the chief rabbis represent a rabbinate that, having chased away 95% of the flock, the nᵊviy•imꞋ define as false shepherds. They are more like mobsters, not—lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ— servants of
Secular Jerusalem Post essayist, Hillel Halkin, writes:
"Not that anyone in this country seems terribly perturbed about it, least of all the two rabbis themselves. Israel's religious community is not calling for them to resign and does not appear to think that they should, while we secular Israelis, after permitting ourselves a small, we've-said-it-all-along smile of satisfaction, have turned to the next story in our newspapers. We didn't need Metzger and Amar to tell us that the rabbis of this country are not a moral cut above the rest of us, and that neither, for that matter, is the religious community.
This is not, of course, the self-image of the religious community itself, whether dati leumi—national religious—or haredi. Most Orthodox Jews in Israel are convinced that they live by higher moral standards that those of the non-observant and often seem irritated that we don't have the honesty to acknowledge this. How can we presume to think that we who live only for worldly goals and pleasures have values as lofty as they do?
' Most of us, in short, religious or secular, keep an equal share of the moral Shalts and Shalt-nots' How can Rabbi Metzger, who presumably knows the verse in Exodus, 'And thou shalt take no bribe; for the bribe blindeth the wise,' have let a hotel bribe him? How can Rabbi Amar, who must be aware of the biblical injunction 'Thou shalt not bear false witness,' not tremble before
godif not before the laws of the State of Israel?
How indeed can the religious community of this country, which would have insisted on the two men's immediate dismissal if one had been caught eating a hamburger at McDonald's and the other switching on a television set on Shabbat, remain indifferent to what they are accused of?
It has often been observed—by no one better than the biblical Prophets—that observant Jews have a way of taking the ritual commandments of their religion far more seriously than the moral ones'
There are, no doubt, many reasons for this, the most salient perhaps being that the ritual laws of Judaism, as demanding as they are, are more easily performable. It may be tedious to have to pray three times a day for every day of your life, but this is ultimately a matter of forming simple habits that needn't be questioned and demand no great amount of self-sacrifice. Being honest in one's business dealings, on the other hand, let alone loving one's neighbor as oneself, can be complicated and potentially costly. It is tempting to be less rigorous about such things and to compensate for this laxity by eating glatt kosher and checking one's mezuzot once a year. Surely
godwill understand."
No, úÌåÉøÈä declares repeatedly, He won't!!! Tᵊshuv•âhꞋ is an unavoidable prerequisite to ki•purꞋ.
"Oy for you' sanctimonious hypocrites, because you tithe the mint, the dill and the cumin while you let the more kâ•vodꞋ things of úÌåÉøÈä go: adjudication-of-Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, khësꞋëd and ë•mun•âhꞋ. It logically follows that you should do these things as well, not let them go. You are blind leaders who thoroughly strain out the gnat from a cup and then swallow the camel'. you make the outside of the cup and dish tâ•horꞋ—but inside they are laden with extortion and self-indulgence. Blind rabbi, first make the inside of the cup and dish tâ•horꞋ such that even the outside becomes tâ•horꞋ' Sanctimonious hypocrites, because you are like whitewashed tombs that, outwardly appear beautiful to people, but inside are full of bones of the dead and all kinds of tumot. Similarly, outwardly you also appear to be a tza•diqꞋ to people—but inside you are full of sanctimonious hypocrisy and úÌåÉøÈä-lessness." (RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, the Mâ•shiꞋakh; NHM
Not by any authority of my own, but by the Authority of
|
|
The Haphtâr•âhꞋ portion seems especially timely. NHM shows that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was "the son of Ël•oh•imꞋ" in the sense of the first-born (i.e., senior) member of the household of god, as syncretized by the earliest (post-135 C.E.) sun- and Zeus-worshiping, Roman-Hellenists—the original Christian founders of the Church.
Considered in this light, Ho•
In the úÌåÉøÈä section (5760), the Cassandra Report highlighted modern western view of open marriages and sexual promiscuity. In contrast to this, readers who have NHM can refer to the text and notes of 13.4-23 to discover what RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught about the ÷ÉãÆùÑ of this union, an halakhic teaching that has been totally lost in the NT, which is Christianized and misojudaic. I'll give those without NHM a hint: 100 is, in gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ, '÷, which stands for ÷ÈãåÉùÑ and the teaching is about the ÷ÉãÆùÑ of a ÷ÈãåÉùÑ union in marriage—for living a ÷ÈãåÉùÑ life (expounded by 13.18-23 with note 13.23.1).
|
| Kᵊtub• |
Christians often overlook the Biblical stipulation of ëÌÀúËáÌÈä (review úÌåÉøÈä section in the year 5760) as well as the Biblical stipulation "in mi•shᵊpâtꞋ." Many superstitious goy•imꞋ ignore the Biblical stipulation of ëÌÀúËáÌÈä relative to the relationship between éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì and 7.20-23): "Then I will attest to them, 'I never knew you.' (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 6.9): 'Turn aside from me all doers of crookedness.'"
Selective keeping of úÌåÉøÈä necessarily implies selective neglect or rejection of úÌåÉøÈä – either of which constitutes ìÀäÇôÀøÀëÆí
àÆú-áÌÀøÄéúÄé (wa-
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa also taught (NHM 7.15-23): "By their fruits, that is their works, you shall know them." People may succeed in keeping their immoralities secret, and none of us is perfect, but everyone can hear where you stand, either by your testimony or your silence, and everyone can see who eats kâ•sheirꞋ, who keeps Shab•âtꞋ, where you go to pray and who you pray with, who keeps the Judaic holy days, etc.
|
|
He who teaches his friend's son úÌåÉøÈä, behold, he is even making him; as it is memorized in tractate Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion, chapter 'Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ' (19.2), •marꞋ RabꞋi Yo•khân•ânꞋ, Everyone who teaches his friend's son úÌåÉøÈä, Scripture ascribes to him as if he éìã (yâlad; sired) him. As it is said, , 'These are the generations of A•har•onꞋ and Moshëh" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 3.1).
And is it not written, "And these are the names of the sons of A•har•onꞋ: the first-born Nadav and Aviyahu (ibid., 2)? However, A•har•onꞋ éìã (yâlad; sired) and Mosh•ëhꞋ ìîã (limeid; taught), hence they were [also] called [sons of] his name.
And it is memorized, also in a portion of the chapter (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 99.2), Amar Rabi Shim•onꞋ Bën-Laqish, Everyone teaching his friend's son úÌåÉøÈä, it's like he makes him. As it is said, "and the nᵊphâsh•otꞋ that we made in Kharan" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 12.5), which is translated into the Aramaic Targum, "and the nᵊphashot that we made for úÌåÉøÈä in Kharan"
It is memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Bâv•âꞋ Mᵊtziy•âꞋ, chapter 'The [one who] Hires the Workers' (85a): RabꞋi happened to the place of RabꞋi Ëlâzâr [who studied under] RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ. He said to him: does he have a son, who is tza•diqꞋ? They said to him: 'He has a son and every prostitute that is hired by four, hires him by eight' [meaning: because he was beautiful]. 'Come,' he told him: 'Splendor in you. Splendor in him. I shall ordain you as a Rabbi and complete [meaning: he gave him to RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ to teach him úÌåÉøÈä] at Rabi Shim•onꞋ Ben Isei Ben Lᵊqunyâ, the brother of his mother. He finished the úÌåÉøÈä and he spread a tal•itꞋ on his head and ordained him as a Rabbi.
Every day he would say: "I want to go to my city." He said to him: "You have been made a sage and a clothing of gold was spread upon you, and you were called a Rabbi, and you say "I wish to go to my city"? He said to him: "By oath, I have put that and I shall not say more." As he grew up, he came to sit in a yᵊshiv•âhꞋ.
RabꞋi heard the voice. He said: "This voice resembles the voice of RabꞋi Ëlâzâr [who studied under] RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ." They said to him: "It is his son." It is read about it: "The fruit of a tza•diqꞋ [is the] Tree of Life" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 11.30). This is RabꞋi Yosei [who studied under] RabꞋi Ëlâzâr [who studied under] RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ; "One who takes nᵊphâsh•otꞋ [to teach them úÌåÉøÈä] is wise" (ibid), this is RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ Ben Isei Ben Lᵊqunyâ. Since his nëphꞋësh rested [i.e. he died], they took him to the cave of his father. A snake kept coming back to the cave. They said to him: Snake, snake, open your mouth and let a son come into his father. He did not open for him. The people reckoned to say, this [one] is greater than this [one]. A voice came out and said: "It is not that this [one] is greater than this [one]. Rather, that this [one] was in the grief on a cave and this [one] wasn't in the grief of a cave." As is memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Shab•âtꞋ (33a): RabꞋi Ëlâzâr [who studied under] RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ and RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ bar Yokhai, who were concealed in a cave for thirteen years in the days of the destruction.
RabꞋi happened to the place of RabꞋi Tarphon. He said to him: "Is there a son to the same tza•diqꞋ who would beat his sons?" They said: "He doesn't have a son, a son of a daughter he has and every prostitute that is hired by four hires him by eight. He was brought him before him. He said to him: "You have no splendor in you [and] shall be brought a son." Splendor in him. There are some who say: "He took her and banished her." And there are those who say: "He didn't banish her at all." So, it wouldn't be said that he came back for that. And RabꞋi, "What is all this?" As Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ said, Rav said and told him RabꞋi Khiyâ Bar Abâ said RabꞋi Yo•khân•ânꞋ told him, RabꞋi Shmueil Bar Nakhamâni said RabꞋi Yonâtân said: "Every [one] who teaches úÌåÉøÈä to a son of his friend gets the privilege and sits in the yᵊshiv•âhꞋ of above. As it is said: "Thus said
We have memorized in chapter 'Part' (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 91b): Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ said, Rav said: "Anyone who prevents Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ from the mouth of a ta•lᵊmidꞋ, it's as if he steals him from his father's property." As it is said: "úÌåÉøÈä that öåä us by Mosh•ëhꞋ is the îåøùä of Qᵊhil•atꞋ-Ya•a•qovꞋ" (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 33.4). It is the heritage for all of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì from the six days of bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ." Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ said, Rav said: "Anyone who prevents Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ from the mouth of a ta•lᵊmidꞋ, even fetuses in their mother's stomach curse him." As it is said: "One who prevents a áø will be cursed by the nation" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 11.26).
There is no nation, except for fetuses. As it is said: "And from nation to nation [i.e. each nation] éàîõ" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 25.23). There is no áø except for úÌåÉøÈä. As it is said: "Kiss the áø lest he be angry" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 2.12).
An infant said [in the name of RabꞋi Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ]: "îð÷áéï like a sieve." It is said here "é÷áäå" and it is said afterward "åé÷á in its door" (Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 12.10). Abayei said: "[He is like] a fuller's mourning [idiom for a fuller's basin that leaks, i.e. developed a hole]. If he teaches [whether the student augers to collect úÌåÉøÈä like the charity chest or doesn't retain the teaching like the leaking sieve or fuller's basin], what is his reward?" Rav Sheishët said: "He is privileged to receive the bᵊrâkhot that were said to Yo•seiphꞋ, as it is said: "A bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ on the head of the provider" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 11.26). There is no provider except for Yo•seiphꞋ as it is said: "Yo•seiphꞋ is the provider" (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 42.6).
Rav Sheishëet said: "Anyone who teaches úÌåÉøÈä in this world is privileged and gets to teach it in the next world." As it is said: "One who sates others, he, too, shall teach" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 11.25).
We have learned from all this, that the wage of the one who teaches úÌåÉøÈä to the son of his friend, his wage is great in this world and also in the next world.
|
|
|