|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
5.3 – îÄæÌÈëÈø òÇã-ðÀ÷ÅáÈä úÌÀùÑÇìÌÅçåÌ, àÆì-îÄçåÌõ ìÇîÌÇçÂðÆä úÌÀùÑÇìÌÀçåÌí; åÀìÉà éÀèÇîÌÀàåÌ àÆú-îÇçÂðÅéäÆí, àÂùÑÆø àÂðÄé ùÑÉëÅï áÌÀúåÉëÈí
 |
| Qᵊdosh•imꞋ Tei•mân•imꞋ praying |
These who were being expelled from the community when they became tâm•eiꞋ were all Yᵊhud•imꞋ who kept kâ•sheirꞋ, including males who strapped on tᵊphil•inꞋ, wore tzitz•itꞋ with the pᵊtilꞋ tᵊkheilꞋët, affixed mᵊzuz•
 |
 |
5.12-13: "àÄéùÑ (by) àÄéùÑ, whose àÄéùÑä becomes a ñåÉèÈä, absolutely betraying him. And an àÄéùÑ laid with her, laying seed, and it was concealed from the eyes of àÄéùÑäÌ, and she secretly became tâm•eiꞋ, but there is no witness concerning her, and she had not been forced'"
Readers should recall the parallel between the relationship of husband and wife to that of
 |
| Kha•reid•imꞋ : Death to the Internet |
 |
| Kha•reid•iꞋ anti-Internet rally NY Citi Field, 2012.05.21 – men only |
Unable to deal with the complexities of the modern world, Ultra-Orthodox (Kha•reid•
 |
| Hollywood-led assimilation: The Jazz Singer, Neil Diamond 1980 |
While movies like Shindler's List can be both educational and uplifting, most cinema fare seems lacking any redeeming social value. Well before The Jazz Singer, Hollywood has traditionally thrust the same theme upon us repeatedly—in their usually successful effort to de-sensitize audiences to the mores that Hollywood has judged anti-social. Typical of such efforts to de-sensitize Judaically-uneducated Jews to assimilation is the movie "Keep the Faith" which, in the words of Jerusalem Post critic Adina Hoffman (2000.05.29, p. 7), imposes an artificial (movie writer's) consensus of a "cheery approach to multicultural and spiritual meltdown'"
 |
| Hollywood-led assimilation: Keeping the Faith, Ben Stiller, 2000 |
Intended "to be a bubbly, uplifting diversion about the need for romance and companionship in a time of religious and racial uncertainty' [the film is] about the specter of a nice Jewish boy like Ben Stiller falling for a fine-boned [shi•qᵊtzâhꞋ] like Jenna Elfman'" Worse, the "nice Jewish boy" according to Hoffman is a blatantly-non-Orthodox "rabbi," giving audiences, including Jews already enroute to assimilation, the impression that Judaism and religious Jews think like the apostate portrayed by Ben Stiller. That this "rabbi" isn't Orthodox is demonstrated by his "decision to bring in a gospel choir to liven up "Ein kᵊ-Ëloheinu'" (There is none like our Ël•oh•imꞋ).
The message of assimilation besets the modern Jew on all sides. Jerusalem Post's TV critic, Allison Kaplan Sommer, quotes (2000.06.02, p. B16) her US friends: "The only two shows I'd really like to see are The Sopranos and Sex and the City'" One may physically be what one eats, but one is also surely intellectually and spiritually what one consumes!
The Sopranos, if you haven't seen it, is a sitcom starring an organized crime boss. Despite whatever disclaimers and excuses the show may offer, this sitcom helps viewers "understand" and "relate to" an organized crime boss; seeing his family life and "business pressures" from his perspective. Perhaps some of you see something good in it that I don't (if so, let us all know via the blog in our Web Café), but I find this show without redeeming social value. That it is a favorite show of American Jews, which equates to non-Orthodox Jews, is indeed disappointing – and self-incriminating.
 |
| Assimilation Hollywood – Friends |
While Friends de-sensitizes its viewers to an endless stream of casual sex and homosexuality, Sex and the City represents the 'next step' in a more "17 and up - restricted" version. There seems little pretense that this show 'goes for the ratings' of unadulterated, lurid titillation. In the wings, there's been gossip in the newspapers of resurrecting the career of blatant lesbian Ellen Degeneris—a featured star at Disney World, by the way.
"American programming is becoming more like the programming in Israel and Europe. Less and less money is being invested in quality dramas and comedies and the networks are looking to spend less money but get higher ratings" (ibid.). Hence the drive for titillation and 'new age' values which contradict úÌåÉøÈä and contributes to the rampant assimilation of the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ.
"So prime time is getting packed full of so-called 'reality programming'—flashy, more often trashy news-magazine "infotainment" / "docudrama" shows like Dateline NBC or game-show blockbusters like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire to high-priced prostitution shows like Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, and Who Wants to Be a Princess, or more blatant shows like Greed. The attitude of programming executives seems to be that audiences prefer to watch real people in real circumstances that are tense, humiliating or difficult (and perhaps dangerous—consider the popularity of daredevils and human-fighting in which participants are sometimes killed) rather than actors merely pretending to be in such circumstances.
"Certainly, the daytime ratings triumph of shlock like Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake has a lot to do with this" (ibid.). Not to mention wrestling.
"The next step in this downward spiral is a 13-episode program which premiered last weekend called Survivor—another format, like Millionaire, purchased from a European country'" The theme of this show is to take 16 contestants, strand them on an island to actually experience the book Lord of the Flies, culling 'losers' one by one until only one 'winner' remains. Does anyone in the audience think what this teaches about the overwhelming value of being 'popular'? Of following the 'Herd Instinct'? Of peer pressure? Of politics over truth, rightness or morality? Of unethical politics? Of political lies? Of outright dirty politics? Of the propaganda promoting an existential and survival 'need' to assimilate to be accepted?
 |
| Fox News Face of American Religion: Roman Catholic Priest |
Meanwhile (update 2012), in addition to a more sober and pragmatic view of TV news, FNC (Fox News Christian) brings you Country Music, infotainment and docu-mercials – all from the slant of primarily Roman-Catholic-Christian-freedom of religion. (There's rarely any "balance" input from Orthodox rabbis, Muslim clerics, et al.)
Relative to American (mostly pseudo-) Jews, all of these must be understood not only in terms of assimilation, but also in terms of assimilation = adultery by the Bride Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ against àÄéùÑäÌ. While Hollywood creates the artificial environment of a make-believe world in which assimilation is the norm and refusal to assimilate is an aberration to be ashamed of, the realist in us must keep us alert that movies aren't the real world. While some may fool themselves with this make-believe world of movies, TV and the lemmings who follow the herd, there remains One from whom their adultery is no secret, and none can claim they are being forced or that their free will has been contravened.
|
|
åÀàÄí-àÅéï
ìÈàÄéùÑ
âÌÉàÅì,
ìÀäÈùÑÄéá
äÈàÈùÑÈí
àÅìÈéå, – 5.8
Reading the English there is no way to recognize that the Scripture reads "And if a man have no requiter…" Like the Hebrew term it translates, "requiter" implies both: repayer of good to the good and repayer (avenger) of evil to the evil! This double-edged meaning doesn't come through when translated as "Redeemer" – another example why each person must learn to read the Hebrew text, not rely on the English translation—even in a Jewish Ta•na"khꞋ!!!
There are two words in Hebrew which are generally rendered in English as "redeemer," without great distinction. The other term is ôÌÈãÈä, the correct Hebrew term to render as "redeemer." For a discussion of âÌÉàÅì, see (in addition to the glossary entry) this year's '•marꞋ RibꞋ i Yᵊho•shuꞋ a' section.
|
|
ôÌÈøÈùÑÇú ðÈùÒÉà begins:
åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø é--ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆä ìÌÅàîÉø: ðÈùÒÉà, …
 |
| Law: Civil |
5.5-6 – "A man or woman who commits any of the khat•â•imꞋ of humankind, ìÄîÀòÉì îÇòÇì áÌÇ
 |
| Law: Torts |
Then [lit. and] they shall confess their kheit, which they've done, and / then he shall return the guilt that is on his head (make full restitution)—and add a fifth upon it and give it to whomever he is guilty."
In a fit of greed, Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ has been interpreted to mean that the added part is exactly 1/5 of the resulting total, rather than 1/5 of the original sum. Consequently, the guilty party must add 25% to the amount embezzled or misappropriated.
Often we see prisoners lamenting their captivity and pleading for sympathy. Those who grant them sympathy, or unilaterally forgive them, violate úÌåÉøÈä on several grounds.
First, only the victim can forgive, no one else (family survivors are grievers; "indirect victims" are not victims for this purpose, and have no authority to express forgiveness in the name of the victim). Ël•oh•imꞋ doesn't forgive until the guilty party at least makes every reasonable attempt to seek and obtain forgiveness from the wronged party—including restitution plus 25%. While restitution isn't always possible, e.g. in cases of murder, reasonable attempts to make what restitution is possible are required.
If the wronged party is deceased or cannot be located, and there is no kin, then pâ•suqꞋ 8 operates. Restitution is still required of the guilty party. The payment of the restitution is then made to the Ko•heinꞋ. With the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ restitution, in the absence of an injured party, was made to the teacher of úÌåÉøÈä in the
In Ta•na"khꞋ, "the confession of sin committed either individually or collectively is an essential prerequisite for ki•purꞋ and atonement" ("Confession of Sins," Ency. Jud., 5.878). Examples are found at bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 4.13; Dâ•widꞋ before Nâtân ha-Nâ•viꞋ regarding the former's trespass with Bat-Shëva (cf. also Tᵊhil•imꞋ 32; 41; 51; 69); bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 38.26; Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Nun 7.19-21; and Shᵊm•u•eilꞋ ÂlꞋëph 15.24-25.
The Hebrew term for confession is åÄãÌåÌé. Examples of collective åÄãÌåÌé include Shᵊm•otꞋ 32.31; wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 16.6, 11, 21; ËꞋzᵊr•â 9.6, 7, 15 and Nᵊkhëmyâh 1.6, 7; 9.2, 33-35.
 |
| Goat (Nubian buck kid) |
"The various sin and guilt offerings prescribed by the sacrificial ritual had to be preceded by confession. The qor•bânꞋ was brought to the altar by the offender who confessed his a•veir•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä while placing both hands upon the head of the sacrificial animal" (EJ, ibid., wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 1.4; Maim. Yad, Ma•aseh ha-Qârbanot 3.6, 14-15). As we discussed in earlier issues, the offender leaned heavily upon the head of the qor•bânꞋ while pronouncing åÄãÌåÌé.
"Elaborate formulas have gradually evolved, the earliest dating back to the third century C.E. Confession of sins also extends beyond the synagogal [sic] sphere and can be said by individuals during silent tᵊphil•âhꞋ and on diverse occasions. Confession, whether collective or individual, is always made directly to [Ël•oh•imꞋ] and never through an intermediary'" (EJ, ibid.).
The import of åÄãÌåÌé is the opposite of the classic prisoner: "I'm innocent. I didn't do it. I don't belong here [in jail]." In other words, "owning up" to the misdeed in a prerequisite to ki•purꞋ. Further, restitution, also a prerequisite for ki•purꞋ, cannot be made until one first admits—åÄãÌåÌé—the misdeed. The formula isn't the important aspect. 'Owning up' to the misdeed and making restitution are the essential elements.
The example of the offender publicly admitting his misdeed while leaning upon the sacrificial animal instructs us that mere silent admission isn't sufficient. When a person has been wronged, the offender must be as public with his or her åÄãÌåÌé as (s)he was with the misdeed, so that the offended party is fully absolved and their name cleared.
|
|
îÇòÇì is the term found in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 5.5-10 describing being unfaithful through the embezzlement or misappropriation of îÇòÂùÒÅø and the úÌÀøåÌîÈä. Consider Ma·lâkh·iꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ 3.8: "äÂéÄ÷ÀáÌÇò â•
Since the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini, the îÇòÂùÒÅø and the úÌÀøåÌîÈä, like the restitutions previously paid to the Kohan•imꞋ, are paid to the Beit-Din who appoints the duly authorized Jewish ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí who are perpetuating the teaching of úÌåÉøÈä and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
In this context, the restitution—an integral element of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ—for such îÇòÇì or ÷ÈáÇò is set forth in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 5.5-10: "When a man or woman shall do any of man's khatᵊotꞋ, ìÄîÀòÉì a îÇòÇì in
This restitution often went to the Ko•han•
If the victim of the embezzlement is
In English, the subsequent section (beginning in pâ•suqꞋ 11) may appear unrelated. However, the theme of îÇòÇì (pâ•suqꞋ 12) is the thematic bridge, refering to unfaithfulness and disloyalty – not only in the handling of money, but in the love of a wife.
Bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 5.2 instructs Bᵊn•
 |
 îÄ÷ÀåÆä |
Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ defines a woman as èÈîÅà during the time of her menses, generally from five to seven days, and extends the prohibition of any physical contact beyond this period for another seven days, known as the 'seven clean days'. (That is why one will always find, in observant Jewish homes, two single beds that can easily be pulled together or apart.) At the end of this twelve to fourteen day period (depending upon the individual woman)—the ðÄãÌÈä—must immerse herself in a body of water known as a îÄ÷ÀåÆä and recite a special bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ in which she praises
 |
 Waterfall at Ein Gᵊdi |
In this context, Lamm provides an important key to understanding the interrelated concepts of èËîÀàÈä, ãÌÈí and ëÌÄôÌåÌø. An analysis of the various types of èËîÀàÈä reveals that what they all have in common is an association with death. Just as èËîÀàÈä is associated with death, èÈäÃøÈä, the reversal of the process of èËîÀàÈä, is associated with life. And it is the îÄ÷ÀåÆä, above all, that symbolizes the affirmation of life — arising reborn out of the water. For it is water that is the most potent symbol of enlivening—especially in the Middle East. In Hebrew, running water is called îÇéÄí çÇéÌÄéí. The phrase "living water" in the NT is a fine example of ignorance of Hebrew allowed to foster a superstitious mystical 'miracle' tradition.
Association of ãÌÈí with ëÌÄôÌåÌø, in turn, corroborates wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.11, "for the ðÆôÆùÑ of the flesh is in the ãÌÈí." The loss of blood during menses is associated with the loss of a ðÆôÆùÑ, i.e., with death. Consequently, the woman, in contact with death during menses and after childbirth, is èÈîÅà. And the waters of the îÄ÷ÀåÆä serve to enliven her from her association with—i.e., having been contaminated (èÈîÅà) by—death so that she is again fit for sexual relations with her husband.
Similarly, when a non-Jew wishes to convert to Judaism and be received into the bᵊrit Av•râ•hâmꞋ Âv•iꞋnu, úÌåÉøÈä requires of him that he immerse himself in the îÄ÷ÀåÆä, because the newly water-born Jew is considered a new individual, a new-born child, and the sense of birth, of enlivening to a new life, is emphasized by the îÄ÷ÀåÆä. By emerging from the waters of the îÄ÷ÀåÆä, a new Jew has been enlivened—born to us. It should be obvious that one who wasn't born a Jew to begin with can't become born (a Jew) again! Only one who is a Jew and who becomes èÈîÅà requiring èÀáÄéìÈä, can experience being born (a Jew) again through èÀáÄéìÈä in the water of the îÄ÷ÀåÆä.
èËîÀàÈä, the intimation of death, whether it be through ðÄãÌÈä or any other form, is counteracted by èÀáÄéìÈä in the water of the îÄ÷ÀåÆä, the symbol of enlivening.
By means of this symbolism, we may understand the special halakhic requirements for a îÄ÷ÀåÆä. The îÄ÷ÀåÆä must be a gathering of natural water, such as the sea, a lake or naturally collected rainwater, and not a pool or bath artifically accumulated by such means as plumbing. By insisting upon the naturalness of the waters of the îÄ÷ÀåÆä, we acknowledge and affirm that Ël•oh•imꞋ alone is the Creator of Life, and He and He alone, not any doing of humans, provides the îÇéÄí çÇéÌÄéí that can enliven life, physically and spiritually today, and in hâ-O•
|
|
The pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins:
4.21-22a – åÇéÀãÇáÌÅø é--ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆä ìÌÅàîÉø: ðÈùÒÉà, …
6.24-26 — Though the Birk•atꞋ ha-Ko•han•
 448x297.jpg "Birkat ha-Kohanim (Kotel)") |
| Birkat ha-Kohanim (Kotel) |
By the way, it is customary not to look at the Kohan•imꞋ when they pronounce these bᵊrâkh•
24 éÀáÈøÆëÀêÈ
|
|
5.16-31— The úÌåÉøÈä concerning jealousy—Addition of dirt / dust from the ground of the (floorless tent) Mi•shᵊkânꞋ to the îÇéÄí ÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí by the Ko•heinꞋ symbolized the participation of 
notes 5.33.1 and 5.34.2.
|
|
 |
| Mish•kânꞋ / OꞋhël Mo•eidꞋ (model from M. Levine, Mᵊlëkhët Mi•shᵊkânꞋ, Tel Aviv, 1968) |
4.21— The Hebrew term ðÈùÒÉà, popularly translated as "count" or "take a census," literally means "bear (up)." This describes a bearing (including the connotation of patience) of responsibility for the men who were to serve in the îÄùÑÀëÌÈï and the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã These two terms are parallel descriptions of the two aspects of the same edifice, popularly corrupted to "Tabernacle."
5.18 — And the Ko•heinꞋ shall stand the woman before
For the importance of the juxtapositioning of this passage and its relationship to that of the Nâ•zirꞋ in chapter 6, cf. the wide-ranging note NHM 4.9.1.
6.22-27— Most non-Jews are unaware that'
When this bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ is given over a convocation it is to be given by Kohan•imꞋ (even though only ceremonial, lacking yo•khas•
Only over Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ—real, not goy•imꞋ pretenders advocating Displacement Theology and
This practice continues today in Orthodox Bat•eiꞋ ha-KᵊnësꞋët.
|
|
13.5: For a ðÀæÄéø Ël•oh•imꞋ shall the youth be from the belly, and he «éÈçÅì, ìÀäåÉùÑÄéòÇ éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì» from the hand of the Pᵊli•shᵊt•imꞋ.
ðÈæÄéø has no cognate connection to ðÀöÈøÄéí (The two are sometimes confused by Christians because they are spelled a bit similarly [Nazirite / Nazarene] in ther Hellenized texts.)
Why, from the outset, was Shi•mᵊsh•onꞋ prophesied only to "begin" saving Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ from the Pᵊli•shᵊt•imꞋ?
The offering and trying of the ñåÉèÈä in this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 5.15-31) includes this parallel. In this latter case, the ñåÉèÈä is to be brought before the Davidic Mâ•shiꞋakh-Ko•heinꞋ (cf. Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ 34.20-24; 44.1-3; 45.17; 46.1-3ff). See Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 54.6-8 & Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ 16.35-38.
|
|
13.3 – åÇéÅøÈà îÇìÀàÇêÀ-é--ä àÆì-äÈàÄùÑÌÈä;
Of this "angelic visitation" to the impending mother the Artscroll Editors comment: "even his very birth from a barren, infertile mother would be miraculous" (Stone Edition, p. 619). Perhaps to avoid the Hellenist mythology later imposed on
This "angelic visitation" necessarily imposes two implications:
Christians have no basis for regarding a virtually identical occurrence in NHM 1.22ff as necessarily implying a divine man-god unless they're willing to acknowledge that this, too, was the birth of a similar divine man-god—and, therefore, they must also worship Shi•mᵊsh•onꞋ!!!
Jews contradict themselves when they
wrongly maintain that this "miraculous birth," following an "angelic visitation," is impossible; and
unquestioningly accept the Christian notion that a virtually identical occurrence in NHM 1.22ff can only be interpreted as Christians do—as necessarily implying a divine man-god (which is, therefore, false).
(Note that NHM 1.25 doesn't imply an "immaculate conception" (for explanation, see notes for NHM 1.25).
|
|
| Haphtâr•âhꞋ | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Therefore, whoever hears these sayings 12.37.0 of mine, and does them, is like 7.24.1 a sagacious 7.24.2 man who built his house into bedrock.7.24.3 The rain came down, and the floods came,7.25.1 and the ruꞋakh 8.16.1 blew and beat upon the house. Yet it did not fall, because its foundation was bedrock.7.25.2 Everyone who hears these sayings 12.37.0 of mine and does not do them shall be likened to a stupid man who built his house upon sand. When the rain came down and the floods came and the ruꞋakh 8.16.1 blew 7.25.1 and beat on that house 7.27.1 it fell, and its fall was great.” It became that when RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa had concluded these sayings,12.37.0 the qᵊhil•âhꞋ 4.25.1 in the Beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët was astonished at the abundant goodness of his guidance,7.28.1 for he was expounding Mid•râshꞋ 7.29.1 to them with great power,7.29.2 as one having min•uꞋi,10.1.0 not like the rest of the so•phꞋr•imꞋ.5.20.0 |
7.27 | |||||||
|
When a ruꞋakh 1.18.6 of tum•ahꞋ 10.1.1 is gone out from the man,8.20.1 it goes through the arid-badlands requesting 7.7.1 rest but does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return 13.15.1 to my house from which I went out,’ and having come, it finds it empty, safe and ready.12.44.1 Then it takes seven more rukh•otꞋ 1.18.6 more evil 5.39.1 than itself and they go in and settle there. The resulting state of the man 8.20.1 becomes worse than at the start. Thus it will be for this evil 5.39.1 generation.” | 12.43-45 | |||||||
|
|
The úÌåÉøÈä section discussed how observant Yᵊhud•imꞋ were prohibited from social interaction even in their own community during periods of defilement. This contrasts with the total ban during those centuries against social interaction with goy•imꞋ. While geir•imꞋ were considered provisionally within their community (and, therefore, the ban never applied to geir•imꞋ), RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his followers were religious Yᵊhud•imꞋ, who observed the total ban against defilement by assimilation through social interaction with goy•imꞋ. For religious (as opposed to Hellenist-Reform) Yᵊhud•imꞋ, interaction with goy•imꞋ was limited to business transactions and úÌåÉøÈä outreach—qi•ruvꞋ.
 |
| 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.) |
In contrast to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his followers, who went to such great lengths to avoid defilement—even within their own community—and observed the total ban against defiling contact with goy•imꞋ, goy•imꞋ Christians, who have been deceived into "faith" in post-135 C.E. Roman pagans, by choice live a life of deliberate defilement, willfully transgressing the úÌåÉøÈä precept of Havdâl•âhꞋ between QoꞋdësh and khol, defiling themselves in all manner of defilements prohibited by úÌåÉøÈä.
Christians believe they are made "holy" even while rejecting the úÌåÉøÈä of Jesus, "saves" them. Even Paul the Apostate contradicts this, declaring that for anyone to represent that Jesus saves them while they continue to transgress úÌåÉøÈä, αμαρτιας (amartias; misses the mark, i.e. "sins"), and would imply that Jesus serves sin, and is, thereby, a servant of sin (Gal. 2.17)—which Christians, daily, demonstrate is true!!!
Historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, by contrast, was a very well known Pᵊrush•imꞋ teacher of úÌåÉøÈä—RibꞋi, hello?—who lived and taught úÌåÉøÈä all of his life. Thus, just as Oxford historian James Parkes concluded, post-135 C.E. Jesus is the polar opposite, the arch-antithesis of first-century historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. (Further, therefore, since RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is the Mâ•shiꞋakh, his arch-antithesis, Jesus, then has to be the antichrist; and the Christian Church following the antichrist is 'the Apostasy'!!!)
The self-contradicting premise that keeping the body immersed in a cesspool produces a "holy" nëphꞋësh is the epitomy of paganism, not to mention incomprehensible blindness and ignorance. No less self-contradicting are the sanctimonious "Bible believers" who reject the only, original, Bible!!! (No Christian theologian can make a case for the NT solely from the Jewish Bible and pre-135 C.E. Judaic literature that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his Jewish followers accepted.) Unfortunately, with rare exception, Christians can't read the first word of the Bible that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his Jewish followers knew and accepted. Now that's a religion of blissful ignorance that has been responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. (For 2,000 years, Christians have maintained that Jews have been rejected by god, blinded ignorant to "the truth" of Jesus and, consequently, servants of Satan—who, therefore, are enemies of the Church—culminating in the Inquisition and the Holocaust. So, Christians have no right whatsoever to get sanctimoniously self-righteous about, finally, having their error exposed.)
If Christians would only learn to read the Bible (it's Hebrew) they would know that it states unequivocally that "you shall not make your nëphꞋësh abominable" and "you shall not make your nëphꞋësh tâm•eiꞋ with any swarming bug on the earth" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 11. 43). Like any other violation of úÌåÉøÈä, eating something not kâ•sheirꞋ makes one's nëphꞋësh abominable and tâm•eiꞋ, the polar opposite of holy! Indeed, in no small measure you are what you eat.
The simple truth is that a nëphꞋësh can only be made qâ•doshꞋ in a body that has been made qâ•doshꞋ.
Legitimate Jews do their utmost to keep úÌåÉøÈä, which activates
Jesus of the post-135 C.E. Hellenist Roman pagans loves practicing sinners who please themselves, but
The fact is that all representations that this úÌåÉøÈä-teaching Jew excused violations of úÌåÉøÈä are based on gentile ignorance of úÌåÉøÈä COUPLED WITH the gentiles' utter dependence upon the post-135 C.E. Hellenist syncretism of Roman gentiles who adopted into their pagan mythology a few messianic concepts from the Jews whom they had just annhilated in two wars and so hated. Historians like Oxford's James Parkes have well documented that the fourth century C.E. Roman Church was the opposite of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews of the first century C.E. The post-135 C.E. gentiles even conjured up their own rewrite of history. Any good encyclopedia notes that there is absolutely no evidence of any pope before 135 C.E.; certainly not "St. Peter." (The historical figure, who was one of the first twelve followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, was a úÌåÉøÈä-keeping Jew named Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh. It's absurdly anachronistic to suggest that this first century úÌåÉøÈä-keeping Jew embraced Hellenist Roman gentile notions of a papacy that weren't even concocted until well after 135 C.E. The Pope, in fact, is a counterfeit deriving from the first gentile (Roman) bishop who, according to Eusebius, usurped the rightful authority of the 15th Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ pâ•qidꞋ in 135 C.E. in the wake of the Roman crushing of the Bar-Kokhvâ Rebellion and the exiling of all Jews from Yᵊrushâlayim—including the pâ•qidꞋ. The rightful authority of the pâ•qidꞋ was never transferred to Roman gentiles or their "pope." From the original fabrication of papal succession the "pope" has never been anything other than a usurper, a deceiver advocating straying from úÌåÉøÈä into A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ, and a counterfeit of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ pâ•qidꞋ.)
 |
| Tei•mân•iꞋ SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ |
In addition to relying upon blatant deceptions, Christian beliefs are also based on further misconceptions. The only Bible that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his first century Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ knew is Hebrew. If you're reading a translation then you're depending on men instead of the Word of
"By their fruits, that is their works, you shall know them." Others are pretenders, Displacement Theology described in Rev. 2.9 & 3.9—and those who depend upon a false, contra-historical pretend Jesus, in a false, pretend "spiritual Israel" are fated to a false, pretend "salvation." Shed the ignorance of irrational superstitions and get back in the real world. Get historical, factual, truthful, scientific and logical like the Creator of this universe you're trying to get to know.
|
|
The Haphtâr•âhꞋ section demonstrated that only by the ki•purꞋ of
However, ñåÉèÈä refers exclusively to those of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in need of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, not pretend 'spiritual Israel' of Christian mythology. Only Jews and geir•imꞋ recognized by Israel and the
We invite, and will assist, by means of our Khav•rutꞋâ, Christian Jews and other assimilated and estranged Jews (as defined by
For Jews (and non-Jews) determined to follow RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ are the only assistance and the only option that is in the same Pᵊrush•imꞋ cum
When you can follow the authentic RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa why settle for 'pretend Israel' of Christianity, pretend 'salvation,' and the 'pretend synagogues' of pseudo-Messianic pseudo-Judaism or 'Orthodox Nazarene pseudo-Judaism' described in Rev. 2.9 & 3.9? Get started in our Khav•rutꞋâ today.
|
|
 |
 The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) |
The following discussion of âàì (see this year's úÌåÉøÈä section) is quoted from the latest edition of NHM note 20.28.1:
"âàì, on the other hand, introduces a concept that most will find new and surprising; referring to the requiting of family honor by an appointed member of the family. "Thus, he acquires the alienated property of his kinsman (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 25.25) or purchases it when it is in danger of being lost to a stranger (cf. Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 32.6ff). In any event, he redeems a clansman who has been reduced to slavery by poverty (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 25.47ff.), and avenges his blood when it has been shed (cf., e.g., bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 35.17-19).
"Some commentators argue that these terms change meaning when applied to
"Thus, [Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ (23.10-11)] speaks of [Ël•oh•imꞋ] as the âàì of ("the next-of-kin requiter," duty bound to [requite; ybd]) orphans, and I•yovꞋ similarly believes Him to be the âàì of the persecuted (19.25; cf. 19.21-22). In the same spirit the Psalmist calls Him the 'father of orphans, defender of widows" (68.6). What better way, then, for the [Nâ•viꞋ] to reassure his people that [Ël•oh•imꞋ] has a special reason to redeem them , for He is their âåàì (go•eilꞋ; Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 41.14; 43.14; 44.6, 24; 47.4; 48.17, etc.) and an intimate relationship exists between Him and them (41.8-9; 43.10, 20; 44.1-2; 45.4; 54.10; 55.3).
"The Christian notion that mankind requires redemption owing to the guilt of original sin, which is incurred by every person as a consequence of •dâmꞋ's disobedience in Gan EidꞋën, is completely foreign to the medieval Jewish thinkers." Indeed, there is no one who need look beyond their own heart to find shortcomings relative to úÌåÉøÈä (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 64.5; 53.6).
"[Ho•sheiꞋa ha-Nâ•viꞋ], ÂꞋmos ha-Nâ•viꞋ or [Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ] know only a single world, in which even the great events at the End of Days run their course. Their eschatology is of a national kind: it speaks of the re-establishment of the House of David, now in ruins, and of the future glory of an Israel returned to [Ël•oh•imꞋ]; also of everlasting peace and the turning of all nations toward the one [Ël•oh•imꞋ] of Israel and away from heathen cults and images. In contrast, apocalypticism produced the doctrine of the two aeons which follow one another and stand in antithetical relationship: this world and the world to come, the reign of darkness and the reign of light. The national antithesis between Israel and the heathens is broadened into a cosmic antithesis in which the realms of the holy and of sin, of purity and impurity, of life and death, of light and darkness, [Ël•oh•imꞋ] and the anti-divine powers, stand opposed. A wider cosmic background is superadded to the national content of eschatology and it is here that the final struggle between Israel and the heathens takes place."
 |
| The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT |
"The elements of the catastrophic and the visions of doom are present in peculiar fashion in the Messianic vision. On the one hand, they are applied to the transition or destruction in which the Messianic redemption is born—hence the ascription of the Jewish concept of 'birth pangs or the Mâ•shiꞋakh' to this period. But, on the other hand, it also applied to the terrors of the Last Judgment which in many of these descriptions concludes the Messianic period instead of accompanying its beginnings. And thus for the apocalyptist's glance the Messianic utopia may often become twofold. The new aeon and the days of the Mâ•shiꞋakh are no longer one' rather they refer to two periods of which the one, the rule of the Mâ•shiꞋakh, really still belongs to this world; the other, however, already belongs entirely to the new aeon which begins with the Last Judgment." The confusing of these descriptions has thereby blurred the transition period in this physical realm—the Messianic era—with the Final Judgment which occurs in the timeless non-dimensional, non-physical Realm. This is partially because, subsequent to the Messianic era, ).
This confusion of two eras also resulted in "the doubling of the figure of the Mâ•shiꞋakh, its split into a Mâ•shiꞋakh of the House of David and one of the House of [Yo•seiphꞋ]. The Mâ•shiꞋakh ben [Yo•seiphꞋ] is the dying Mâ•shiꞋakh who perishes in the Messianic catastrophe [as well as at the hands of non-Jews; ybd]. The features of the catastrophic are gathered together in him. He fights and loses—but he does not suffer. The prophecy of [Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ] regarding the suffering servant of [Ël•oh•imꞋ] is never applied to him. He is a redeemer who redeems nothing."
While this undoubtedly describes the teachings of the Qabbalists and modern Hasidim Scholem contradicts his own implied desire to avoid the anti-Christian blinders of his predecessors whom he openly criticized for their myopia: "I must preface a word intended to correct a widespread misconception. I am referring to the distortion of historical circumstances, equally popular among both Jewish and Christian scholars, which lies in denying the continuation of the apocalyptic tradition in rabbinic Judaism. This distortion of intellectual history is quite understandable in terms of the anti-Jewish interests of Christian scholars as well as the anti-Christian interests of Jewish ones. Historical truth was the price paid for the prejudices of both camps. By themselves these attempts can claim no value as a truthful representation of the historical reality of Judaism'"
"Just after the origin of the known apolalypses, especially those of the first pre- and post-Christian centuries, an undiminished mighty stream of apocalypticisim rushes forth within the Jewish rabbinic tradition; in part it flows into the channel of the talmudic and aggadic literature, in part it finds its expression in its own literature, preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic. There can be no talk of discontinuity between these later apocalypses and those ancient ones whose Hebrew originals have until now remained lost and which have only been preserved in translations and in the adaptations of the Christian churches. The significance of these two sources of rabbinic apocalypticism for an understanding of Messianism in the world of the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ cannot be estimated too highly."
 |
The contention that Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 53 was never applied to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa conspicuously contradicts the historical documentation. Lurianic Qa•bâl•âhꞋ emphasized Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 53 in "a key role, for as it was now reinterpreted the verse 'But he was wounded because of our pᵊshâ•im' was taken to be an allusion not only to the Mâ•shiꞋakh [Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ], the legendary forerunner of the Redeemer who according to tradition was to suffer death at the hands of the Gentiles, but to the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ as well'" Though the Sabbatian perversion of it was heretical, this connection of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 53 to the tradition of the admittedly "legendary" forerunner of the Redeemer was demonstrably not an original medieval revelation. NHM 8.17 and the Nag Hammadi Second Apocalypse of James 47.21-23 are both thought to date back to the 1st century C.E.
As a result of Ram•
For an exhaustive translation, including the Tar•gum•imꞋ , go to (click) our History Museum and then select "Mashiakh." Click the first "Burning Issues" button and scroll down to the Scripture links to Yᵊsha•yâhꞋ u 53 links.
Concerning extra-messianic redemption, an illogical reading of one pâ•suqꞋ in particular has played a central role. "If Israel would repent even for a single day, they would be instantly redeemed and the Son of David would instantly come, for it says (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 95.7): 'Today if you will hearken to His voice.'" Interpreting this only in a national sense, avoiding any personal and individual meaning, redemption and messianism were seen only in a national sense. Personal redemption was (wrongly) perceived as exclusively a Christian doctrine of personal salvation.
Yet, it is as unthinkable that an individual úÌåÉøÈä-observant Jew who hearkens to His voice would not be redeemed "today"! as that redemption of Israel and Messianism isn't inherently national. This necessitates both an individual meaning and an other-Realm meaning, as well as an interrelating of the two Realms. Clearly no redemption has occurred in our physical world. However, to assume that no redemption occurs in the non-dimensional world of
 |
 |
"The early [Qabbalists] hoped for a particular and mystical redemption for each individual, to be achieved by escaping from the turbulence, perplexity, chaos, and storms of the actual course of history. Here, then, we have a view of redemption in which the foundations of the world are not moved by great Messianic disturbances. Instead, the world itself is rejected by ascent upon the rungs of the ladder [Su•
Their mistake was to presume to find an ascent based (and dependent) upon their own merit (cf. Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 64.5), outside the criteria of purity and ki•purꞋ prescribed by úÌåÉøÈä—available temporally only through properly sanctioned animal qor•bân•otꞋ and eternally only through the provision of
Personal , messianic, redemption exists and is achievable, and only obtainable, through the provision of god image-idol that contradicts (supercedes) úÌåÉøÈä are headed for the terrible tragedy of the very Judgment they believe they are circumventing.
Every element of the physical world is inherently temporal. Sages have never addressed the logical conflict posed by a Mâ•shiꞋakh who must be merely human and a resurrection—both of which are eternal. It should be simple to recognize Israel's national redemption as the collective accumulation of úÌåÉøÈä-observant individual Jews and geir•imꞋ in the only Realm in which time-space is irrelevant. Like personal redemption, the national redemption is also found, therefore, not in the physical world which lacks Av•râ•hâmꞋ Âv•iꞋnu, MoshꞋëh, Dâ•widꞋ ha-mëꞋlëkh, et al., but rather in joining all of these personalities—national Israel—in the only eternal Realm, the non-dimensional Realm of
"Both Nᵊviy•imꞋ and Aggadists conceived of redemption as a new state of the world wholly unrelated to anything that had gone before, not the product of a purifying development of the preceding state. Hence, for them the world unredeemed and the world in process of redemption were separated by an abyss." Indeed, Rabbi Israel of Rizhin noted that "the Messianic world will be a world without images, 'in which the image and its object can no longer be related'—which apparently means that a new mode of being will emerge which cannot be pictorially represented."
Failure to recognize the non-dimensional Realm as the redeemed Realm led the apocalyptists to assume that the descriptions of catastrophe coincided in this world with redemption in this world—clearly contradictory, yet illogically accepted; and leading to much of the confusion.
Recognizing the division, one then notices that the law of entropy remains in force in this-world history even subsequent to the arrival of the Mâ•shiꞋakh with the accompanying achievement of both Israel's personal and national redemption. The history of the physical world continues to spiral downward unabated during the Messianic transitional period even while Messianic redemption is taking place. When a renewal in this world may take place (as described in a literal interpretation of the Âl•eiꞋnu) depends upon the accumulation of a critical mass among temporal mortals. The temporal nature of mortals makes achieving such critical mass difficult. According to the earliest sources, however, redemption may never have been intended to apply to this physical world.
A second error was introduced by the mistaken, interpretation of Tᵊhil•imꞋ 95.7 disallowing (or, more accurately, failing to perceive) personal redemption in the non-dimensional Realm of
 |
| ''Tikkun'' – man's attempts to repair the world |
Failure to grasp essential elements of redemption led medieval Qabbalists to embrace medieval ideas of transmigration of souls, Sabbatian "redemption by sinning" through a sinning Mâ•shiꞋakh, and the idea that, by repairing themselves, Jews repair—bring úÌÄ÷ÌåÌï to—the world (as if the goy•imꞋ don't exist).
The successor to Qabbalist speculations regarding redemption and messianism were the modern Kha•sid•imꞋ (as contrasted with the Biblical Kha•sid•imꞋ). "[Martin] Buber said quite fittingly on the teaching of [modern] Hasidism that 'it has proclaimed in the strongest and clearest manner: there is no definite, exhibitable, teachable, magic action in established formulae and gestures, attitudes and tensions of the soul, that is effective for redemption." Indeed, that such magic persists disguised as Judaism in brazen defiance of úÌåÉøÈä prohibitions against such magic is due solely to the prevalence of superstition among both laity and too many false shepherds credentialed as rabbis.
In Khasidic thought, the inward redemption of the Qabbalists was given the term ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú, a cognate of ãÌÆáÆ÷ and based on the instantiation of ãÌÆáÆ÷ in Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 11.22). While Scholem, and perhaps the modern Kha•sid•imꞋ as well, held ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú to be "without Messianic implications," no ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú can, in either the real world or the úÌåÉøÈä world of separating between holy and profane, be without the Messianic implications essential to lift men out of the profane into the holy.
While acknowledging the personal nature of redemption inherent in Hasidic ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú, Scholem goes on to ignore Israel's national redemption inherent in personal redemption. Only Scholem's failing to grasp the interrelationship between the two leads him to mistakenly represent personal ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú as contradictory to national redemption!
Further ignoring the úÌåÉøÈä criteria of separating the Holy,
"'All our prayers for redemption'—says the Ba•al Sheim—'are essentially bound to be prayers for the redemption of the individual which is the redemption of the [nëphꞋësh?], and this is the meaning of the verse [Tᵊhil•imꞋ 69.19]: 'He drew near to my nëphꞋësh and âÀàÈìÈäÌ—as the âåÉàÅì äÇãÌÈí'; it is precisely the [nëphꞋësh] that is spoken of'. This is the kind of redemption which 'can take place in every man and at every time.'" "'The meaning of ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú is the attainment of that individual redemption which pertains to one's own soul [nëphꞋësh?],' said the Ba•al Sheim" (Scholem, p. 195 fm Tolᵊdot f. 198a). Unlike the earliest understandings, "The Mâ•shiꞋakh here becomes the entire people of Israel rather than an individual redeemer: the people of Israel as a whole prepares itself to amend the primal flaw" [emphasis added].
"We are induced to ask why there should be this radical emphasis on the essentially non-Messianic nature of human activity' The answer seems clear to me. It is in deliberate reaction to the dangerous line of Messianism' leading up to the Sabbatian upheaval, that these ideas were conceived' it was reinterpreted [in medieval times] in a manner that took the dangerous sting of Messianism out of it. Let us accomplish our task of personal salvation, it seems to say, and forget about the Messiah" (Scholem, p. 195). However, the understanding of the Mâ•shiꞋakh deriving from the úÌåÉøÈä of Har Sin•aiꞋ until that time—which includes Tal•mudꞋ—cannot be overthrown by medieval innovators!
It is true that "redemption of the soul without redemption of the social body, i.e., of the nation [of Israel, of course] from its historical exile, of the outward world from its broken state, has never had a Messianic meaning in Judaism" (Scholem, p. 194). Then, Scholem goes on to state that this "is one of the main points where Judaism and Christianity parted ways." To the contrary, however, what intractably separates Christianity from Judaism is Christianity's selectivity, and/or partial or complete rejection, of úÌåÉøÈä- observance, consequent Displacement Theology and, in a domino effect, misojudaism. Try as theologians and historians do, no Biblical interpretations unrelated to non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance and its consequent Displacement Theology and misojudaism can be fixed as either exclusively Judaic or exclusively Christian.
However, this is a failure to discern the two distinct realms in which redemption occurs. Based on this failure to grasp fundamental concepts, the Hasidic definition of Messianic redemption sought to neutralize Messianism entirely, to produce a Mâ•shiꞋakh-less redemption and ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú of úÌÄ÷ÌåÌï. Their definition should be corrected to read: "The difference between ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú in our time and ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú on the wider plane where Messianic redemption takes place is not a difference of substance but of [realm; ybd]: in the [eternal and non-dimensional realm] ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú [is] continuous and everlasting, whereas in the [physical domain and] exile it cannot endure but comes and goes."
The non-Messianic variety of ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú is, therefore, non-existent; an error in reasoning, a failure to grasp fundamental concepts. The Rabbi of Polnoye, for example, "is tireless in expounding the thesis that our whole life is concerned only with the non-Messianic aspect of redemption, the Messianic one being entirely beyond our ken. We can do nothing in that regard, it is wholly up to [Ël•oh•imꞋ]." The Rabbi of Polnoye failed to realize that (1) private redemption is Messianic redemption, (2) cumulative private Messianic redemption is Messianic national redemption, and (3) both úÌÄ÷ÌåÌï and ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú, which are within our ken, achieve both. Moreover, Scholem gives the cause of the error: Just as, centuries earlier, anti-Christian doctrines were constructed at any cost, even in contradiction of úÌåÉøÈä criteria (removing the Asërët ha-Dibrot from tᵊphil•inꞋ, etc.), so too "The answer seems clear to me. It is in deliberate reaction to the dangerous line of Messianism practiced by man, a line leading up to the Sabbatian upheaval, that these ideas were conceived" (ibid.).
In this way, in medieval times, Hasidic personal redemption, which should have been incorporated into Messianic redemption, instead came to misrepresent personal redemption as contradistingished from Messianic redemption.
ãÌÀáÅ÷åÌú = Messianic personal redemption = Israel's collective Messianic redemption is, in Qabbalism, "the last grade of ascent to [Ël•oh•imꞋ]. It is not union, because union with [Ël•oh•imꞋ] is denied to man even in that mystical upsurge of the [nëphꞋësh], according to Qabbalistic theology. But it comes as near to union as a mystical interpretation of Judaism will allow."
The logical necessity of consistency applies to redempton as to every other aspect of an infallible and unchanging
The same attribute of consistency with previous revelations of
At least a minimal re-evaluation of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's qualifications at this point is in order. According to Tal•mudꞋ: "Let no one think that in the days of the Mâ•shiꞋakh anything of the natural course of the world will cease or that any innovation will be introduced into creation [which, more importantly, would introduce a logical contradiction of the Perfect and Immutable Creator; ybd]. Rather, the world will continue in its accustomed course [another Judaic tradition—see also the Noakhide Laws—that has derived from RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and is first documented in our writings, cf. NHM 24.37ff].
 |
The words of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ: 'The wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the panther shall lie down with the kid' (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 11:6) are a parable and an allegory which must be understood to mean that Israel will dwell securely even among the wicked of the heathen nations who are compared to a wolf and a panther. For they will all accept the true faith and will no longer rob or destroy. Likewise, all similar scriptural passages dealing with the Mâ•shiꞋakh [including those concerning his rebuilding the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and the Messianic prophecies of Eil•i•yâhꞋu; ybd] must be regarded as figurative. Only in the Days of the Mâ•shiꞋakh will everyone know what the metaphors mean and to what they refer. The sages said: 'The only difference between this world and the Days of the Mâ•shiꞋakh is the subjection of Israel to the nations.'" (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 91b).
According to Ram• 11.9.1.
(The ultimate, and laughable, self-contradiction is the recent innovation of some elements of Khabad who, while a major segment of Khabad continues to believe even after he died that "Rebbe" Schneerson is the "Moshiach," now tries to retroject into the Ram•
Yet, after the great ingathering (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 27.12-13) but before the deliverance of Yᵊrushâlayim (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 29) it is also written (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ):
28.11 – ëÌÄé áÌÀìÇòÂâÅé ùÒÈôÈä, åÌáÀìÈùÑåÉï àÇçÆøÆú; éÀãÇáÌÅø àÆì-äÈòÈí äÇæÌÆä:
(Because with derisions of lip, and in another tongue; shall one speak to this kindred.)
The Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ of Israel have been in the process of ingathering since 1948. The Sages agreed that the Mâ•shiꞋakh is responsible for the ingathering!!!
It is already clear that it is unavoidable, according to Ram•
Those who fathom Tᵊhil•imꞋ 118:22 can see that the sanctuary, too, is virtually complete, the breaches in úÌåÉøÈä are being addressed and redressed, and the qor•bân•otꞋ of halakhically úÌåÉøÈä-observant Jews—long acknowledged to have become limited to tᵊphilot on our part—have been, and continue to be, offered (in the eternal, non-physical – spiritual – realm) by the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ and TzëmꞋakh in the heavens described by Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Bë•rëkh•yâhꞋ Bën-Id•oꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ since even before the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini. Redemption, while still being realized, became accessible a long time ago—for those who would hearken, the Realm arrived in the hearts of the úÌåÉøÈä-observant individual – not based on race (genetics).
 0250x333.jpg "Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9") |
 1152x1536.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (1994), like an angelic bridal procession in gowns, converges with |
"It is told of Rav Hiyya and Rav Shimon [ca. 225 C.E] that they walked in the valley of Arbela early in the morning and saw the dawn breaking on the horizon. Thereupon Rav Hiyya said: 'So too is Israel's redemption; at first it will be only slightly visible, then it will shine forth more brightly, and only afterwards will it break forth in all of its glory.'" This concurs with RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's description in NHM 24.37-38. See also The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT and my articles in back issues of The
Yet another traditional and long-held Judaic doctrine concerning the Mâ•shiꞋakh must be included in any such discussion. Unlike Christianity, in which one's status is determined solely by one's beliefs, in Judaism, it is primarily one's practice—not beliefs (within the constraints of úÌåÉøÈä, of course)—that determines one's status. Certainly, all of the sages have agreed that one's beliefs concerning the Mâ•shiꞋakh (so long as they aren't idolatrous; e.g. believing in a divine man-god), are peripheral and not one of the basic, i.e. determining, tenets.
It always comes back to the Displacement Theology of Christian claims of supersession (and resulting practice) that distinguishes legitimate Messianic beliefs from the Apostasy of contra-Judaic (antinomian) pseudo-messianism. Recognizing, or fabricating, any authority that displaces the legitimate succession of Bat•eiꞋ-Din emanating from Har Sin•aiꞋ is Displacement Theology. The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ are the only group on the planet recognizing RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the Mâ•shiꞋakh who operate within the legitimate framework of the recognized Bat•eiꞋ-Din system within Pᵊrush•imꞋ cum
|
|
In connection with Ma·lâkh·iꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ 3.8, discussed in this year's úÌåÉøÈä section, since the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Sheini, the îÇòÂùÒÅø and the úÌÀøåÌîÈä, like the restitutions earlier paid to the Kohan•imꞋ, are paid to the Beit-Din who appoints the duly authorized Jewish ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí who are perpetuating the teaching of úÌåÉøÈä and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. For followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, this is the Av Beit Din (head, lit. "father," of the Beit-Din) of the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), Israel.
|
|
bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 5.5-8— A principle usually overlooked by non-Jews is set forth in this passage. Before offering an expiatory offering, an individual who has transgressed úÌåÉøÈä is here required to make restitution—plus 20%—to any aggrieved party. The Christian notion of forgiveness is incompatible with úÌåÉøÈä. There can be no forgiveness until:
Restitution has been made to wronged parties,
Forgiveness has been sought from the victim (forgiveness cannot be granted by a non-victim, nor even by a survivor of a victim!)
tᵊshuv•âhꞋ has been accomplished and
The blood qor•bânꞋ required by úÌåÉøÈä has been offered for ki•purꞋ.
Jews usually are unaware of the fourth point (however, cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.11) and the role of the Mâ•shiꞋakh in fulfilling this requirement. Even when the qor•bân•otꞋ were offered in the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ by properly documented Kohan•imꞋ, these were merely the tav•nitꞋ of the real blood ki•purꞋ provided in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ—by the Mâ•shiꞋakh, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.
|
|
The Adjudicator (dayân) of Truth has judged man according to his practice (Ma•as•ëhꞋ) and has punished him measure for measure at the hands of a man. As memorized in the first section of [Tal•mudꞋ] Ma•sëkꞋët Sot•âhꞋ 8b: "In whatever measure a man measures-out it shall be measured-out to him."
(Translated so far)
|
|
|