Shelach
Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

שְׁלַח לְךָ

(bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 13.1—15.41) במדבר י"ג א'—ט"ו מ"א
bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.37-41 :(Ma•phᵊtirꞋ) מפטיר

Torâh	Haphtârâh	Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua	Mᵊnorat ha-Maor

5760 (2000.06)

He Who Ignores the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din:
"אֶת-י--ה הוּא מְגַדֵּף"

(Blasphemes י--ה!")

It isn't unusual to find non-Jews who usurp and displace the authority of Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Bat•eiꞋ-Din by proclaiming themselves 'spiritual Jews,' 'spiritual Israel,' or a 'geir'—recognition that can only be bestowed by a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din. Displacing the authority of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din is Displacement Theology.

Christianity Left BehindAfter Years of Home Meetings,
An Humble Exodus

1977, Edgewater Dr., Orlando, Florida – lectern and 5 chairs

1977, Edgewater Dr., Orlando, Florida – window sign

Other examples of Displacement Theology include wearing one's own version of צִיצִית and usurping other "Jewish" trappings in contradiction of decisions of the Beit-Din adjudicated millennia ago and maintained ever since.

Yet, those who seek Truth should not become discouraged by their shortcomings and abandon their journey. In my ignorance, in the process of learning to shed Christian beliefs, I committed many of these a•veir•otꞋ of תּוֹרָה myself when I was a Christian. But, unlike Christians, this "kid" didn't arrogantly exalt himself against "the Law" or "the Jews," adamantly defending the "milk" (doctrines, beliefs and traditions) of his Christian "mother" culture – "following his own heart and his own eyes."

Still a Baptist minister with pivotal questions in the early-1970s, my translating of the entire Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) from all of the earliest extant source documents, supplemented by my historical research of the 1^st 4 centuries C.E., inter alia had demonstrated conclusively that Christianity is a fabricated counterfeit and displacement theology (re: our Kha•vᵊr•utꞋâ).

After a thorough search to check if I'd made any serious errors, it became clear that there's good reason that no Christian theologian or archeologist in the world has ever effectively refuted the Jewish Bible or Judaism; and that none have ever demonstrated sufficient knowledge to intelligently dispute my research findings that corroborated the Jewish Bible and Judaism – in contrast to the later displacement theology of Hellenist Roman gentile Christianity conceived by "Saint" Stephan and "Saint" Paul. Even now, as I look back on the trail I blazed decades ago, I see back in the distance only two prominent scholars headed in generally the right direction toward my research findings: Prof. James H. Charlesworth (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary) and Prof. James Tabor (Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte). The reason why neither Christian, nor even most rabbinic, theologians (in contrast to scholars) will ever be headed in this direction should be obvious.

Whomever Behaves בְּיָד רָמָה

Since no historians or archeologists (or theologians) was (or has since been, for that matter) able to demonstrate any oversight or error, we immediately renounced Christianity, humbled ourselves before the Jewish community who authored תּוֹרָה – thereby owning sole authority to adjudicate תּוֹרָה – and submitted to the Authority of תּוֹרָה and the Orthodox Jewish Beit Din. As a result, in 1984, Karen and I were converted by Orthodox rabbis according to Orthodox Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (see docs in my bio). Since the time of Mosh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ, Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, this bᵊrit – with י--ה, not men – has always been irreversible. Modern rabbinic reforms בְּיָד רָמָה, by 21^st century Ultra-Orthodox rabbis mired in Medieval European assimilations, can never override ancient Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ to change that!

‫15.30-31 – וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר-תַּעֲשֶׂה | בְּיָד רָמָה, מִן-הָאֶזְרָח וּמִן-הַגֵּר, אֶת-י--ה הוּא מְגַדֵּף; וְנִכְרְתָה, הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּהּ: ³¹ כִּי דְבַר-י--ה בָּזָה, וְאֶת-מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפָר; הִכָּרֵת | תִּכָּרֵת, הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא עֲוֹנָה בָּהּ:

Immediately following this (15.32-33), we find, as the paradigm, the man who acted בְּיָד רָמָה against the Beit-Din in gathering kindling for (apparently never igniting) a fire on שַׁבָּת.

Countless unexplained grooved rocks scattered throughout Old World; calendar, ritual, alien—or firemaking?

Igniting a fire in ancient times required extensive mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ in working a hearthboard with a wood fire plow, fire drill or bow drill; or a hearthstone with a stone or ceramic stylus, or repeatedly striking two different rocks (e.g., pyrite & flint)—until an ember could be produced and coaxed into a flame. 

The prohibition of mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ on Sha•bâtꞋ concerned the gathering of firewood & kindling as well as the arduous work of friction needed to produce a spark—not the believed-supernatural creation-ignition per se. The violater executed by Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ was interrupted and arrested before he could light his fire (cf. bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.33)!!! Thus, there is no mystery in the definition of mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ. A priori, the work involved in firemaking—not some supernatural magic or imagined creativity of ignition—is what was prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 35.3). Along with the ox-drawn cart, today's matches, lighters and electric sparks, along with gas and electric ranges, heaters and lights, eliminate the mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ involved (and prohibited) in firemaking. (Cooking, however, is separately defined as mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ and, accordingly, prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ.)

As a result, צִיצִית were commanded by י--ה specifically to remember:

15.39-40: 'and you shall remember all of the מִצְוֹת י--ה and you shall do them, וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ after your own heart and after your own eyes, after which you זֹנִים.

This is constructive מְגַדֵּף for the citizen (Jew) and גֵּר, a fortiori from גּוֹיִם who are neither, how much more severe will be their punishment!

5759 (1999.06)

מְקֹשֵׁשׁ קַשׁ

מְקֹשֵׁשׁ קַשׁ (Afghan women)

מְקֹשֵׁשׁ קַשׁ Nyumbani Village boy Kenya (plopsymd.com)

Gathering kindling was a preparatory chore – mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ in itself, part of building a fire and, therefore, prohibited on שַׁבָּת (15.30-36). The account of stoning the man who thus worked on שַׁבָּת is directly followed by the instruction that Jews are to wear tassels on the four corners of their garments incorporating a פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת (15.37-41). The sages have often observed that the adjacency of one account to another suggests a thematic connection. Then what is the connection between these two adjacent accounts?

A couple of weeks ago (in Naso) we explored, via The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) note 20.28.1, how one of the Names of י--ה is גוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל. That י--ה necessarily implies that יִשְׂרָאֵל is precisely what she is described in Ta•na"khꞋ—the family (variously Bride and Son) of י--ה – the Royal Family of י--ה.

We find that תְּכֵלֶת was, along with crimson and purple, one of three major colors symbolizing royalty (cf. Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 23.6; Ës•teirꞋ 8.15 & Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 10.9).

It is as a result of this association that תְּכֵלֶת was included in the יְרִיעֹת of the מִשְׁכָּן (Shᵊm•otꞋ 26.3, et al.), the אֵפוֹד, and the פָּרֹכֶת of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ hâ-Ri•shonꞋ of ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-mëꞋlëkh (Mᵊlakh•imꞋ Beit 3.14).

By incorporating the פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת in our צִיצִית, Jews acknowledge membership in this Royal Family of י--ה. It must be remembered from the Scriptures cited earlier, however, that not everyone who wears תְּכֵלֶת is a member of the Royal Family of י--ה. Simply wearing a פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת on צִיצִית, as a costume, doesn't transform a member of some other family (royal or not) into a member of the Household of י--ה. If one is a member of royalty then it can emblemize that family's royalty or nobility (if, indeed, it is in some way royal or noble). But only for a Jew (or גֵּר recognized by a Beit-Din of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community) can the reminder point to the particular Royal Family of י--ה.

A member of the Royal Household of י--ה is bound by the "House Rules" (תּוֹרָה). Violating תּוֹרָה, lacking tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, results in kâ•reitꞋ—spiritual and eternal death even when not physical. The members of the Royal Household of י--ה need to remember that. This means we must remember at all times that we are members of the Royal Household of י--ה—with the ensuant responsibilities and accountability. Hence, the פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת so conspicuous on our garments that it can be seen from all four directions—to remind each Jew and גֵּר that the Royalty of י--ה, with all of its attendant responsibilities, threads through our entire Household.

5758 (1998.06)

"The text records that the Yisrâ•eil•imꞋ went to 'Mosh•ëhꞋ and A•har•onꞋ' for a judgment. Why to both???

"Whenever a new and difficult legal question arises, the first level of search is for precedent that may be applied to a problem at hand. The Ko•heinꞋ was the guardian of the 'database,'" the accumulating body of case law, known as Oral Law.

"After the Ko•heinꞋ, we turn to the sho•pheitꞋ. The second way to determine Jewish law is by creative interpretation, utilizing at least one of the Thirteen Hermeneutic Principles of biblical explication enunciated by R. Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ' [(Tan•âꞋ, 90-135 C.E.) The was an early attempt by R. Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ setting forth the primitive rules of logic. The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ adhere strictly to the far more advanced discrete mathematical logic, more nearly approaching the Logic of י--ה – to which R. Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ aspired, for interpretation.]

"The authority of the Ko•heinꞋ rests on his vast knowledge of tradition, the world of precedents; the authority of the sho•pheitꞋ rests on his link to the original Written Law, plus his creative logic and application of the hermeneutic principles. [Here as well, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ adhere strictly to mathematical logic for interpretation.]

"Throughout the Ta•lᵊmudꞋ, the dialectic between Ko•heinꞋ and sho•pheitꞋ is an issue. The question often surfaces as to who is greater: someone with a 'Sinai' mind, who never forgets a single law, or the 'uprooter of mountains' whose sharpness of intellect can turn over a mountain in discovering a hidden truth. ['Uprooting mountains,' whenever the 'mountain' happens to be a Principle of תּוֹרָה, is part of the problem, not the solution. What's needed, as Ramba"mꞋ also declared, is "repairing the breaches"—which are previously 'uprooted mountains'—of תּוֹרָה. That takes logical explication working from both precedent and law; restoring, not 'uprooting mountains.' 'Moving of mountains,' as advocated by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 17.20), does not include violating Tor•âhꞋ shë-bikh•tâvꞋ.]

"Indeed, the controversy may mask an even deeper question as to the essence of Jewish law: Is it primarily a mass of laws which can only be mastered by means of prodigious study, or is it primarily a consummate system of logic, which requires great powers of analysis and creative interpretation? [Note: Logic and "creative interpretation" are mutually exclusive. The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ subscribe to the view that תּוֹרָה, which includes Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, is a mass of principles applied through a consummate system of logic.]

"Whatever the outcome of the theological argument, both traditional religious rulings as well as intellectual initiative—Ko•heinꞋ and sho•pheitꞋ—are crucial bulwarks in religio-legal adjudication. That's why the Jews bring the question of the wood-gatherer to both MoshꞋëh and A•har•onꞋ, the sho•pheitꞋ and the Ko•heinꞋ, the master Nâ•viꞋ and [logician], and the guardian of the precedent.

"And perhaps, in first mentioning Mosh•ëhꞋ, the [Ta•na"khꞋ] is telling us that in order for תּוֹרָה to remain 'alive' in every generation, [logical explication] of the Law given at Sinai is the chief requirement for religio-legal leadership." (R. Shlomo Riskin, Jerusalem Post, 1997.06.27, p. 11).

5757 (1997.06)

13:23 — And they cut from there זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד. In Hebrew, like Spanish and other Romance languages, adjectives follow the noun. The question is, does אֶחָד modify אֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים or the זְמוֹרָה and the אֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים together? In other words, should we read this "a pruned-branch וְ one cluster of grapes" or "one pruned-branch וְ a cluster of grapes"? This is impossible to answer from translations, but certain in the original Hebrew.

While we can understand some of the vine being taken with the cluster of grapes, probably to extend the time of freshness in order to show Mosh•ëhꞋ after a couple of days walking back to camp (refrigerators not having been invented), זְמוֹרָה is fem. Ergo, the m. adj. אֶחָד cannot be modifying זְמוֹרָה. A priori, אֶחָד modifies אֶשְׁכּוֹל. The grammar therefore requires us to understand only one cluster of grapes on a vine-pruning. This was not a supernatural cluster of grapes so large it required two men to carry it on a pole. Back to the real world, folks. תּוֹרָה is about a real Creator-Singularity of a real universe… and reality, not irrationality.

In separating fact from legend, however, we note also that the sentence doesn't end with the cluster of grapes. In describing the fruit on this pole carried by two men, the trailing phrase seems to be routinely overlooked:

‫… וּמִן-הָרִמֹּנִים וּמִן-הַתְּאֵנִים:

The English phrase "and they brought," added by the Koren Ta•na"khꞋ after "they carried it between two on a pole" doesn't exist in the Hebrew. A more accurate rendering of the Hebrew reads: "And they cut from there one pruning with [lit. "and"] a cluster of grapes, and they carried [it / them] on a pole between the two—with [lit. "and from"] the pomegranates and figs."

Keeping these fruits on their branches to extend their freshness, before the days of refrigerators, adds a new dimension. When we consider two men loading up a pole with a pruning having a remarkably large cluster of grapes plus prunings with pomegranates and prunings with figs then we have a pole laden with fruit that, while not being too heavy for one man to carry, would understandably be too awkward for one man. It would be too awkward – particularly for two soldiers carrying weapons and alert for any enemy – to be carried without a pole even by two men. תּוֹרָה can be read, by the logically discerning, as fact more easily than as legend or myth.

נַחַל vs Arabic وادي

נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל (modern נַחַל BᵊsorꞋ) in western Israeli NëgꞋëv, east of southern AzꞋâh (photo asergeev.com)

The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ eschew Arabic assimilation displacing Hebrew just as we do German assimilation (Yiddish) displacing Hebrew. נַחַל should not be rendered by the Arabic وادي (same meaning). Anyone who can learn a foreign word to describe a (usually dry) stream-bed, can learn the Hebrew term, נַחַל, and avoid the Arabic term وادي

In English, it doesn't make much sense why the Israelis called the place אֶשְׁכּוֹל because they found a remarkable cluster of grapes there. In the Hebrew it makes complete sense that the נַחַל near which this remarkable אֶשְׁכּוֹל was found would be called נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל.

תְּפִלָּה of Mosh•ëhꞋ the Intermediary!

Learn to pray this תְּפִלָּה just as Mosh•ëhꞋ prayed it:

‫14.19b – סְלַח-נָא, לַעוֹן, הָעָם הַזֶּה, כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶךָ; וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לַעָם הַזֶּה, מִמִּצְרַים וְעַד-הֵנָּה:

Instead of putting this all together in English, read it from the Ta•na"khꞋ (Hebrew), since now you can understand every word. If you aren't reading Ta•na"khꞋ, i.e., the Hebrew, then you're relying on someone's translation – men, not reading Ta•na"khꞋ. One of the primary missions of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ is to introduce and acquaint people with the Ta•na"khꞋ. Better to read one word of Ta•na"khꞋ than to read, even to memorize verbatim, an entire counterfeit (translation) cover-to-cover!

If any remnant of Judaic integrity remains in the account by Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh (transcribed by Luke, 23.34, and Hellenized into the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)), then his quotation of the intermediating תְּפִלָּה by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa at the Roman crucifixion parallels the above intermediating תְּפִלָּה of Mosh•ëhꞋ: "Father, αφες them, for they don't see what they're doing!"

5756 (1996.06)

In last year's discussion of pâ•râsh•atꞋ ShᵊlakhꞋ, we explored why the gathering of kindling constituted an early stage of building a fire on שַׁבָּת. In our 1996.04 discussion of pâ•râsh•atꞋ Shᵊmin•iꞋ, we explored why the prohibition of kindling a חֹל fire on שַׁבָּת constituted the prohibited mixing of קֹדֶשׁ שַׁבָּת with חֹל.

In last week's discussion of the Haphtâr•âhꞋ, we explored how שַׁבָּת represents the bridging of the gap between the physical and spiritual realms in the Mâ•shiꞋakh, who is the earthly agent of י--ה.

Israel/Jews "an evil congregation"?

14.27— "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation" doesn't exist in the Hebrew. "Shall I bear" has nothing to do with the Hebrew. Rather, the Hebrew asks,

‫ עַד-מָתַי, לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת

("Until when, to the convocation [shall be (continue)] this wrongness?").

The Hebrew phrase deals with how long the convocation would grumble against י--ה, making no mention about how long י--ה would put up with the convocation. The question was, "How long will this wrong-headed convocation persist in grumbling against Me?"

14.33 — "and they shall bear

‫ אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר"

(until the whole of your carcasses [are] in the mi•dᵊbârꞋ.)

גֵּר – the Resident-Alien

‫15.14 – וְכִי-יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר,

or a "born Jew", he shall make an אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ-נִיחֹחַ…

As Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ shall do it, thus shall the גֵּר do it. And thus is the גֵּר responsible and obligated to do it! The גֵּר may not make up his (or her) own mind or follow the dictates of his (or her) own heart.

"Thus" is a key word. The גֵּר commits to learn how the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and rest of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community observe the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ and how to accommodate the Jewish community while maintaining the higher halakhic standards of the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ—to do the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ not according to what seems right in their own eyes, but rather to do the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ like the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community do them. Just as Rut committed (1.16-17) to Na•ami, this is the same commitment of the גֵּר to the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage community of today. The גֵּר makes no interpretation, revision, or other modification to Judaism (i.e., Displacement Theology) in order to make it more "palatable" to his or her preconceptions' which are often rooted in the milk of religious beliefs of his mother culture.

A dispute recorded in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ illustrates that the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage, including Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, Bat•eiꞋ-Din, when rooted in logic, continue to be the ultimate earthly authority for such things. The dispute erupted between Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ Bën-Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ ("Gamliel II") and Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ.

Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ Bën-Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ began his tenure as Nâ•siꞋ of the Beit Din hâ-Jâ•dolꞋ in ca. 80 C.E. This dispute, therefore, dates from the late 1^st to early 2^nd centuries C.E.)

CURRENT MOON moon phase info

Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ disagreed with Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ Bën-Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ about the reliability of witnesses to the appearance of the new moon, and, thus, the intercalation of the beginning of Rosh KhoꞋdësh,.

Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ Bën-Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ, the Nâ•siꞋ, ordered Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ to appear before him on the date Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ had calculated to be כִּפּוּר—with his staff and carrying money (both violations of the laws regarding Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ).

Rabbi A•qiv•âꞋ, finding Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ distressed, quoted wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 23.4 to him: "These are the מועדי י--ה (Mo•ad•eiꞋ י--ה); appointed [times] of י--ה), the holy called-occasions, which you ^pl. shall call-an-occasion, each at its appointed [time]."

Rabbi A•qiv•âꞋ went to [Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ] and, finding him in great distress. He said to him, I can bring proof [from the Scripture] that whatever Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ Bën-Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ has done is valid, because it says, These are the appointed seasons, [which means to say that] whether they are proclaimed at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no appointed seasons save these.

[Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ] then went to R. Dosa Bën-Harkinas, who said to him, If we call in question [the decisions of] the Beit-Din [ha-Ja•dolꞋ] of Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ Bën-Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ, we must call in question the decisions of every Beit-Din [ha-Ja•dolꞋ] that has existed since the days of MoshꞋëh up to the present time " (Mish•nâhꞋ Rosh ha-Shân•âhꞋ 25a).

The lesson for the גֵּר who desires to follow the teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the Mâ•shiꞋakh is the absolute need to integrate into the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ community of Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Judaism by studying, learning and applying the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ community. Interminable excuses, questions and studies of all of the reasoning—the whys, and the wherefores—that have resulted in the practices of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community are irrelevant for the גֵּר. The גֵּר, if (s)he chooses, may mold himself or herself to the standards of the Jewish community – or not. There is no option to mold the Jewish community to the inquirer's beliefs. The commitment of the גֵּר to the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ must be identical to the commitment that Rut made (Rut 1.16-17). As we saw in the dispute between Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ Bën-Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ and Rabbi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Khan•an•i•yâhꞋ, not even Jews—much less גֵּרִים or גּוֹיִם—may derive their own understandings and interpretations (following their own heart and their own eyes), even in interpreting Scripture, contrary to the Beit-Din.

The only Way to learn what you need to know is to:

1. Study the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Khav•rutꞋâ (Distance Learning course)—not follow your own tangential questions that lead nowhere. Our Khav•rutꞋâ will enable you to eventually to make a harmonious transition into a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët, and develop (non-marital) interrelationships in the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community;

2. This paragraph applies only after we have advised you that you're adequately prepared to begin praying with Orthodox Teimân•imꞋ in a Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët. If you're lucky enough to live in the 2-3 large cities that have a Tei•mân•iꞋ congregation this should be your goal. You'll be disappointed to find that Ash•kᵊnazꞋim Orthodox Bat•eiꞋ ha-KᵊnësꞋët are, compared to Christian churches, cliquish, unwelcoming toward non-Jews, and cold. While Sᵊphâ•râd•imꞋ Bat•eiꞋ ha-KᵊnësꞋët are somewhat friendlier and warmer, lacking a Teimân•imꞋ Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët you'll almost certainly find it far easier and more fulfilling to organize and attract a home study and prayer group. This can only be done under the guidance of the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. In any case, you should interrelate (not marital, of course) in the Jewish community through the local Jewish Community Center, etc. so that you can satisfy the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of praying in a Miqrâ QoꞋdësh, and, as you're able to interrelate in a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage community, where you can also observe the actual practice, among the Orthodox, of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ. Remember that nothing in this paragraph should be attempted until we have advised you that you're ready.

Before the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ ta•lᵊmidꞋ can make the transition to pray in a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët, full implementation of all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ, including ka•shᵊr•utꞋ, must be implemented and serious learning of Teimân•imꞋ liturgy, which is all Hebrew, must be in progress. The priority of the ta•lᵊmidꞋ must be on learning these essentials, not straying off in tangential directions of study. This is why they were called "disciples," (from the word discipline) rather than merely students.

חֹל fire versus קֹדֶשׁ fire

In this week's discussion of pâ•râsh•atꞋ ShᵊlakhꞋ we should take special notice of the positioning of the section concerning the building of חֹל fire on שַׁבָּת ‭ ‬ (15.32-6) immediately before QoꞋrakh challenges the authority of MoshꞋëh and A•har•onꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ—over the very issue of חֹל fire versus קֹדֶשׁ fire!

Not only did the man do mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ by gathering kindling on שַׁבָּת, he was preparing to ignite a חֹל fire!

Moreover, this is immediately followed by the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ to include the (פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת) on our צִיצִית—to remember this.

One can hardly look at our צִיצִית without noticing the contrast of mixing of the פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת with the white strings to remind us what happened to the man who was in the process of mingling the חֹל (fire) with the קֹדֶשׁ (of שַׁבָּת). This man's action was intimately connected to QoꞋrakh's challenge to MoshꞋëh and A•har•onꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ over the issue of what constituted the distinction between חֹל fire and קֹדֶשׁ fire.

Seen in this Light, the building of a fire on שַׁבָּת becomes consistent with other prohibitions against mingling the חֹל (one such חֹל thing being man-made fire) with the קֹדֶשׁ (one such קֹדֶשׁ thing being שַׁבָּת).

5755 (1995.06)

Oral Law Logically Implied in Ta•na"khꞋ

15.32-36 — I often hear Christians argue that Ta•na"khꞋ doesn't explicitly define such-and-such is a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ. Therefore, they conclude, the rabbis have added to תּוֹרָה (which is prohibited in תּוֹרָה—Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1—and, if true, would render it invalid). These Christians must, then, show where in Ta•na"khꞋ was the prohibition against gathering sticks on שַׁבָּת?!? For those who argue that only written Ta•na"khꞋ is valid, and not Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, a Just Creator must decree no punishment for this man because he had broken no explicit mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ in Ta•na"khꞋ. Yet, תּוֹרָה and Mosh•ëhꞋ condemned and executed him. Christian antinomianism is intractably incompatible with תּוֹרָה.

The sages of Ta•lᵊmudꞋ reasoned the grounds upon which the man was stoned. "•marꞋ Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ [d. 299 C.E.] in the name of Shᵊmu•eilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ. The offense of the gatherer of sticks was that he carried them four cubits over public ground." (Ma•sëkꞋu5;t Shab•âtꞋ 96b).

Carrying between domains is one of the 39 halakhically defined categories of מְלָאכָה prohibited on שַׁבָּת. "These they deduced from the appositioning in the תּוֹרָה of a repetition of the prohibition of working on שַׁבָּת alongside the detailed description (Shᵊm•otꞋ 35) of how the (Mi•shᵊkânꞋ) was to be erected in the (mi•dᵊbarꞋ):

"They 'lifted up boards from the ground to the wagons, hence you must not carry in from a public to a private domain." Conversely it is forbidden to carry out from private to public domain (Ma•sëkꞋët Shab•âtꞋ 49b).

"The prohibition of carrying clearly indicates that the definition of work is a legal one and not a practical one, for the restriction is only on carrying from one domain to another and not within the same private domain.

"Weight or effort plays no role in the definition; carrying a heavy load in a large private garden is not a punishable offense on שַׁבָּת, whereas carrying a handkerchief in a pocket from a private residence into the public street is" (An Introduction to Jewish Civil Law, Feldheim, p. 28.). In addition to their placement beside each other, the two sections are introduced by the same phrase. This was considered further evidence that the placement of the two sections was intended for the benefit of mutually-related interpretation.

39 Rabbinic Categories of מְלָאכָה

Here it will be helpful to most ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ to list the 39 categories of מְלָאכָה prohibited on שַׁבָּת first enumerated in Mᵊkhilta dᵊ-RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ Bar-Yo•khaiꞋ—no earlier than the 5^th century C.E. (EJ 11.1269-70; alphabetized in English for convenience): binding, bleaching, boiling (subsuming cooking & baking), building, carding, carrying, cutting, demolishing, dyeing, erasing, flaying, grinding, hunting, kindling or extinguishing fire, kneading, making two loops, plowing, putting finishing touches to a piece of מְלָאכָה already begun before שַׁבָּת, reaping, salting, scraping, selecting, separating, sewing, shearing, sifting, slaughtering, sowing-watering, spinning (thread), tearing, threading a needle, threshing, treatment of skins, tying, winnowing, untying, weaving, and writing.

The dating of this listing (no earlier than the 5^th century C.E.) confronts us with the question of why is there no record of such a profoundly and critically essential decision of the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ to list these categories. The purpose of Judaic documentation subsequent to the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ is to preserve can clarify, and is prohibited from adding to or diminishing from תּוֹרָה / Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1). Therefore, the restorative quest is to keep the prohibition against מְלָאכָה as it was set down at Har Sin•aiꞋ and as interpreted by the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ—two millennia before the earliest listing of these 39 categories!

Since there is no evidence that the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ ever endorsed these 39 categories, there is likewise no evidence that the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ overrode the ka•wân•âhꞋ underlying what constitutes מְלָאכָה prohibited on שַׁבָּת—rather than the simplistic—and illogical—39 categories laid out in the Christian era that blissfully ignore ka•wân•âhꞋ.

According to these simplistic and illogical 39 categories, people who work with their minds (engineers, mathematicians, designers of everything from clothes to high-tech, developers of business plans and the like) can work all day long on שַׁבָּת as long as they don't' use electricity and wait until שַׁבָּת is over before transcribing their conclusions and decisions. Similarly, with the approval of Orthodox rabbis, virtually all Orthodox children (not Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ!) study for school tests on שַׁבָּת. They just don't write. These are encompassed by the Biblical definition of מְלָאכָה (e.g., inter alia, Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 58.13-14) and they desecrate שַׁבָּת!

The sine qua non of מְלָאכָה is more difficult to grasp, but the definition must be molded around Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 58.13-14. Contrary to תּוֹרָה, the oversimplification of the 39 classes permits many kinds of prohibited מְלָאכָה—which explains why these 39 classes were never endorsed by the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ. The 39 classes, therefore, are an invalid, and impermissible, over-simplification that both adds (additional prohibitions not found in תּוֹרָה) to AND detracts (prohibitions addressed by Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ) from תּוֹרָה in contravention of Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1. A more precise definition is needed; one that speaks to the ka•wân•âhꞋ rather than to reliance upon mindless legalistic oversimplifications.

מְלָאכָה as understood by Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ is the obvious definition endorsed by the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dolꞋ, and is the definition adhered to by the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. This definition has nothing to do with prohibiting electricity (which is clearly no earlier than the 19^th century, not to mention based on rabbinic ignorance of the difference between fire and electricity) or writing, etc. but rather the underlying ka•wân•âhꞋ relative to the standard set forth by Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ.

Since writing is prohibited among other Orthodox Jews on שַׁבָּת however, the ta•lᵊmidꞋ must accommodate the sensitivities of Jews less learned and not carry a pen or pencil in his or her shirt pocket, which would be offensive to other Orthodox Jews on שַׁבָּת. Since no business is conducted on שַׁבָּת, neither may the ta•lᵊmidꞋ carry money or credit cards into the public domain on שַׁבָּת.

מְקֹשֵׁשׁ קַשׁ

מְקֹשֵׁשׁ קַשׁ (Afghan women)

מְקֹשֵׁשׁ קַשׁ Nyumbani Village boy Kenya (plopsymd.com)

To return to the Ta•na"khꞋ passage (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.32), this man wasn't charged with violating the prohibition against carrying, cutting or tying. תּוֹרָה expressly states that

‫– וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ, מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת

So what mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ, then, had he violated? תּוֹרָה provides the answer in the verb just cited: מְקֹשֵׁשׁ

In Biblical days, building a fire involved real work. Boy Scouts and outdoors people who can divorce their perspective from gas grills, charcoal briquettes, lighter fluid and matches will recognize that the accused was gathering brush, stubble, straw and twigs—kindling, which constituted an integral part of building a fire; and he was doing this on שַׁבָּת. It was, therefore, required to kindle the fire before שַׁבָּת and keep it burning throughout שַׁבָּת to warm (not boil or cook, which is prohibited on שַׁבָּת) pre-cooked (or smoked, etc.) food, herb teas, and the like.

This is the origin of a שַׁבָּת hot plate and the lighting the (olive-oil or kâ•sheirꞋ wax) candles on ërꞋëv Shab•âtꞋ. On or before the time given on the Judaic calendar (18 minutes before sundown), the women (including girls) of the house light two candles and recite the appropriate bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ, which has been handed down for millennia.

Contrary to the apostate tradition of lighting a candle for each member of a family, the two candles represent:

1. Remembering שַׁבָּת (Shᵊm•otꞋ 20.8) and

2. Keeping שַׁבָּת (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 5.12).

A second association is the double portion of mân, which י--ה provided in the midbâr in preparation for שַׁבָּת.

Where there is a danger to life, the principle of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh prevails, "even if there is only a slight, yet reasonable, chance that such danger to life may be involved," prohibitions of שַׁבָּת, as necessary, are suspended, and in such circumstances this is considered meritorious in the extreme. [emphasis added] ("Sabbath," EJ, 14:566).

This also holds true for the Khaj•imꞋ, including, for those with a medical need, eating and drinking on Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ (The Mitzvot, p. 38, 287. See also "Sabbath" in EJ op. cit.). (All of these special days are inferior to שַׁבָּת in their degree of קֹדֶשׁ.) This is based in the principle suggested in wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 18.5: living—not dying—in the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ. The principle of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh holds true above all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ תּוֹרָה with three exceptions: idolatry , adultery and murder. These three mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ cannot be violated even to preserve life.

5754 (1994.06)

Former Egyptian Prince & Top General, Mosh•ëhꞋ, Employs

Special Ops – Deep Recon: 12 תָּרִים

Map: Sin•aiꞋ, Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ, Ël Arish, Har Kar•komꞋ, Har Sin•aiꞋ, Mi•dᵊbarꞋ Pa•ranꞋ

The scene takes place in Mi•dᵊbarꞋ Pa•ranꞋ. This is the desert plain in the Israeli NëgꞋëv south-southwest of Yâm ha-MëlꞋakh – where Har Kar•komꞋ is located.

History tells us that MoshꞋëh, having been found in the reeds of the Nile and adopted, ca. B.C.E.1547, by the 12-year-old Egyptian Pharaonic Princess Khât-shepꞋset (cf. Chronology of the Tanakh, from the "Big נָטָה" Live-Link^T ,Shᵊm•otꞋ 2), was raised in the Palace of her father, par•ohꞋ Tuth-Moses-1. Pharaonic princes were trained from childhood to be Egyptian priests and warrior-generals. MoshꞋëh, likely identical to Sen-en-mut, was likely the former Chief General of the Egyptian Armed Forces, the superpower of that era. There was no one, including the son of, and successor to, Queen par•ohꞋ Khât-shepꞋset, par•ohꞋ Tuth-Moses-3 – the par•ohꞋ of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ – better qualified to command an army in the entire world.

A tradition of the modern צה"ל can be seen to trace back to MoshꞋëh's selection of the twelve, special ops, deep recon, תָּרִים ‭ ‬ (13.2, 17). Most readers would be surprised, beside the fact that the Hebrew reads תָּרִים rather than "spies," to notice that these are not merely two good privates, sergeants, or even lieutenants, from each tribe. Every one of these תָּרִים was a נָשִׂיא. Today, this title designates a president, including the president of the State of Israel. In Biblical times, these תָּרִים were two deputy-chiefs from each tribe; not privates, sergeants or even lieutenants.

Har Sin•aiꞋ (Har Kar•komꞋ; "Saffron / Senna – Mountain," in the Israeli NëgꞋëv). Note cleft in rock at right of summit. There were 2-3 mountains in the Sin•aiꞋ that were traditionally regarded as "Holy Mountains" by all of the peoples – and called "Sinai Mountain." This is the "Har Sin•aiꞋ".

This tradition is still followed in today's צה"ל. The generals are on the front lines, in the thick of things and among the flying bullets with the sergeants and the rest of the troops; not in a bunker behind the lines or in distant headquarters like other armies. Israel loses more high-ranking officers in battle, but having the decision-maker and strategist on the scene both permits him to take immediate advantage of situations and avoid the distorted "intelligence information" that has proven fatal to so many armies in the past.

Did you ever notice that MoshꞋëh renamed Ho•sheiꞋa Bën-Nun to Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Nun (13.16)?

It isn't obvious in English that MoshꞋëh directed the תָּרִים to "Make a•liy•âhꞋ into the NëgꞋëv and make a•liy•âhꞋ to the Har" (13.17).

5753 (1993.06)

Goat (Nubian buck kid)

15.27-31— (pâ•suqꞋ 29) "The citizen among Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, and for the גֵּר who יָגוּר among you, one תּוֹרָה shall be for yall (2^nd pers. masc. plural), for one who commits a חֵטְא בִשְׁגָגָה." This shows that תּוֹרָה applied to the גֵּר as early as the era of the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ.

Having seen above that "נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת" includes "the גֵּרִ who יָגוּר among you," we examine pâ•suqꞋ 27: "If נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה, he shall approach with a yearling goat לְחַטָּאת (Notice that this only applied to a חֵטְא, not more serious transgressions, and then only if inadvertent – not willful.)

חֵטְא is distinguished from עָוֹן and פֶּשַׁע Note that כִּפּוּר is provided only for [a] a חֵטְא that [b] was committed בִשְׁגָגָה—not willfully. The person (pâ•suqꞋ 30), "whether citizen or גֵּר," who "does it בְּיָד רָמָה" (ignoring the correction of the Beit-Din and mi•shᵊpâtꞋ / Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ) is specifically excluded from כִּפּוּר Like the Jew, the גֵּר who knowingly commits even a חֵטְא against תּוֹרָה (pâ•suqꞋ 30) "מְגַדֵּף י--ה"

5752 (1992.06)

נֵס

14.11— "' Until when will they not believe Me, with all the signs that I have done around them?"

How could a people witness the 'parting of the seas,' the ten 'plagues' in Egypt, the giving of 'manna,' the provision of water in the desert, meat in the wilderness and all of the other 'miracles' yet forget them all and not believe in י--ה?

The answer should be pretty obvious. The miracles of their day are exactly like the miracles of today—the revival of the state of Israel, Israel's military victories that have defied all odds and the regathering of His people, the Jews, from the four corners of the earth to Israel.

And the reasons the miracles are ignored are also identical. What's miraculous about that? All of these things have rational explanations, from faith in the Israeli military for their victories and the immigration of Jews to the State of Israel to rational explanations for all of the miracles in Egypt and the Sin•aiꞋ.

The problem is in people's superstitious misconception of the Biblical definition—the Hebrew term—of "miracle." To the ignorantly superstitious, a miracle must be "supernatural," magic and mysterious contradiction of the natural laws of physics and the universe. By this superstitious definition, none of these things were 'miracles.' י--ה set up this universe according to His constant laws of physics and mathematics, unchanging just as He is unchanging (Ma·lâkh·iꞋ 3.6 & Tᵊhil•imꞋ 89.35). He's perfectly able—literally—to accomplish His Will by utilizing these immutable laws that He set in order. He doesn't have to, and indeed cannot, stoop to self-contradiction (imperfection) in order to conform to superstitious expectations, definitions and preconceptions of some ignorant mortals whose most characteristic feature is a transcending arrogance.

To make an exception to His own perfect, immutable, laws that reflect His Perfect and Immutable Self, i.e. to do something supernatural, would be a contradiction within Himself. Rather, supernatural belongs to the pretend world of the superstitious, whether Jew, Christian or Muslim, and of the witch doctor, the astrologist, the fortune teller and the miracle-healer shaman. (For a real eye-opening in this area, read The Faith Healers by magician James Randi.) The rational, i.e. the mathematical and scientific, the world of physics, logic and intelligence, is the realization, i.e. reality in contrast to the ignorant and irrational—the Truth—of Creation by the Ultimate Intelligence, י--ה. Logical Truth is the only context in which a human may relate to the Perfectly Logical and Perfectly Truthful Singularity-Creator. Forget the evanescent and effervescent straying of emotions, feelings and intuitions. י--ה is Intelligent and Logical. Unlike the pretend world of the ignorant and superstitious, His Laws in Creation mirror Him. They are the only Way to speak with Him and "see" (perceive) Him face-to-Face as Mosh•ëhꞋ did.

הפטרה

(Haphtâr•âhꞋ; resolution, wrap-up, dismissal) Tei•mân•itꞋ Bal•ad•itꞋ:

יהושע ב' א'-כ"ד

Yᵊho•shuꞋa 2.1-24

5760 (2000.06)

Protégé of, and Successor to, Egyptian-Trained Top General

Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bin-Nun Employs

Special Ops – Deep Recon: 2 תָּרִים

The account of the two תָּרִים whom Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Nun sent out לָתּוּר Yᵊri•khoꞋ is particularly fitting because of two word connections between the תּוֹרָה portion and the parallel Haphtâr•âhꞋ selection.

The prohibition against זְנוֹת oneself by תּוּר after one's own heart and one's own eyes parallels the wording of the description of the two תָּרִים who תָּרוּ the land (which was a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of י--ה) and found refuge with Râ•khâvꞋ – a זוֹנָה. How would that be viewed today? Rabbis and evangelists would vilify such blatant and brazen "sinners" hanging out with a זוֹנָה!

Consider this subtle contrast. We find that even a Jew in the midst of the קָדוֹשׁ camp, an Israeli in the midst of Bᵊnei-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, when he or she תּוּר after his or her own heart and his or her own eyes, ignoring the authority of the Beit-Din, he or she, thereby, commits זְנוּת, constituting מְגַדֵּף י--ה, which incurs kâ•reitꞋ (by Biblical authority, whether or not echoed by the Beit-Din).

On the other hand, even if one is out in the world and finds his or her life in danger and must resort to seeking shelter from a זוֹנָה, if that person is תּוּר after the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ of י--ה—ka•wân•âhꞋ—then he or she maintains their sanctity even in the midst of that situation or environment. In martial arts, we call this focus. For a receiver in football, this is keeping one's eye on the ball, looking the pass all the way into the hands.

Ok, I'm admittedly a practitioner of some martial arts, a Gator alumnus and football (not soccer!) fanatic, so sometimes my parables are forged in terms of martial arts and/or football. But how good would Jerry Rice, Eli Manning and their peers have been if they only sat in their room thinking about football, satisfied in their personal knowledge that they were talented, skilled and well honed, but determined to isolate themselves from lesser players and, so, never stepped onto the playing field?

The lesson here collides with the very notion of Ultra-Orthodox / khareid•imꞋ ghettoization, isolationism and utopianism – just as it collides with the Christian notion of only having to keep the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ or Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ "in spirit". Eliminating the real, physical, world from our lives is contradictory to this teaching of תּוֹרָה as the Illumination of real, physical, people in the real, physical, world – all of י--ה's sons and daughters, not exclusively Jews! Havdâl•âhꞋ, on the other hand, is a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ. We must live in the world and illuminate the world without assimilating and without becoming recluse monks – much less becoming the kind of Jewish xenophobes we see, whether Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ rioting in the streets of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim or "Jewish" atheists so vocal in internet blogs.

First, one who thinks that cocooning himself in an Ultra-Orthodox or khareid•imꞋ ghetto will make him or her more holy is—even aside from [a] meeting the definition of a cult and [b] being immersed in an environment so focused on ritual minutiae that wide-scale hypocrisy and corruption go unnoticed—is no better than the Jew in the camp of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ who prepared a fire on שַׁבָּת. Being קֹדֶשׁ is the practice, the doing, of תּוֹרָה, not contemplating at length, or even discussing, תּוֹרָה or living in proximity to people who are תּוֹרָה-observant. תּוֹרָה is a life practice, not a virtual simulation game. Even when living in a תּוֹרָה environment, which makes life easier for someone trying to keep תּוֹרָה, one can attain through osmosis only sanctimony, not sanctity.

Second, living in a ghetto neither prepares one to deal with the real world, nor to illuminate the real world with the Or תּוֹרָה.

Moderate Orthodox Jews don't cloister themselves in holier-than-thou ghettos. I live in an Orthodox Jewish community, pray in a beautiful Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët ha-Tei•mân•iꞋ and socialize exclusively with Jews, almost all of whom are Orthodox. It would be easy for me to live in this utopia and shut the world out. I'd also avoid much slander from slandering "anti-missionary" hate-mongers who misrepresent me and lie about me. But isolationism from the real world is incompatible with תּוֹרָה.

The inability and unwillingness of the Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ to cope with the real world, isolating their followers from the checks and balances of the real world, fosters extremism and irrationalism – drinking their Ultra-Orthodox rabbi-issued, zombium-laced, Kool Aid – that ensures both their internal cultish tyranny and blind enslavement of their followers along with their continuing irrelevancy outside of their cult (witness the 95% of Jews who have rejected them). Their path is a sure prescription for dying out in our dynamic, fast-paced hi-tech world in which the marketplace of competing ideas and religions is rapidly expanding to illuminate every dark corner and crevice of every ghetto.

5759 (1999.06)

This week's Haphtâr•âhꞋ is usually associated with the pâ•râsh•âhꞋ via the theme of the sending of תָּרִים. But there is also another shared theme which threads through both passages:

‫2.18 – תִּקְוַת חוּט הַשָּׁנִי

The תָּרִים instructed Râ•khâvꞋ to tie a rope of plaited crimson thread in her window, which was located in the outer wall of Yᵊrikh•oꞋ. It happens that שָּׁנִי, along with תְּכֵלֶת, is one of the principle royal colors of the ancient Middle-East. Threads of שָּׁנִי, too, were used to embroider the tapestries of the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ and the garments of the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ (Shᵊm•otꞋ 38-9). Just as the Royal Household of י--ה was marked and identified by a thread of royal color, the תָּרִים directed Râ•khâvꞋ to mark and identify her household by a cord of royal color.

שָּׁנִי was the primary coloring in the mei nidꞋâh, made from the ashes of the clay-red chestnut cow (cf. bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 19.6 and my paper, פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה. Perhaps most relevant to this week's Haphtâr•âhꞋ, שָּׁנִי was also used to mark the house of a mᵊtzor•âꞋ (cf. in pâ•râsh•atꞋ Mᵊtzor•âꞋ, wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 14.51-52) as well as the purification rite of the mᵊtzor•âꞋ (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 14.4-6)—and this was the house of a זוֹנָה—perhaps used to emphasize "foreign woman") whom, perhaps, they compared to a mᵊtzor•âꞋ undergoing purification—i.e., as a גֵּרָה! As a result of her commitment, and that of her family as demonstrated by their gathering there with her, there is the suggestion that they were converted and subsequently assimilated into Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.

אמר ריבי יהושע

(•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa)

מתתיהו בעברית

Ma•tit•yâhꞋu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•itꞋ; Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhꞋu —
NHM

(Redacted, Christianized & corrupted to 4^th-century "Matthew")

5770 (2010.06)

Nᵊviy•imꞋ	Translation	Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM	NHM
bᵊ-Mid•barꞋ 15.38	Speak to Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yis•râ•eilꞋ, and say to them, Then you shall make for yourselves tzitz•itꞋ on the kan•pheiꞋ of your clothes, to your generations; and they shall give upon the kâ•nâphꞋ tzitz•itꞋ, a pᵊtilꞋ tᵊkheilꞋët.	Look, a woman having had vaginal bleeding for twelve years, having come near behind him, palpated 20.34.2 the tzitzi•yotꞋ 9.20.1 of his ta•litꞋ.9.20.2 For she said within herself, "If I can only palpate 20.34.2 his ta•litꞋ.9.20.2 I will be delivered." 1.21.2 Having turned 13.15.1 and seen her, he 9.22.1 said, "Take courage, my daughter, in 'ה, Blessed be He.9.22.2 Your ëm•un•âhꞋ 8.10.1 has delivered 1.21.2 you." In that same hour the woman was delivered. 1.21.2	9.20
		All of their actions they do for the sake of appearances before men 8.20.1 – for 23.5.1 whom they enlarge 23.5.2 their tᵊphil•inꞋ 23.5.3 and lengthen 23.5.4 the tzitzi•yotꞋ of their ta•lit•otꞋ.23.5.5 They have an affection 6.5.1 for the places-of-honor 23.6.1 at the mo•ad•imꞋ,23.6.2 to sit in the benches-of-honor 23.6.3 in the Beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët,4.23.2 to be greeted in the shuq 11.16.1 and to be called RibꞋi 23.7.1 by men.8.20.1	23.5-7
Haphtâr•âhꞋ Yᵊho•shuꞋa 2.1	And Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bin-Nun sent out of Shit•imꞋ two spies secretly, saying: 'Go view the land, and Yᵊri•khoꞋ.' And they went, and came into the house of a promiscuous woman whose name was רָחָב, and lay there.	and Sa•lᵊm•âꞋ fathered BoꞋaz 1.5.1 by רָחָב‭ ‬,1.5.2 and BoꞋaz fathered O•veidꞋ 1.5.3 by Rut,1.5.4 and O•veidꞋ fathered Yi•shaiꞋ 1.5.5 and Yi•shaiꞋ fathered Dâ•widꞋ ha-•MëlꞋëkh;1.5.6      The estimated dates during this period are tenuous, sometimes seeming stretched and other times compressed. Clearly, there are errors, but it isn't possible, given present knowledge, to discern where the errors are. Yᵊho•shuꞋa's seige of Yᵊri•khoꞋ occurred ca. B.C.E. 1407. BoꞋaz was born ca. B.C.E. 1345. Sa•lᵊm•âꞋ was born ca. 1440, apparently making Sa•lᵊm•âꞋ about 95 years old when BoꞋaz was born, and the רָחָב of Yᵊri•khoꞋ about 80 years old—too old to be the mother of BoꞋaz. רָחָב the mother of BoꞋaz was almost certainly a younger woman by the same name, perhaps named for the רָחָב of Yᵊri•khoꞋ.	1.5

5760 (2000.06)

As noted in the Haphtâr•âhꞋ this year, the תָּרִים were prepared to take shelter with a זוֹנָה in order to carry out their mission. They didn't recoil and flee back to a ghetto. Therein, they weren't culpable for מְגַדֵּף י--ה but rather fulfilled a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ. Notice, however, that they kept their ka•wân•âhꞋ, לָתּוּר after the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ, not committing זְנוּת by תּוּר after their own heart and their own eyes.

In the first century C.E., socializing with גּוֹיִם was prohibited as a step toward assimilation. When the sanctimonious (Roman-sympathizing and Hellenizing "Reformists") Boethusian-Herodian Pᵊrush•imꞋ (which, by the way, probably later included paul the Apostate) accused fellow- pᵊrushi RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa of socializing with transgressors—like they did (NHM 9.10-13), this demonstrates that the Mâ•shiꞋakh, likewise, taught, by his own example, not to retreat from the sick world into a sterile ghetto utopia. Repeatedly RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa emphasized that unless one's religion produces good works, which can only happen in healing the sick world, then that religion is futile and false, a withered branch to be pruned and cast into the fire. The whole point of the universe is to provide a test laboratory in which we can learn to develop our spirit—in a real world with its challenges and temptations—to refine a RuꞋakh ha-QoꞋdësh that accomplishes good works in the real world.

Like the תָּרִים necessary lodging with the זוֹנָה, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, likewise, didn't recoil from the woman who had suffered from vaginal bleeding for twelve years (and was, probably, also a zon•âhꞋ). She palpated his צִיצִית in hopes of being healed (see also the Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Abuhav section, by Yitzkhaq Abuhav section in this connection). Rather than ordering her away from him or throwing stones at her, he called her his daughter, telling her to "Take courage, my daughter, your ë•mun•âhꞋ has delivered you" (NHM 9.20-22).

The typical wish I hear from those who are leaving Christianity and find themselves often hundreds of miles from the nearest Jewish community is to join a "Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Congregation" or to move to some hilltop in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and form a Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ village. That is escapism like the khareid•imꞋ. But, even aside from the schism yet another sect would pose to the Jewish community, as well as a resulting tear between the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and our adopted Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ Tei•mân•itꞋ, the lesson of this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ collides with the whole concept of escapism, utopian isolationism or ghettoism, reinforcing the adage "Don't think yourself so heavenly minded that you become no earthly good."

This teaching of תּוֹרָה, unsurprisingly, coincides with the teaching of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: "You are the or for the legions, an ir (city) laid out on a hill, unable to be hidden. Neither do persons light an oil-fed-lamp and put it under a basket, but rather on a mᵊnor•âhꞋ and it shines for all who are in the house. Let your or shine thusly before man so that they may see your good Ma•as•ëhꞋ, which are Tᵊhil•otꞋ and kâ•vodꞋ for your Father, Who is in the heavens." (NHM 5.13-16, see also notes there). Escapism, ghettoism, isolationism and utopianism are the basket cases.

Two things are of special note here:

1. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa specified two things:

   1. that good Ma•as•ëhꞋ—not good belief—constitutes Tᵊhil•otꞋ and kâ•vodꞋ, and

   2. that Tᵊhil•otꞋ and kâ•vodꞋ be directed "for your Father"; not for himself. Christians who go around saying (lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ) "Praise Jesus" conflict not only with תּוֹרָה, but also with RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (whom they mistakenly think they follow), which should be expected since he taught תּוֹרָה.

2. Christians, who aren't properly subordinated to a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din in the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community, like RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his original Jewish followers (the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ), are תּוּר after their own heart and their own eyes instead of תּוּר after תּוֹרָה. Thus, Christianity is demonstrated yet again to be a Displacement Theology. They are not following the תּוֹרָה teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and, therefore, are guilty of מְגַדֵּף י--ה. The "salvation" of 4^th-century pagan Roman Hellenists is a pretend Hellenist-legacy pseudo-salvation of a pretend Hellenist-legacy pseudo-Israel. Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ declares that Jews who have fallen into such apostasy incur kâ•reitꞋ, which can only be remedied by tᵊshuv•âhꞋ.

There is only one Beit-Din on the planet that recognizes followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the Mâ•shiꞋakh functioning within the framework of the Beit-Din system of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community: the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ here in Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. There's no other Way for so-called followers of Jesus, by whatever name they call it, to become legitimate.

מְנוֹרַת הַמָּאוֹר—קכ"ג

Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Abuhav

Translated by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu & Yâ•eilꞋ Bën-Dâvid.

("The [Seven-Branched] Candelabra of Light"), The Teimân•imꞋ Yᵊhud•imꞋ' Ancient Halakhic debate, Corrupted into the Zo•harꞋ & medieval Qa•bâl•âhꞋ

At Beit-ha-KᵊnësꞋët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ•âmi here in Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, liturgy for a regular שַׁבָּת concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Abuhav

© Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. All rights reserved. Copies, reproductions and/or retransmissions strictly prohibited.

part 1 (of 3)

Wrapping with tzitz•itꞋ is a great mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ, and man shouldn't neglect it because its reward is [so] great, until they say that it's [more] important compared to all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ.

As it is memorized in [Ta•lᵊmudꞋ] tractate Mᵊnakhot, the tᵊkheilꞋët chapter (43.2), it's given by a Tana (Ta•lᵊmudꞋ-era Sage): "then [lit. "and"] you shall see it and you remember!" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.39). See (!) this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ and remember (!) another mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ.

[The latter] hangs on [the former]. And how? This is the reading of the Shᵊm•aꞋ that we learned. Is it out of fright that we read the Shᵊm•aꞋ in Sha•khar•itꞋ? It's when we recognize [the difference] between tᵊkheilꞋët and white.

Another is given by a Tana, "then you shall see it and you remember!" etc. See (!) this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ and remember (!) another mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ that depends upon it. And how? This is a hybrid [mingled] mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ, as it's written, Don't dress in sha•atneiz (linen-wool] of wool and linen together. "Braided [threads] you shall make for yourselves" (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 22.11-12).

Another is given by a Tana, "then you shall see it" etc. When man obligates himself to this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ he obligates himself to all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ—all of them.

Of RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ is she [meaning women follow RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ] who said: it is an operative mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ that is dependent on time. Tanyâ added: "You saw it and you shall remember" etc., this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ is weighed [equally] against all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ. And Tanyâ added: "You saw it and you shall remember and do," etc., seeing brings to remembering, [and] remembering brings to action." RabꞋi Shim•onꞋ Bar-Yokhai says: Anyone who is quick in this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ is rewarded and receives the face of Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ, as is written here: "And you saw it", and written there: "י--ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ you shall awe," etc. (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 6.13). Rabanan taught: Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ is likable, for ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, turned them around, in the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of tᵊphil•inꞋ on their heads and tᵊphil•inꞋ on their arms, צִיצִית in their clothes, etc., as it is with the issue of the Mil•âhꞋ ([Mᵊnorat ha-Ma•or] 82.3)

part 2 (of 3)

They said about it (42a): •marꞋ Tanyâ, RabꞋi Nâtân: You don't have an easy mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ in the תּוֹרָה that does not have the reward for it given ol•âmꞋ ha-Zëh and in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ, but I don't know how many, go and learn from the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of צִיצִית.

[Here is] a Ma•as•ëhꞋ of one person who was careful regarding the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of צִיצִית. He heard that there is one זוֹנָה in the cities of the sea who takes four hundred gold coins as her salary. He dispatched her four hundred gold coins and she set up a time for him. When his time came, he went and sat at the entrance of her house. Her maid came in and told her: "that same man who dispatched four hundred gold coins came and sat on the entrance." She said to her: "He shall come in." He came in. She offered him seven beds, six of silver and the top one of gold and between each one was a ladder of silver and the upper one of gold. And she went up and sat on the upper one naked, and he also went up to sit naked next to her. His tzitz•iy•otꞋ came and struck his face. He dropped down and sat on ground and she also dropped down and sat on ground. She said to him: Limb of Rome, I shall not let you be until you tell me: what flaw did you see in me?

He told her: [Such a] work! I have never seen a woman as beautiful as you. Rather, one mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ that י--ה our Ël•oh•imꞋ ordered us, and צִיצִית is its name. It is written about it: "I am י--ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ" two times (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.41) [plus] "I am the One Who is destined to requite" and "I am the One destined to give wage." Now they seemed to me to be as four witnesses.

She said to him: [Such a] work! I will not leave you until you write me what your name is, what is your city's name, what is the name of your RabꞋi and what is the name of your Beit Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ in which you study תּוֹרָה. He wrote and gave it to her. She stood and gave awy all her assets, a third to the kingdom, a third to the poor and a third she took in her hand, except for those beds, and she came to the Beit Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ of RabꞋi Khiyâ. She said to him: Order concerning me and I will be made into a Hebrewess. He said to her: My daughter, perhaps you have set your eye on one of the ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ? She took out a writing from her hand and gave to him. He said to her: Go and receive your purchase. Those same beds that she offered him under prohibition, she [now] offered under permit. This is the giving of their wage ol•âmꞋ ha-Zëh, and in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ I don't know how much. This incident is also written in Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ Tankhumâ.

part 3 (of 3)

No more. Rather, even the women, who are exempt from צִיצִית, receive a reward when they are busy with it, as is memorized in the chapter of 'The Seller of the Ship' (Ma•sëkꞋët Bâv•âꞋ Bat•râꞋ 72b), that in the sea there is one crate that is stashed for the wife of RabꞋi Khaninâ Bën Dosâ, that he threw in it tᵊkheilꞋët for tzadiq•imꞋ in the future to come.

It is on the virtue of the צִיצִית, they said in the Beit Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ, that Khananyâ, Mishâ•eil and Azaryâ, who survived the furnace of fire, as it is written: "Then these men were bound in their pant, their robes, their cloaks and their other clothing, and were thrown into the fiery burning furnace" (Dâniyeil 3.21). They interpreted "their clothings" as their tal•it•otꞋ with the צִיצִית on them.

It is also written in Siphrei: Everyone who wraps in צִיצִית, his Qᵊdush•âhꞋ is double that of his friend. As it is said: "For you shall remember and do all my mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ and be qᵊdosh•imꞋ," etc. (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.40), teaches that the צִיצִית adds Qᵊdush•âhꞋ. One who is cautious about it shall be blessed.

© 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher