Home (Netzarim Logo)

Pinchas
Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

(bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 25.10—30.1) " '—' ‮' ‬ ‭
bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 29.35—30.1 :(Ma•phᵊtir) ‮
TorâhHaphtârâhÂmar Ribi YᵊhoshuaMᵊnorat ha-Maor

Rainbow Rule

5768 (2008.07)

Narrowing the Priesthood
Reward For Spearing Flaunting-Violaters of
Which Provided Vicarious Ki•pur For Yis•râ•eil

Paradigm for "Anointed Killed…" vs "Killed Messiah": DSS 4Q 285

25.12-13 ; , - : 13  , ; , , --:

DSS 4Q285, Frg. 7
So-Called "Slain Messiah" Scroll

(See also the "Burning Issues" link in the "Mashiakh" section of our History Museum)

DSS 4Q 285, Fragment 7 PAM 41.282
more infoDead Sea Scroll 4Q 285, Fragment 7; PAM 41.282, Yᵊsha•yâhu 11.1 (approx. actual size)

For killing the flaunting-violators of , an eternal Kᵊhun•âh was granted to Pinᵊkhâs and his descendants.

A fortiori, declares that by this killing of flaunting-violaters of , Pinᵊkhâs, not an apotheosized christ man-god, provided ki•pur for Bᵊn•ei-Yis•râ•eil!!!

A caveat, however, that this was done:

  1. in accordance with the ruling of the national Beit-Din (v. 5), not as the result of an individual's decision, and

  2. that Pinᵊkhâs, a Ko•hein (v. 7), is implied to be a sho•pheit of a Beit-Din (v. 5), not any street vigilante.

In the absence of such a ruling by a national Israeli Beit-Din, actions like that of Yigal Amir (Rabin's assassin) and Barukh Goldstein are vigilante murder.

While there is no national (viz., Israeli) law authorizing this severity of action today, kâ•reit for deliberate, belligerent and flaunting violation of , unless mitigated by tᵊshuv•âh, remains in force and within the prerogative of the Beit-Din.

No one is perfect. Consequently, we must all be tolerant of those who misstep—forgiving those who make tᵊshuv•âh as we wish to be forgiven. is perfectly consistent, however, that when anyone deliberately, belligerently and flauntingly violates , unless they make tᵊshuv•âh, He has no mercy on them.

Within the bounds of law and Beit-Din, zealousness in combating deliberate, belligerent and flaunting violation of is an attribute both earning great eternal reward and producing ki•pur for Yis•râ•eil.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5759 (1999.06)

27.16-17 --, -; -: 17 - , , ; --, - :

Rendered in smoother English-style order: "--, ‭ ‬ of the of all , will assign an over the , who shall go forth before them and come before them, who shall take them forth and bring them back; and the of -- shall not be like a lacking a ."

The principle of an assigned to be shepherd over the flock of --—an (ish; man), not an apotheosized man-god!!!—is ordained here in .

This corroborates, complements and reinforces bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 15.39.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5757 (1997.07)

Setting: ca. B.C.E. 1428.
Location: Shit•im (31° 46' N, 35° 43' E; see map below)
Shitim, across the Yardein fm Yerikho (Jericho)
Click to enlargeShit•im; across the Yar•dein from Yᵊrikh•o—12 km NE of the north shore of Yâm ha-Mëlakh, in modern Jordan (tallelhammam.com)

Yerikho (ancient section)
Click to enlarge(old section, on outskirts of modern city)

"…in the A•râv•âh of Mo•âv on the Ya•rᵊd•ein at " ‭ ‬ (26.63).

This pâ•râsh•âh begins

25.10-11a -- - : 11 ‏…

The theme of "eyes" continues from last week:

27.14

In other words, Moshëh had been instructed to merely speak to the rock so that it would be clear that --, rather than Moshëh, was the direct Provider of the water.

Clear to whom?

For their eyes—to focus their attention on the True Provider—--, not Moshëh.

Finally, for this pâ•râsh•âh, the focus of the eye is again consistently reinforced in 27.19: 'before the entire Eid•âh, . I.e., Moshëh commissioned Yᵊho•shua Bën-Nun before the eyes of the entire Eid•âh of Israel to focus their attention on this passing of the baton to his successor.

The seven eyes of the vision of Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Bë•rëkh•yâh Bën-Id•o ha-Nâ•vi (seven oil-lamps of the Mᵊnor•âh) were described as "his eyes." That is, the focus of the Ko•hein ha-Ja•dol must be upon and --—all seven days of the week.

Moreover, as he represented Israel, "his" eyes were the eyes, the focus, of Israel. Seen in this way, the vision of Zᵊkhar•yâh is not so difficult to interpret. It is the , represented by the pure olive oil, that flows through the Mᵊnor•âh, seven days, to fuel and illuminate the "eyes."

The two olive trees (see the Nᵊtzâr•im logo) represent:

  1. the and

  2. the —the Mâ•shiakh, through whom this olive oil (the ) flows.

These two facets also parallel and presaged the two missions of the Mâ•shiakh:

  1. First as the Mâ•shiakh Bën-Yo•seiph and then, having been charged with the Kᵊhun•âh in the heavens (vacant and commemorated only informally since the destruction of the genealogical records by the Romans) and

  2. the heavenly Ribi Yᵊho•shua ha-Ko•hein ha-Ja•dol, also described by Zᵊkhar•yâh (përëq 3).

Notice that Yᵊho•shua of Zᵊkhar•yâh 3.7 et al., like the eternal Messianic King of the House of Dâ•wid, cannot be a mere mortal Ko•hein ha-Ja•dol. Thus, the vision couldn't have featured the contemporary Yᵊho•shua Bën-Yᵊhotzâdâq ha-Ko•hein ha-Ja•dol.

Neither, of course, can he be divine. Rather, this is what the revivified person described, inter alia, in the A•mid•âh will be in .

Gem with 7 eyes (facets)
Click to enlargeGem with 7 eyes (facets)

How coincidental that the vision featuring Yᵊho•shua as the (3.8—widely accepted for centuries in Judaism as alluding to the Mâ•shiakh) yanks us right back to the theme of one stone with seven eyes (3.9)!

Netzarim logo
Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ  logo
Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ  4

Since we know from the other vision of Zᵊkhar•yâh that the seven eyes derive from the single Mᵊnor•âh, it's clear that the "one stone" in this vision (see also Tᵊhil•imꞋ  118.22) equates to the Mᵊnor•âh in the other vision.


Map Israel-Sinai-Negev
Click to enlargeMap Israel-Sinai-Nëgëv, showing Shit•im, across the Yar•dein from Yᵊrikh•o

In the other vision of Zᵊkhar•yâh, there were two olive trees (representing Kᵊhun•âh and Malkhut Dâ•wid) as partner sources of the olive oil supplied to the "seven eyes." In this vision, we see that "one stone" has become the only source for the olive oil supplied to the "seven eyes". The meaning of the "seven eyes" doesn't change. It always refers to the same focus of Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil upon each of the seven days of the week, exactly as symbolized by the lamps on the Mᵊnor•âh. Clearly, the two missions of the Mâ•shiakh have merged the two olive trees into the "one stone"—Yᵊho•shua, even specified by name (!); born into the Malkhut Dâ•wid, possessing the only surviving Davidic genealogy in existence and, upon his revivification, being granted, according to this vision of Zᵊkhar•yâh 3, the Kᵊhun•âh in the heavens. Straightforward and logical.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5756 (1996.07)

Timna Park, Israeli Negev, area of copper mines
Timna Park in the Israeli Nëgëv near Eil•at and the Gulf of Eil•at, area of copper mines carved into the sandstone faces. Contrary to outdated archeologists, radio-carbon dating has shown that this copper mine was operated in the time of, and probably in the employ of, Shᵊlomoh ha-Mëlëkh; not by Egyptians but by the Mi•dᵊyân•im,. This vicinity was the northwestern boundary of the Mi•dᵊyân•im, whose area stretched into what is today western Saudi Arabia along the eastern coast of the Arabian Gulf. (photo by asergeev.com)

In last week's pâ•râsh•âh (25.7-8), Pinᵊkhâs killed a Jew who was coupling with a shi•qᵊtzâh from the tribes who bordered on the southeast, between Yâm ha-Mëlakh and the gulf known today as the Gulf of Eil•at (the Mi•dᵊyân•im, who ranged from this, their northwestern border, down into the northwestern parts of modern Saudi Arabia). In this week's pâ•râsh•âh (25.13), -- says of Pinᵊkhâs' killing of Zi•mᵊr•i Bën-Sâ•lu, for Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil.

At first glance, one might conclude that Pinᵊkhâs' act of killing Zi•mᵊr•i constituted a dâm-qor•bân ki•pur.

One has to be very careful about ascribing a cause-effect relationship between two sequential events—the anathema of every legitimate scientist. A lot of anecdotal "healings," for example, have as their basis nothing more than sequential coincidence. A Christian prays for healing from cancer and the next examination is free of cancer. The Christian prayer caused a healing? If so, does the identical anecdote of the Hindu, the Buddhist and the Satanist prove their prayers, meditations, rituals, etc. are equally effective? When millions more Christians pray to be healed from cancer and are not, doesn't that contradict that Christian prayers heal cancer and there must be another cause at work? How many Christians feel rejected because their prayers go unheeded? (For antidote, see Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  28.9.)

I was recently given a coffee mug that plays a melody in phone-like tones whenever the cup is picked up. It works on the principle of a light-sensitive solar power cell embedded in the base. When the cup is picked up, light penetrates through the base enough to power a tiny electronic music box also embedded in the base. Turn off the light source (usually by setting the cup down on its base—or drinking in the dark) and the music stops.

Activated repeatedly, the phone-like tones quickly get on one's nerves. But one cannot drink from the cup without activating the tones. A friend of Karen's had a similar cup and the incessant tune so annoyed her that she finally broke the cup. However, I really liked my cup if I could just get rid of the infernal tones. In jest, I concentrated on stopping the music by force of mental telepathy, and when I picked up the cup and drank, the music no longer played. It had stopped permanently. One must conclude that I stopped the coffee mug from playing music by force of my mental telepathy?!?

(Should I mention that I'd picked the cup up from inside our microwave in which I'd just warmed my coffee, or that microwaves are very destructive to tiny electronic devices?)

Much of this is rather like the adage that brushing one's teeth keeps rhinoceroses out of the kitchen. Do you brush your teeth? Have you ever had a rhinoceros in your kitchen? Q.E.D.

Likewise, in this week's pâ•râsh•âh, we shouldn't assume that Pinᵊkhâs' killing of Zi•mᵊr•i equates to the subsequent (not necessarily consequent) ki•pur.

P'or
Click to enlargeApprox. location of (Mount) – east of Yᵊri•kho, in modern west Jordan (SW of 32° N, 36° E)

Beginning in pâ•suq 25.11, —not just Zi•mᵊr•i—began to engage in salacity with the women of Mo•âv. In pâ•suq 3, Yi•sᵊr•â•eil—not just Zi•mᵊr•i alone—yoked / coupled with the , and --'s anger burned against Yi•sᵊr•â•eil—not just Zi•mᵊr•i alone. In pâ•suq 4, -- ordered Moshëh to hang all of the leaders of the kindred—not just Zi•mᵊr•i alone—"so that -- would withdraw His burning anger from Yi•sᵊr•â•eil—not just from Zi•mᵊr•i alone.

In direct answer to all of these references to Yi•sᵊr•â•eil collectively—rather than Zi•mᵊr•i individually—pâ•suq 11 explains that:

The collective ki•pur for Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, in contrast with Zi•mᵊr•i only, while somehow related to Pinᵊkhâs' act of killing Zi•mᵊr•i, cannot be attributed only to Pinᵊkhâs' act of killing Zi•mᵊr•i.

Would -- have withdrawn His hot fury against a large segment of Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil based on the punishment of one transgressor while the remainder of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil continued their salacities with the women of Mo•âv? Perhaps that might be the Christian response, teaching that the punishment of apotheosized man-god atones for Christians while they continue to do whatever they want. But this is not the Way of .

The suggestion is implicit: as a result of Pinᵊkhâs' killing of Zi•mᵊr•i and the Mo•âv woman he was coupled with, Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil was shocked by the realization that their salacities would result in the ultimate punishment, motivating Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil to make tᵊshuv•âh from their salacities. It was only through the tᵊshuv•âh of all of the transgressors of Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, collectively, that we can relate to a ki•pur that applies to all Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil collectively.

Pinᵊkhâs' killing of Zi•mᵊr•i was only the trigger that led to tᵊshuv•âh en masse. However, it was tᵊshuv•âh that was the ki•pur for Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil.

goat Nubian buck kid
Click to enlargeNubian goat, buck kid

This parallel can be seen in the animal sacrificial system as well. It wasn't the killing of the animal that brought ki•pur. It was seeing the lifeblood drain from the innocent victim (and, no doubt, in a society in which personal wealth was measured by one's flock, watching a significant portion of one's personal wealth go with it) that triggered tᵊshuv•âh—and the resulting tᵊshuv•âh made ki•pur. This can be demonstrated: without tᵊshuv•âh, the qor•bân was rejected, and provided no ki•pur. Conversely, some sacrifices that weren't dâm qor•bân•ot at all nevertheless provided ki•pur. The same principle must hold true for the provision of the Mâ•shiakh: It is tᵊshuv•âh, not belief in an apotheosized man-god, that yields ki•pur.

It remains as true today: tᵊshuv•âh equates to ki•pur. -- has always preferred obedience rather than qor•bân, and without the former, the latter is worse than meaningless—it is obscene. The various instruments / vehicles leading to ki•pur were all "triggers" leading to / causing tᵊshuv•âh, that produced ki•pur, and without tᵊshuv•âh—evidenced by khësëd, qor•bân•ot were meaningless; they were not accepted and provided no ki•pur (Ho•sheia 6.6 and The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 3.9-10; 7.15-23).

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5755 (1995.07)

Beit ha-Miqdash
Click to enlargeBeit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ 

The key to understanding the weekly liturgy in the Beit ha-Kᵊnësët is to understand the underlying liturgy of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, found in this week's pâ•râsh•âh at bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 28.1-10.

The services in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh revolved around combining Tᵊhil•im and tᵊphilot with qor•bân•ot.

28:1-8— describes (pâ•suq 6) the

;

With the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh in 70 C.E. (not to mention the already-problematic disqualification of qor•bân•ot due to the officiation by Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha), the rabbis were left with no explanation of a mechanism for ki•pur and were forced to fall back on a passage from Ho•sheia ha-Nâ•vi 14.3, but contradicting its context (as well as transgressing Dᵊvâr•im 13.1) by displacing qor•bân•ot with tᵊphil•ot. Nevertheless, they correctly (therefore safely) continued to rely exclusively upon -- to provide the ki•pur, which they previously assumed was accomplished through the Kohan•im and animal qor•bân.

Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im

Today, Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im believe that ki•pur is obtained through carrying out traditional rituals subordinate to obedience to their rabbi – who by displacing the Authority of -- in His Tor•âh shë-bikh•tâv, constitutes idolatry. Their adamant insistence that their prayers, and only their prayers, "protects Israel," and that without them there would be no Israel, is a redux of the Christian Gospel doctrine of exclusive intercession and belief in an exclusive intermediary.

Nᵊtzâr•im – In Accord With Yᵊkhëz•qeil

The Nᵊtzâr•im believe that the combination mechanism of Ko•han•im (whose genealogy was destroyed, according to Ta•lᵊmud, for all time) and animal sacrifices (not ki•purꞋ  per se, which is provided by --) has been upgraded to the description, in Yᵊkhëz•qeil 46.1-15, of the eternal Mâ•shiakh – whom we believe is Ribi Yᵊho•shua.

Christian Idolatry

Instead of the operation of tᵊshuv•âh for ki•pur, Christians believe in a supernatural, miraculous—victory-over-physical-death magical—apotheosis of a post-135 C.E. syncretism to their native, Hellenist, Zeus, an idol that, ignorant of its origins, they renamed "Jesus" and believe in to give them "salvation."

's "Plan of Salvation"

By contrast, teaches that it is the operation of tᵊshuv•âh–in practice, not any symbolic mechanism, ritual or belief, that produces ki•pur. In , the symbolic mechanism is, primarily, the instrument that motivates tᵊshuv•âh. It is tᵊshuv•âh that brings our conduct into closer compatibility with and, accordingly, pleases --

Weaning Yi•sᵊrâ•eil from a Physical House-Type Deity
Refining the Accordingly: Qor•bân Tᵊphil•ot

With the demise of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, the service for offering the was upgraded in the Beit ha-Kᵊnësët liturgy to commemorate, rather than actually offer, the daily of the . ‭ ‬ is commemorated every morning in every -observant Beit ha-Kᵊnësët to remind us each morning of our continuous need to make "recommitting" tᵊshuv•âh and, in the khein of -- according to the promise in His , receive His ki•pur.

In bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 28.9-10 we find that, in addition to every day's , on Shab•ât and Khag there was an . This is why there is a service every and Khag —commemorating the .

When these two passages are recited in the respective services, Nᵊtzâr•im should keep in mind that -- provides "the real thing"—the primary motivator to tᵊshuv•âh—in the non-dimensional spiritual Realm as described by Yᵊkhëz•qeil, for which these were merely the , and that, since -- enlivened him from death, the provision of ki•pur is officiated or administered (not provided; -- provides it, in His khein) according to the of the Mâ•shiakh described by Yᵊkhëz•qeil (46).

"Resurrection" In the Beit ha-Kᵊnësët Liturgy

Many non- people (whether calling themselves "secular Jews" or gentiles), are unaware that Jews pray acknowledging the promised resurrection twice (in each recitation of the ) in every and another two times again in every service (No•sakh Tei•mân•im):

. -- :

Belief that -- enlivened, or "resurrected", Ribi Yᵊho•shua as the Mâ•shiakh into the afterlife (along with other Jews to that time; cf. NHM 27.50-54) doesn't conflict with Ha•lâkh•âh. It's belief in, or reliance upon, a Mâ•shiakh to resurrect and save, presuming to be —a peer of—-- (cf. Dân•iy•eil 7.25; Ho•sheia 13.4 & Yᵊsha•yâhu 45.21-22), that violates Ha•lâkh•âh. This is particularly egregious in the Christian (Hellenist) case, where their supposed resurrector, Jesus, is the fabricated syncretism of an idol. --, not His Mâ•shiakh, has the power to raise the dead to an afterlife.

Belief that -- couldn't have enlivened Ribi Yᵊho•shua is a contradiction—and aveir•âh—of !

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5754 (1994.07)

In this week's pâ•râsh•âh, the Kᵊhun•âh is awarded to the family of Pinᵊkhâs for his against assimilation / absorption into the Mid•yân•im.

Edom Midyan Moav
Click to enlargeMi•dᵊbar Pâ•rân, Mo•âv, Ë•dom and Mi•dᵊyân
Israeli Negev, Midbar Paran
Israeli NëgꞋ ëv, southeastern fringe of near Ei•latꞋ  and the Gulf of Ei•latꞋ . This vicinity, near Timna, was the northwestern boundary of the Mi•dᵊyân•im, whose area stretched into what is today western Saudi Arabia along the eastern coast of the Arabian Gulf. (photo by Mark A. Wilson, Wooster.com)

At the end of the previous pâ•râsh•âh, the Israelis were assimilating, intermarrying (via fornication) with the women from the tribes who bordered on the southeast, between Yâm ha-Mëlakh and the gulf known today as the Gulf of Eil•at (the Mi•dᵊyân•im, who ranged from this, their northwestern border, down into the northwestern parts of modern Saudi Arabia).

One Israeli man blatantly brought a Mi•dᵊyân•it woman into the camp and blatantly took her into his tent explicitly for sex. By implication of the name, , this was clearly an act of idolatrous "sacred marriage" with a leading Mi•dᵊyân•it temple consort ("high society" VIP in their ancient culture, not disdained) of . Enraged with the of --, Pinᵊkhâs rushed into the tent and thrust his spear through the mating couple. For this, Pinᵊkhâs, and his descendants, are here awarded the exclusive Kᵊhun•âh.

The attempt by the Mi•dᵊyân•im to entice Yi•sᵊr•â•eil to assimilate was the , bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 25.18). The passage hints that this was a deliberate Mi•dᵊyân•im attempt to lure Yi•sᵊr•â•eil into assimilation. It is explicit that this was the master plan of Bil•âm, since he was unable to curse Yi•sᵊr•â•eil for the Mi•dᵊyân•im (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 22.2ff).

This is further suggested in that both of the assimilators whom Pinᵊkhâs killed were high-ranking personalities, not anonymous rank-and-file profligates. The Israeli was Zi•mᵊr•i Bën-Sâ•lu, a Nâ•si of the tribe of Shim•on (25.14). Neither was the woman who came into the Israeli camp with Zi•mᵊr•i any anonymous woman of Mi•dᵊyân but Kâ•zᵊbi Bat-Tzur, the daughter of one of a high-ranking Mi•dᵊyân•im official (25.15, 18). This implies complicity among the highest levels of the Mi•dᵊyân•im; deliberately enticing the highest levels of Israelis, in the most high-profile manner imaginable: "Vex them… for they are vexers of you in their beguiling wherewith they beguile you in the '"

I have rendered "beguile" for the verb (in 25.17) and m.p. n. (in 25.18). The other main noun is and cognate verb , in 25.18.

The implication is fully substantiated in next week's pâ•râsh•âh (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 31.15-16).

Movies and TV shows that present intermarriage, and/or imply sex, between Jews and non-Jews as casually unremarkable (e.g., The Commish, Hollywood 90210, Friends, Dharma and Greg, Seinfeld, Nannie, et al.) are not innovative. They are yet another tired permutation of the legacy of Bil•âm and .

Shoemaker-Levy 9 (1994)
Click to enlargeShoemaker-Levy 9 (1994), like a Bride and bridesmaids, all in trailing gowns, merging with Tzëdëq – the Mâ•shiakh planet

The Haphtâr•âh read by most Jews most years includes Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu 2.1-3, which is particularly meaningful in light of the impending celestial wonder [Levi meteor]: "Go and in the ears of Yᵊrushâlayim saying, Thus says --, I remember you, the khësëd of your youth, your love as a bride when you followed Me bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar'"

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5752 (1992.07)

The Seduction of Assimilation

In the depraved affair of Bil•âm in last week's pâ•râsh•âh, it was Pinᵊkhâs who, upon seeing the Israeli taking a temple consort shi•qᵊtzâh of into his tent, flagrantly flaunting it before Moshëh and the entire convocation of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil (25.6), followed them into the tent and killed the two of them with a single thrust of the spear through their bellies. As a result, "the epidemic was arrested from the Israelis" (25.8).

It should also be noted that, although it has become unacceptable in modern times, fornication was, in that time, one of several forms of instituting marriage – in this case, a prohibited intermarriage with an idolatrous temple priestess-consort; the Bride of -- (Yi•sᵊrâ•eil) committing adultery with ! While the sexual consorting has been eliminated, these ancient goy•im temple priestess-consorts became the origin of today's Catholic nuns. Whereas today's Catholic nuns believe they are "married to Christ," the ancient temple priestesses were, identically, considered as married to their local .

A further result of this action by Pinᵊkhâs in diverting --'s rage, was that the Kᵊhun•âh was more narrowly defined henceforth from the descendants of A•har•on to the subcategory of descendants of this particular family of A•har•on's descendants.

Atonement

25.13 -

The verb here is ki•peir. Shᵊlomoh ha-Mëlëkh may have had this incident in mind when he penned Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  21.18: " for the tzadiq•im is the [death of the] râsh•â, and in place of the straightforward, the [death of the] traitor."

Half-sheqel 22CE 2nd Temple coin (zionism-israel dot com)
Half-sheqel 22 C.E. coin (zionism-israel dot com)

One passage regarding ki•pur in refers to the annual payment of the half-shëqël maintenance fee for the upkeep of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh (Shᵊm•ot 30.10-16) as ki•pur money to kipeir for their nëphësh, rendered in Greek by Hellenist Jews, who translated this term from Ta•na"kh, as ψυχη in LXX (ca. B.C.E. 200) "so that there will be no plague among them" that it would be a memorial of (for) the ki•pur.

Of the more than 75 remaining references in to ki•pur, every one is clearly associated with the prerequisite of dâm for ki•pur.

wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 17.11— "For the of the bâ•sâr, it's in the dâm, and I have given it for you upon the Miz•beiakh for ki•pur for your , for it is the dâm that makes-ki•pur in the ."

Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv is totally consistent in defining the operation of ki•pur relative to a dâm-qor•bân being dependent upon the dâm of the dâm-qor•bân. Even the half-shëqël maintenance fee for the upkeep of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh went toward the support of this system. There is no contradicting basis in the remainder of the Ta•na"kh. Indeed, since -- is Immutable (Ma·lâkh·i 3.6 & Tᵊhil•im 89.35), anything that contradicts these requirements is necessarily contrary to , an a•veir•at Tor•âh and false.

Passages in this week's pâ•râsh•âh refers to the khat•ât—"misstep kid" sacrifice—of Pësakh for ki•pur (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 28.21, 30; 29.11).

Admonitions in Ta•na"kh to behave justly and kindly in such a way that ki•pur does not become necessary have been perverted by some rabbis to contradict Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv and misleading Jews into the apostate belief that tᵊphil•âh, charity, recitation of the si•dur and similar actions can effect, by means of one's own works, ki•pur. This clearly contradicts Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv, which holds that ki•pur is provided by -- alone. Therefore, adding such additional pseudo-ki•purdisplacing ki•pur prescribed by —cannot possibly have any authority from the it contravenes. Such representation, therefore, isn't Ha•lâkh•âh! The reader should always check the context of a passage to ensure the intention is as is being represented.

Concerning the issue of vicarious the following quote from the nᵊviy•im presages the Mâ•shiakh (Yᵊsha•yâhu 43): 3 "…I gave Mi•tzᵊr•ayim for your ki•pur, Kush and Sᵊ•va instead of you. 4 I will give an â•dâm instead of you, instead of your "

Rebellion

27.14 , -, ,

English translations don't convey the plural "you." Moshëh, as leader, and whose action diverged from --'s instructions, is held responsible for the rebellion of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil at .

-: Prohibited on and Khaj•im

In two places in this week's pâ•râsh•âh, bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 28.18 & 25, we are admonished not to perform - on the 1st & 7th days of Khag ha-Matz•ot. (Note: Pësakh is limited to the eve of the 14th of Firstmonth, assimilated to Babylonian "Nisan" –not the whole week.) Similarly, - is prohibited on Shâv•u•ot (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 28.26) and the 1st & 8th days of Suk•ot (29.12, 35). This is the same admonition as given regarding Shab•ât (Shᵊm•ot 20.9-10; 31.14-15; 35.2; wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 25.3; Dᵊvâr•im 5.13-14). This strongly suggests that, according to Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv (and contrary to relaxations reliant on rabbinic authority), prohibitions against - on these Khaj•im is identical to the prohibitions on Shab•ât.

(and combin. form …-) as well as and are all derived from the same stem—: to send as an agent (Hellenized to "angel") on a mission, to dispatch. Hence, the cognates relate to the theme of a person dispatched on some mission.

Biblical Month Names

It should be noted that Ta•na"kh fixes the names of the months in these two passages. Modern "Jewish" months were picked up from the goy•im of Bavël—syncretism prohibited by Dᵊvâr•im 12.30-31; 18.9 & 20.18. There is no need to use the pagan month names. Like the weekdays in Hebrew (Firstday through Sixthday and Shab•ât), the months were originally called Firstmonth through Twelfthmonth.

Shophar (ayal-ram)
Click to enlargeSho•phâr , Tei•mân•i (from nosachteiman.co.il). While most Jews seem to think that the long spiral horns are "Yemenite," this is the most authentic that was used by the Jews in Yemen.

Firstmonth was fixed as the month in which Pësakh occurs, contrary to the modern practice of observing the new year according to other cycles. ("Rosh ha-Shân•âh" is properly "Yom Tᵊru•âh"; Day of Blasting on the sho•phâr)

Since the uttering of the names of pagan gods is prohibited in Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv (Shᵊm•ot 23.13) and the modern secular names of every day of the week are named after Roman and Greek gods (Sun[god] day, Moon[god]day, Tiwes day, Oden's day, Thor's day, Frie's day and Saturn day) observant Jews should defer to either the Biblical terminology or the use of the English: Day1—Day6 or Firstday—Sixthday (& Shab•ât, of course).

Yom ha-Ki•pur•im

The 10th of Seventhmonth shall be a holy convocation of yours -; you shall not do any (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 29.7).

What specifically should be our attitude, demeanor and behavior on Yom ha-Ki•pur•im? The two primary terms translated as "afflict," (also spelled , Klein's p. 477) and (Klein's p. 477), are both cognates of , which, according to A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language For Readers of English, has four major connotations:

  1. to answer, respond or reply [from Aram & Syr and Ugar 'ny];

  2. to occupy or busy oneself [from Syr , Arab. 'ana and 'aniya];

  3. to chant dirges [Syr. = he sang responsively, Aram. = dirge]; and

  4. to be bowed down humbly, be afflicted [from Aram & Syr.].

Since the main thrust of the word is the humbling of oneself, to, instead, focus on the "affliction" aspect (which includes self-flagellation, etc., as practiced by some Muslims)—beyond fasting—would constitute constructively adding to in contravention of Dᵊvâr•im 13.1.

The term from this passage is generally derived from meaning #4. It merits consideration that all of these connotations could well be intended in pâ•suq 7. It is a day in which we must respond / reply concerning repentance from misdeeds of the previous year. We are to occupy ourselves in this singular endeavor for the day. In the services, dirges are indeed chanted. And all of the above is to be done while bowing down in humility.

On the 8th day of Suk•ot we are instructed to have an . The term in the Ta•na"kh refers exclusively to the 8th day of Suk•ot. This term may relate to the cessation (arrest) from - or to a restrained (arrested) demeanor in the day's services. The subsequent celebration of Si•mᵊkh•at-Tor•âh may even have some history as a contrasting conclusion to the subdued theme of Shᵊmin•i A•tzërët.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

(Ha•phᵊtâr•âh; resolution, wrap-up, dismissal) Tei•mân•it Bal•ad•it:

' " "—" "

(Mᵊlâkh•im Âlëph 18.46—19.21)

According to the Tei•mân•i No•sakh Ba•lad•i tradition, in certain years this pâ•râsh•at is combined with (see last week's pâ•râsh•at). However, here in Israel this frequently caused relatives who are away from home (in the ", yᵊshivot, abroad, etc.) where there is no Beit ha-kᵊnësët Teimân•i and have to pray in some other Orthodox tradition to miss a pârâsh•âh (or sit through a duplicate) whether they were away or home for Shab•ât during this during this couple of weeks that the traditions differ. Consequently, beginning in "‎ (2003), the Tei•mân•i No•sakh Balad•i (at least here in Israel) have adapted this issue to the calendar used by other traditions, including Tei•mân•i Shami.

5776 (2016.07)

Eil•i•yâhu ha-Nâ•vi's Vision Of The "Tenuous Quiet Voice"

Since Scripture provides clear and obvious context, I've always thought the account of "the still small voice" was clear and obvious. As I read the opinion of one of the most lucid of today's Orthodox rabbis, however, it becomes clear that rabbinic tradition has introduced gaping misunderstandings – which, by necessity ignore and elide the explicit Scriptural context in order to make the meaning seem to fit a seemingly kind agenda. However, even a kind agenda is no justification for eliding – concealing, however inadvertently – the clear and explicit meaning of Scripture. (On the other hand, the clear inadvertence of the rabbi demonstrates the innocence of his oversight.)

It seems the rabbis neglect to read to the Scriptural explanation of the vision at the end of the passage. Nothing is more authoritative than that!

King "Ahab" And Queen "Jezebel"
King & Queen Of 10 Shom•ron Tribes of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil
Map: Shomron (city) & Beer Sheva
Click to enlargeMap: Shom•ron city (4c, Arabic: Sebaste, English: Samaria) & Bᵊeir Shëva (6-7b)

To set the backdrop, following the death of Shᵊlomoh ha-Mëlëkh, the northern Ten Tribes of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil split from Yᵊhudâh ca. B.C.E. 951. Only 60 years later (ca. B.C.E. 891), the 7th mëlëkh of (the 10 Shom•ron Tribes of) Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, Akhᵊâv (Bën-Âmᵊr•i) ha-Mëlëkh, acceded to the northern throne in their capital city of Shom•ron.

Akhᵊâv ha-Mëlëkh became the most evil mëlëkh in the history of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil. He married a Phoenician princess from Tzid•ōn, an idolatress of Baal and A•shᵊr•âh named Iy-Zëvël, who then became the idolatrous Queen of (the 10 Shom•ron Tribes of) Yi•sᵊr•â•eil.

Queen Iy-Zëvël had subsidized the priests of Baal and A•shᵊr•âh, and she was building temples for them all over the Shom•ron. Even worse, she attempted to eradicate the Nᵊviy•im of ‑‑.

In response, Eil•i•yâhu ha-Nâ•vi famously challenged all of the priests of Baal to call down heavenly fire to light their alters on Har Ka•rᵊm•ël. After the priests of Baal had exhausted themselves fruitlessly, Eil•i•yâhu succeeded (Mᵊlâkh•im Âlëph 18.16-20).

Rotem broom plant Retama-raetam (photo: James Steakley)
Click to enlarge – mature Broom shrub (Retama-raetam, photo: James Steakley)

Instead of recognizing the superiority of Eil•i•yâhu over the priests of Baal, however, Queen Iy-Zëvël resolved to hunt down Eil•i•yâhu and execute him.

This was devastating to Eil•i•yâhu. Since his awesome demonstration of power over the priests of Baal on Har Ka•rᵊm•ël hadn't compelled Akhᵊâv ha-Mëlëkh and Queen Iy-Zëvël to make tᵊshuv•âh, then what could possibly do so?!? To make his situation even more dire, the king and queen had soldiers hunting him down to execute him.

So, Eil•i•yâhu fled for his life south to Har Khor•eiv – out of the kingdom of Shom•ron entirely. He continued fleeing south all the way through the kingdom of Yᵊhudâh down to Bᵊeir Shëva in the Nëgëv, and then out into the mi•dᵊbâr. Exhausted, thirsty and hungry, he made a small hide-away camp under a Broom shrub.

Har Karkom Summit Cave
Click to enlargeHar Sin•ai Summit Cave (Same cave Mosh•ëh hid in to see ‑‑.)

Resting under the Broom shrub, out in the mi•dᵊbâr of the Nëgëv, Eil•i•yâhu, commiserated about the failure of his demonstration on Har Ka•rᵊm•ël to convince the king and queen of the Omnipotence of ‑‑ – compounded by his worry and depression at being under the threat of execution. A sympathetic ma•lâkh brought him water and food for a couple of days, enabling him to continue his journey to Har Khor•eiv.

After the long trip, Eil•i•yâhu finally arrived at Har Khor•eiv (an alternate name for Har Sin•ai). And in the same cave on its summit, where Mosh•ëh had seen ‑‑, Eil•i•yâhu had his vision.

Eil•i•yâhu's Vision

Eil•i•yâhu spent the night in the cave on the summit of Har Khor•eiv and had a dream of the Dᵊvar ‑‑, saying, "What is here for you, Eil•i•yâhu?"

Eil•i•yâhu responded: "I've been absolutely zealous for ‑‑ Ël•oh•ei Tzᵊvâ•ot, because Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil have abandoned your bᵊrit, they have destroyed Your Altars, and killed your Nᵊviy•im by the sword. I'm the only one left and they request to take my nëphësh."

The Dᵊvar ‑‑ replied, "Go out of the cave. Stand on the Har before ‑‑. Then, look, ‑‑ was passing by.

  1. And a great and powerful ruakh tore through the mountains, dislodging and smashing boulders before ‑‑. But ‑‑ was not in the ruakh.

  2. After the ruakh was an earthquake. But ‑‑ was not in the earthquake.

  3. After the earthquake was a fire. . But ‑‑ was not in the fire.

  4. After the fire was a Tenuous Quiet Voice.

When Eil•i•yâhu heard, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance to the cave. Then he heard a voice saying, "What is here for you, Eil•i•yâhu?"

So Eil•i•yâhu repeated: "I've been absolutely zealous for ‑‑ Ël•oh•ei Tzᵊvâ•ot, because Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil have abandoned your bᵊrit, they have destroyed Your Altars, and killed your Nᵊviy•im by the sword. I'm the only one left and they request to take my nëphësh."

Then ‑‑ explained the meaning of his vision: "Go back the way you came, and then continue on to the mi•dᵊbâr near Damascus, Syria and anoint Khazâeil mëlëkh over Syria. On you way through the Shom•ron, anoint Yeihu mëlëkh over (the 10 Shom•ron Tribes of) Yi•sᵊr•â•eil and anoint Ël•i•shâ Bën-Shâ•phât as a Nâ•vi as your replacement."

  1. The ruakh: "Whoever escapes the sword of Khazâeil,

  2. The earthquake: Yeihu shall kill. And whoever escapes the sword of Yeihu,

  3. The fire: Ël•i•shâ Bën-Shâ•phât shall kill.

  4. The Tenuous Quiet Voice: But I will leave in (the 10 Shom•ron Tribes of) Yi•sᵊr•â•eil 7,000 – all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed it."

The Takeaway

Rabbis have asserted a myriad of agenda-driven interpretations. Scripture is crystal clear about never defending wrong, no matter who does it. Cursed are those who call good wrong or wrong good (Yᵊsha•yâhu 5.20). Do not be among the consensus of wrong-doing (Shᵊm•ot 23.2). The list of incidents in Scripture where a Nâ•vi called out wrong-doers in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil to make tᵊshuv•âh is long – even the main purpose of a Nâ•vi. No one in the history of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil was more confrontational than the Nᵊviy•im – except Mosh•ëh!

However, the point made by Eil•i•yâhu's vision is that ‑‑ is neither in the ruakh of a king among the goy•im (e.g., Syria), nor in the earthquake of a king of (the 10 Shom•ron Tribes of) Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, nor even – perhaps emphasize the point – in the "miracle" Godfire-stone demonstrated in the previous chapter (Mᵊlâkh•im Âlëph 18.25-40, see Pâ•râsh•at Pinkhas Ha•phᵊtâr•âh for 5770 / 2010) by a Nâ•vi of ‑‑. Rather, ‑‑ is in the Tenuous Quiet Voice of the 7,000 of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil who remain true to ‑‑ – the faithful whom Eil•i•yâhu had lost sight of in his (understandable but) self-immersed commiseration. A shepherd may not lose sight of the flock for whom he is responsible.

And who are the forgotten – Tenuous Quiet Voice – faithful in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil today? Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im? Miso-Judaic secular Israelis? I see a large number of Tenuous Quiet Voice moderate Orthodox in Israel; and I've seen a large number of them in the U.S. I know there must be many in other places around the world as well. Who is defending them like a shepherd? The answer to that is "a precious few" Orthodox rabbis – and they mostly fear to "man up." It certainly isn't the Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im nor those who abandon explicit mi•tzᵊw•ot explicitly written in Tor•âh, whether neo-"Modern Orthodox" or non-Orthodox. The Tenuous Quiet Voice moderates are found in the middle – caught in-between and being crushed between both evils. You're better off spitting on Superman's shoes than mistreating the Tenuous Quiet Voice of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil! Woe is you!

To back-sliders, the Nâ•vi is in-your-face confrontational, both to warn the recalcitrant not to transgress and to prod transgressors to make tᵊshuv•âh, bringing Tzëdëq and khësëd to the Tenuous Quiet Voice of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil – shepherding His flock. By contrast, woe to Mosh•ëh or any Nâ•vi who, even momentarily, loses sight of that! That was the reason ‑‑ replaced him with Ël•i•shâ Bën-Shâ•phât. And it was the same reason that got Mosh•ëh in trouble: building his own image and beating his own drum instead of shepherding the Tenuous Quiet Voice of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil – that flock of the faithful who belong to ‑‑, not to Mosh•ëh, not to any Nâ•vi and not to any rabbi(s).

The warnings to false shepherds were clear (Yᵊsha•yâhu 19.1; Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eil 34; Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu 10.21; 23.1-8; 3.15; Zᵊkhar•yâh 11.16-17). False shepherds are false ground, a sinkhole of fragmentation destined to collapse beneath the Tenuous Quiet Voice of His faithful in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil (see The Spiritual Sinkhole Threatening Israel). It is for this same reason that the replacements for these false shepherds have already been anointed to replace those rabbis who have lost sight of the Tenuous Quiet Voice of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil. ‑‑ replaced Eil•i•yâhu and Mosh•ëh for far less than the grievous abuses of today's false shepherds, who are unworthy to tie the sandals of Eil•i•yâhu or Mosh•ëh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

5759 (1999.06)

Covering two pârâshot last Shab•ât, the Haphtâr•âh No•sakh Bal•a•di Tei•mân•it is a week ahead of both the Ash•kᵊnazi and Sᵊphârâdi portions, for the next week or so. (The No•sakh Bal•a•di is the older and more pristine Tei•mân•i tradition, compared to the alternate Shami—modern Syrian reform—tradition.)

There is a difference between Ash•kᵊnazim and Sᵊphâ•râd•im regarding the passage that should be read for the Haphtâr•âh of Pinᵊkhâs, depending upon whether this pâ•râsh•âh falls before (as this year) or after the fast of Fourthmonth (Babylonian assimilated to "Tamuz").

Pâ•suq 19.16: "And Ëli•shâ Bën-Shâ•phât ha-Nâ•vi' in your stead."

olive-oil ceramic pitcher (cityofdavidstore.org)
Click to enlargeOlive-oil ceramic pitcher (cityofdavidstore)

The verb from which Mâ•shiakh derives is A Mâ•shiakh, then, is anyone who has been thusly anointed, including the Nâ•vi, every legitimate Ko•hein ha-Jâ•dol who ever served in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, etc. "The" Mâ•shiakh is an individual who is thusly anointed and who, beyond that, is distinguished by other passages of Ta•na"kh as well.

Interestingly, Ëli•shâ Bën-Shâ•phât ha-Nâ•vi had twice the power of Eil•i•yâhu ha-Nâ•vi (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 2.9-10ff), yet, it is Eil•i•yâhu ha-Nâ•vi who is regarded as the far greater Nâ•vi, prophesied to usher in the Mâ•shiakh.

Lesson: the watchcare of a shepherd is more essential, more enduring, and more important to -- than the charisma of power to do miracles.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

(•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua)

Ma•tit•yâhu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•it; Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhu
NHM

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

5770 (2010.07)

Nᵊviy•im Translation Mid•râsh Ribi Yᵊho•shua: NHM NHM
bᵊ-Mid•bar 27.15-17 Mosh•ëh spoke to ' saying, 16 May ', the Ël•oh•im of ru•akh•ot, raise up a pâ•qid for all bâ•sâr; over the Eid•âh. 17 who shall go forth before them, and who shall come before them; and who shall lead them forth and who shall bring them; then the Eid•at ' shall not be like a tzon that has no shepherd. Having seen the qᵊhil•ot,4.25.1 he had ra•kham•im9.36.0 for them, because they were plundered and despoiled,9.36.1 like (bᵊ-Mid•bar 27.17) 'sheep that have no shepherd.' 9.36.2 NHM 9.36
bᵊ-Mid•bar 28.9 And on Yom Shab•ât, two wholesome yearling kƏvâs•im; and a Min•khâh of 4.4 liters of fine-flour mingled with olive-oil, along with its appropriate beverage. Or haven't you studied12.5.0 what is written in ,5.17.1 that the Kohan•im2.4.1 minister on Shab•ât12.1.1 just as they do on days that are khol12.5.1—without guilt.12.5.2 NHM 12.5

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

Rainbow Rule

5765 (2005.06)

The Haphtâr•âh section (5759) concluded that the watchcare of a shepherd is more essential, and enduring, than the charisma of power.

2012.06.04 – Khareidi  Khananya Rabinovitz spit at two women he claimed were not dressed modestly
Click to enlarge2012.06.04 Kha•reid•iꞋ  (Ultra Orthodox) Khananya Rabinovitz spit at two women he claimed were not dressed modestly
Khareidim throw feces at Orthodox schoolgirls, call them whores in Beit Shemesh, Israel BBC 2011.10.10
Click to enlargeBBC video 2011.10.10 – Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ  spit on an eight year old Orthodox elementary schoolgirl, calling her a (whore), a (slut-prostitute) and a or " (assimilated German – namely, Yiddish – for "detestable goyah girl"); according to mother, Hadassah Margolis (dossim.com/ContentPage.aspx?item=352). They also assault an Orthodox rabbi (blue shirt) for being moderate – Beit ShëmꞋ ësh, Israel video

It is the lack of exactly this watchcare responsibility that criticizes (Yᵊkhëz•qeil chapter 34). This is further corroborated by Zᵊkhar•yâh 11.16-17, prophesying a (see also Yᵊsha•yâhu 19.1; Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu 10.21 & 23.1-8; 3.15), who would neglect, or worse maltreat, the tzon.

According to all Jewish polls, modern fanatic, Ultra-Orthodox / Kha•reid•imꞋ  rabbis have already driven away 95% of the flock (estranged from and Ha•lâkh•âh) and are becoming more irrelevant to Israel and the Jewish community—including the Pᵊrush•im-heritage Jewish community—with every passing day as genuinely pious (not the sanctimonious Ultra-Orthodox / Kha•reid•imꞋ ) Orthodox Jews become increasingly embarrassed and ashamed of too many corrupt and sanctimonious rabbis guilty of khi•lul --, giving —and, consequently, -- (and Israel)—a bad name.

Traveling around all of the cities and their suburbs teaching in the local Bat•ei-ha-Kᵊnësët, reciting the joyful news and caring for every kind of disease and every kind of sickness, Ribi Yᵊho•shua noted this even in his day (NHM 9.35-38): "Having seen the Qᵊhil•ot, he had rakham•im for them because they were plundered and despoiled—like (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 27.17) 'sheep that have no shepherd.'"

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

'

Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

Translated by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu & Yâ•eil Bën-Dâvid.

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

At Beit-ha-Kᵊnësët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ•âmi here in Ra•a•nanâ(h), Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, liturgy for a regular Shab•ât concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

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

part 1 (of 3)

Then you have other Dᵊvâr•im [namely, perpetrators of "abominations"] who are given into the hand of Zealots who have the zeal of -- to wreak vengeance upon them, like Pinᵊkhâs did.

As we have memorized in this chapter [of Tal•mud] on '[Punishment by] Burnings' (81b): Zealots assault the thief of a brass cup, the curser [who employs] magic and the Aramaic paramour; but a Ko•hein who uses [utensils in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshthat are] tum•âh? There's no brother of the Kohan•im who brings him to the Beit-Din, only flowers of the Kahunut who bring him forth outside and help burst his brain, by decree.

And it's said concerning this in the Gᵊmâr•â, Rav Kahana asked Rav, The Zealots didn't assault him, what is that? [Were they] absolutely great men?

It was taught to Rav Kahana in a dream, "Yᵊhud•âh betrayed and a to•eivah was made in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil and in Yᵊrushâlayim, because Yᵊhud•âh has profaned the Qodësh [people? Mâ•shiakh?] of --, whom He loved, and has become husband to the daughter of a foreign Eil" (Ma·lâkh·i 2.11). It came saying to him, Thus Scripture taught, [though] he was remembered as absolutely great, 'Yᵊhud•âh betrayed,' this is Avodah Zarah, and so He said, "You have betrayed Me, Beit Yisra•eil," declared --' (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu 3.20).

'And the to•eiv•âh that was made in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil and in Yᵊrushâlayim,' this is homosexual-sodomy, and so it says, "with a male you [masc.] shall not lie as a man lies with a woman, it is a to•eivah" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 18.22) "because Yᵊhud•âh has profaned the Qodësh of --, whom He loved."

This is an idolatrous "sacred marriage" consort, and so it is said, There shall be no 'qᵊdeishah [female temple-priestess consort; common in ancient pagan temples] from among the daughters of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil nor a 'qadeish [male temple-consort; also common in ancient pagan temples] from Yi•sᵊr•â•eil" (Dᵊvâr•im 23.18).

"And makes himself husband to the daughter of a foreign Eil," this is coming [i.e., cohabiting] with (the Aramit goyah [female gentile, i.e. shiqtzah; a female abomination]; and it is written in Torah, "And -- shall excise the man who does this (stirring-up and answering-back the tents of Ya•a•qov) and then busses a Minkhah to -- of tzᵊvâ•ot" (Ma·lâkh·i 2.12).

If a ta•lᵊmid is sagacious, he won't have any stirring-up among the sages, nor answering-back among the ta•lᵊmid•im. If he is a Ko•hein, he will not [delegate to] his son to "bus a Minkhah to -- of tzᵊvâ•ot."

•mar Rabi Khiya Bar Aba, Everyone who comes [i.e., cohabits] with (the Aramit goyah [female gentile, i.e. shiqtzah; a female abomination] it's tantamount to marrying Avodah Zarah, like the Scripture, "and he makes himself husband to the daughter of a foreign Eil" (ibid., 11).

The 'daughter of a foreign Eil,' this is the "coming with [i.e., cohabiting] with (the Aramit goyah [female gentile, i.e. shiqtzah; a female abomination]." And we say concerning this that the Rav of the coming day •mar, His Beit-Din of the heavens has decreed, the one who comes [i.e., cohabits] with (the Aramit goyah [female gentile, i.e. shiqtzah; a female abomination] has made her culpable for [transgressing the mi•tzᵊw•ot] of nmg"w (nidah, maid-servant, goyah and wife of a man). For Rav Abin •mar, culpable for nmg"p (nidah, maid-servant, goyah and consort). However, wifehood doesn't agree with them and, second, womanhood isn't licentious.

part 2 (of 3)

part 3 (of 3)

Under Construction

(Translated so far)

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic