|
| Torãh | Haphtãrãh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setting: ca. B.C.E. 1427. Location: Area of Shit•imꞋ & Har Nᵊvo, east of NᵊharꞋ ha-Yar•deinꞋ, opposite Yᵊrikh•oꞋ (see map below: 31° 46' N, 35° 43' E). |
| ||
| |||
Updated for clarity 5766 (2006)
The pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ begins …אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים
29.17-20 — The touchstone, or sine qua non, distinguishing Judaism from Christianity is epitomized in this passage. In Christianity, each individual makes their own interpretation of Scripture — to the extreme that individual Christians, by the "Holy Spirit," pronounce themselves true Christians and other entire denominations (who pronounce no less authoritatively "in the Holy Spirit") "not Christians." This is formalized in the authority they vest in their own intuitions and emotions as their "Holy" Spirit. By their reckoning, forgiveness is guaranteed, irrespective of deeds, by the "grace" of Jesus, their man-god idol.
 |
While Christianity is determined and ruled by the individual with a "street justice," vigilante mentality, Tor•ãhꞋ prescribes that only a system of Bãt•eiꞋ-Din are authorities in making such determinations and interpretations of Scripture—not the individual! That's why misojudaic Christians, when they read something like "an eye for an eye," assume a vigilante lynching instead of a reasoned verdict from a court trial in a Beit Din interpreting such principles in a reasonable manner no differently than we see courts all over the world doing today. Only the social norms and cultures are different, deteriorated (particularly in western societies), today.
In our pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ, we find the Tor•ãhꞋ prescription vastly different from the Christian expectation — and contradictory to the "grace" of the Christian man-god idol and false messiah.
29.17 — פֶּן-יֵשׁ בָּכֶם אִישׁ-אוֹ-אִשָּׁה אוֹ מִשְׁפָּחָה אוֹ שֵׁבֶט, אֲשֶׁר לְבָבוֹ פֹּנֶה הַיּוֹם מֵעִם י‑‑ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, לָלֶכֶת, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם הָהֶם; פֶּן-יֵשׁ בָּכֶם, שֶֹׁרש, פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה: 18 וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת, וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יהיה לִי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ; לְמַעַן, סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת-הַצְּמֵאָה:
Paraphrase: Lest there is among you a man, a woman, a family, or a tribe, who, in his heart, today faces away from being with י‑‑ה our Ël•oh•imꞋ, [constructively,] walking—working for—the ël•oh•imꞋ of the goy•imꞋ;
Lest there is among you a root bearing the fruit of gall or wormwood;
18 And it shall be, when he hears the items of this malediction-curse, that he shall bless himself in his heart, saying, "I shall have peace, because I walk in the resolve of my heart" — with the notion that סְפוֹת הָרָוָה (the watered [one is] adding to) the parched [one].
In English, the phrase, "the watered is adding to the parched" equates roughly to "the one balances out the other" — the notion of Jewish apostates (by definition) that it's ok to transgress as long as one offers a sacrifice afterward — today meaning going to synagogue on "Yom Kippur." This is not significantly different from Christians who rationalize that they can do whatever sin tempts them "because Jesus (whom Christians regard as the Perfect Sacrifice) will forgive me"; today's "Easter Christians." There is no significant difference between any persons who justify deliberate transgression.
This pã•suqꞋ is mentioned only once in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ, Ma•sëkꞋët Συνεδριον 76b; where it demonstrates (by the examples for which Rav Yᵊhud•ãhꞋ cites it) that the pã•suqꞋ refers to an ã•wonꞋ. This adumbrates that the subject in pã•suqꞋ 18b illustrates the rationalizing (namely, by premeditating to offer a khat•atꞋ) of doing a premeditated (i.e., willful) ã•wonꞋ.
…then he will calculate in his heart saying,
18b — שְלָמָא יְהֵי לִי, אֲרֵי, בְּהַרהוּר לִבִי אֲנָא אָזֵיל, בִּדִיל; לְאוֹסָפָא לֵיהּ חֲטָאֵי שָלוּתָא עַל זֵידָנוּתָא׃
Paraphrase: …then he will calculate in his heart saying, "I shall have peace because I walk in the meditation of my heart"; thereby adding missteppers — of error on top of willful-malice.
A khat•ãtꞋ doesn't expiate for an ã•wonꞋ. Therefore, this rationalization, rather than providing ki•purꞋ, adds a kheit on top of ("upon") an ã•wonꞋ — in Onkelos, the doings of חֲטָאֵי שָלוּתָא on top of (lit. upon) the doing of זֵידָנוּתָא.
Where the Tar•gumꞋ speaks of the doing of חֲטָאֵי שָלוּתָא or זֵידָנוּתָא, the Hebrew emphasizes the doers —
the persons whose נַפְשָׁם כְּגַן רָוֶה (Yi•rᵊmᵊyãhꞋu 31.11), כִּי הִרְוֵיתִי נֶפֶשׁ עֲיֵפָה; וְכָל-נֶפֶשׁ דָּאֲבָה מִלֵּאתִי: (31.24), in contrast to
הַצְּמֵאָה
Both of these adjectives are feminine; that is, they modify a fem. noun. The only fem. nouns that they can modify are בְּרִית and אָלָה, respectively.
 |
 |
הָרָוָה refers to the נֶפֶשׁ of each person within the בְּרִית, who is watered by the maiꞋyim khai•yimꞋ of Tor•ãhꞋ while הַצְּמֵאָה are those outside of the בְּרִית, who lack the maiꞋyim khai•yimꞋ of Tor•ãhꞋ.
The meaning is then a warning against הַצְּמֵאָה who, "because I walk in the resolve of my heart" (29.18), defy the Beit-Din interpretations of Tor•ãhꞋ (which includes the Beit-Din adjudications of Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ). These, הַצְּמֵאָה, lacking the maiꞋyim khai•yimꞋ of Tor•ãhꞋ, assume that adding הָרָוָה will provide maiꞋyim khai•yimꞋ for הַצְּמֵאָה as well. In other words, הַצְּמֵאָה assume that merely having הָרָוָה around will hydrate הַצְּמֵאָה with maiꞋyim khai•yimꞋ. However, proximity to Tor•ãhꞋ-keepers is no substitute for keeping Tor•ãhꞋ and the principle of hav•dãl•ãhꞋ is inviolable. Thus, הָרָוָה, who are within the בְּרִית, receive the bᵊrãkhot of Tor•ãhꞋ while הַצְּמֵאָה, who are outside of the בְּרִית, incur the imprecation of Tor•ãhꞋ.
All of this analysis is for the purpose of enabling the reader to recognize concerning הַצְּמֵאָה (the person following his or her own heart and eyes) that (29.19):
(Of course, if one turns away from this transgression of Tor•ãhꞋ, then he or she is no longer following his or her heart and eyes. Tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ enables ki•purꞋ.)
 |
 |
The pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ begins …
29.9 — אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְכֶם, לִפְנֵי י‑‑ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם; רָאשֵׁיכֶם, שִׁבְטֵיכֶם, זִקְנֵיכֶם וְשֹׁטְרֵיכֶם, כֹּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל
|
|
The pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ begins …אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים
Tor•ãhꞋ stipulates (29.9-11) that, among others, וְגֵרְךָ (v. 10) was included in the definition of אַתֶּם (v. 9), who נִצָּבִים הַיוֹם כֻּלְכֶם לִפְנֵי י‑‑ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
11 לְעָבְרְךָ, בְּבְּרִית, י‑‑ה אֱלֹהֵיךָ וּבְאָלָתוֹ; אֲשֶׁר י‑‑ה אֱלֹהֵיךָ, כֹּרֵת עִמְּךָ הַיוֹם:
Today, no Jew seems to be aware that the בְּרִית includes אָלָתוֹ as the consequence of apostasy from תּוֹרָה!!! "Secular Jews," hypocritical Jews and goy•imꞋ Christians falsely claiming to be Jews should beware that you incur only the אָלָתוֹ.
Then pᵊsuq•imꞋ 13-14 clarify that this בְּרִית was "not with you alone, I Myself engrave this בְּרִית and אָלָתוֹ, because [they are both] with whomever there is here, with us standing today before י--ה our Ël•oh•imꞋ — וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ פֹּה עִמָּנוּ הַיוֹם (and with whomever we don't have here with us this day)!!!
This is re-emphasized in 29.28: הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַי--ה.
The use of לַ as a prefix is an Hebrew idiom meaning the subject modified "has" something", i.e. something "belongs to" the subject being modified. In this case, י--ה our Ël•oh•imꞋ "has" those things that are hidden or concealed in contrast to וְהַנִּגְלֹת belong to "us and our sons." In other words, "we and our sons", today, "have" the revealed things עַד-עוֹלָם, — "to do (!) all of the Speakings [i.e. Oral] of this Tor•ãhꞋ."
As already demonstrated, and corroborated in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ, "we and our sons" includes geir•imꞋ.
 |
| Product of rabbis: Kha•reid•imꞋ vs Internet |
Also in this week's pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ, we find (30.11-16) the admonition that Tor•ãhꞋ doesn't require any intermediary to explain hidden things to us, nor is it too deep (profound) for the ordinary Jew or geir to understand. (Those who insist you can only learn "real" Tor•ãhꞋ from a rabbi, therefore, are being manipulative, taking advantage and contradicting Tor•ãhꞋ.) Moreover, those who call themselves "Living Torah" are displacing this passage — peddling displacement theology.
The prescription for life? Note the conversive ו in 30.19 transforming the past tense into fu. perf.: וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים — "you should choose life."
|
|
The pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ begins …אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים
29.17 — To what does the phrase אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם refer? אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם are whatever ëloh•imꞋ that הַגּוֹיִם worship, as distinguished from י--ה, Who is אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. We have demonstrated in our books Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN)
and The Nᵊtzãrim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyãhu (NHM, in English) that Jesus is an אֱלְוֹהַּ worshiped by הַגּוֹיִם. Indeed, they take great pride in worshiping Jesus, a Roman Hellenist-fabricated divine god — an idol. Being antinomian and the cornerstone of Christian Displacement Theology, Jesus is exactly opposite to, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, י--ה. Tor•ãhꞋ, therefore, defines (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 13.1-6) Jesus as אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם
 esc.rutgers.edu 284.363.jpg "Hemlock (Conium maculatum) esc.rutgers.edu") |
Hemlock (Conium maculatum; esc.rutgers.edu). Looks like "Queen Anne's Lace" — but isn't. (See also NHM |
 plantsgallery.blogspot.co.il 775x800.jpg "Wormwood (artemisia absinthium) plantsgallery.blogspot.co.il") |
Wormwood (artemisia absinthium - absinthe; plantsgallery.blogspot.co.il) — not the worm-holed wood used in so-called "Mediterranean" furniture (which practically no one in Israel had ever seen). |
In this pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ (29.17ff), Tor•ãhꞋ describes the one who worships אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם as "a root that blossoms poison-hemlock and wormwood."
How are such people recognized? Just as this pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ describes them (29.18ff): "When he hears the words of this curse, in his heart he deems himself blessed, saying, I'm Ok because I walk in the resolve of my heart"—which Christians mis-define as "the Holy Spirit."
 |
Think about this. "Holiness" is defined by Tor•ãhꞋ. Therefore, a true 'Holy Spirit' cannot lead people to contradict, much less act opposite to Tor•ãhꞋ! Even beyond this, "holiness" is not the original language. "Holiness" is a word fraught with Christian connotations that lead to Christian assumptions entirely alien to the original Israeli authors of the Ta•na"khꞋ.
The original term that is translated as "holiness" is רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, and means consecration as well as holiness. קֹּדֶשׁ is defined by Tor•ãhꞋ, and certainly precludes transgressing Tor•ãhꞋ!
Similarly, "Holy Spirit" is fraught with Christian connotations and assumptions not present in the original language of the original Israeli authors of the Ta•na"khꞋ. The original Hebrew phrase is רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ—a Spirit that leads a person to the קֹּדֶשׁ of keeping Tor•ãhꞋ.
To ascribe evil—transgressing Tor•ãhꞋ—to the, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, 'Holy Spirit' is derisively-slandering—blaspheming—the 'Holy Spirit' (NHM 12.31)!
Tor•ãhꞋ explicitly defines (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 17.8-12) following one's own heart and one's own eyes as an aveir•ãhꞋ of Tor•ãhꞋ, while Tor•ãhꞋ necessarily implies keeping Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ as set forth by the Beit-Din instead of following one's own heart!
29.18 — The person who, instead of keeping Tor•ãhꞋ, follows his or her own heart and own eyes (17.8-12) tends to apostatize those around him or her —
סְפוֹת those who are הָרָוָה to the הַצְּמֵאָה
(see RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's explication of this passage in NHM 13.24-30, 36-43).
29.19! —
because then the anger and jealousy of י--ה shall smoke against that man and all of the curses that are written in this book shall stretch themselves out upon him, and י--ה shall blot out his name from under the heavens."
The Christian doctrine of "once saved, always saved" turns out, in fact, to be still goy•imꞋ, still unsaved, still idolaters, still lost — and "Left Behind"!
Christians must repent of their worshipping אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם and turn to Tor•ãhꞋ ordained by י--ה. Only then can they begin to relate to an authentic comprehension of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the authentic Mã•shiꞋakh of Ta•na"khꞋ and י--ה
 |
Caves in background, Yael & Karen Bën-David. Photograph © 1994, Yirmeyahu Bën-David. |
Josephus speaks of three Min•imꞋ of Judaism in the 1st century C.E., but he is never at all even aware of a min of Christians in the 1st century C.E.
Additionally, contrary to the Christian assumption that the 3rd min was Christianity, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that Josephus' description of Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ ("Sadducees") and Pᵊrush•imꞋ ("Pharisees") comprised three Min•imꞋ in the 1st century C.E. Judaic community, not two Min•imꞋ as perceived by gentiles centuries later. Avoided and not taught in Christian Churches, the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ had split into two — diametrically opposed — Min•imꞋ apart from the Pᵊrush•imꞋ:
Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ who had taken over the "High Priest" and "Temple" — back in B.C.E. 175, and, in the 1st century C.E., were active collaborators with the Hellenist Roman goy•imꞋ occupiers, and
Original, non-Hellenized, pristine remnant Qum•rãnꞋ-Essene Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ — bereft of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ since B.C.E. 175, their yo•khas•inꞋ destroyed by the Hellenist Roman occupiers in the 2nd-4th centuries C.E., left without purpose, jobless and dying out.
To Judeans, these were three Min•imꞋ. The more knowledgeable outside gentile (Roman Christian) eyes, however, perceived only "Pharisees" and "Sadducees" — and had an agenda of seeing the third min as Roman Christians. (Less knowledgeable gentiles saw, and continue to see, only monolithic "Jews.")
Furthermore, historians agree that, while there were תּוֹרָה-keeping Pᵊrush•imꞋ followers of (Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi!) Yᵊho•shuꞋa in the 1st century C.E., they were תּוֹרָה-keeping Pᵊrush•imꞋ, not Christians (who developed only later, between the 2nd and 4th centuries C.E.)!
Long after the crucifixion — in 62 C.E. (when Christians maintain that "the Jews" had long ago become "enemies of God and the Church") — their fellow Pᵊrush•imꞋ "Jews" defended the Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ "Jews" (!) against Hellenist "Sadducees" (High Priests; cf. Pᵊrush•imꞋ reaction to the murder of Pã•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ in Josephus Ant. xx.ix.1). There was no min of Christians until they developed later, in the 2nd-4th centuries C.E.!!!
Judaic documents of the period—inter alia Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT—show that the Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ, who represented the Judaic laity, was moderately in-between the two conflicting priestly min•imꞋ:
Ma•as•ëhꞋ — of the Qum•rãnꞋ-Essene Ko•han•imꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Bᵊn•eiꞋ- Tzã•doqꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ and
Χειρογραφον τοις Δογμασιν — of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ.
After the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ and yo•khas•inꞋ, the only Oral Law that remained was the Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ—the forerunners of today's Tei•mãn•imꞋ, Bã•vᵊl•imꞋ and all other Orthodox Jews in the modern era.
The Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, Josephus, LXX (the Septuagint), the Nag Hammadi Codices, CD, (4Q) MMT (Mi•qᵊtz•atꞋ Ma•as•ëhꞋ ha-Tor•ãhꞋ) 11 QTa (The Temple Scroll), and Ta•lᵊmudꞋ have all shown — to the objective and pragmatic analyst — that the source texts of The (Nᵊtzãrim Reconstruction of) Hebrew Matitᵊyãhu (NHM, in English), before Christian redactions in the 2nd-4th centuries C.E., could only have described a Tor•ãhꞋ-compatible Mã•shiꞋakh figure whose theological position was constrained to the Pᵊrush•imꞋ Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ that he himself championed and taught!
The Διαθηκη Καινη, by contrast, was limited to 2nd-4th century C.E. Greek stories that Hellenist Roman gentiles, the first Christians (who spoke neither Hebrew nor Aramaic), could understand — told to them by Hellenist (by definition, apostate) Jews.
There was no account, other than The (Nᵊtzãrim Reconstruction of) Hebrew Matitᵊyãhu (NHM, in English), that was handed down in Hebrew (or even Aramaic) by Hebrew- and Aramaic-speaking Pᵊrush•imꞋ Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ. There is no Hebrew source text of the "New Testament"!
Even the apostatized Greek distortions were then further perverted during the 2nd-4th century C.E. via the redactions of Roman Hellenist-idolater goy•imꞋ Christians to conform to their Hellenist mythology interpretations (primarily Zeus).
The Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly 4Q MMT, have filled in enough gaps so that the unavoidably inherent halakhic nature of any devout Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ (the only legitimate followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa), or any credible Mã•shiꞋakh figure—with a scientifically and archeologically credible genealogy, born in Beit-LëkhꞋëm (corrupted to now Arab-occupied "Bethlehem"), born in that prophesied window of time, etc.—can no longer be avoided. This is undoubtedly why the Christian editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls suppressed their publication 40 years. It may also explain why one chief editor quit the priesthood and got married, and his successor (who was virulently misojudaic) publicly went off his mental hinges because the documents confirm תּוֹרָה, not, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, Christianity!!!
|
|
The pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ begins 29.9 : אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים today, all of you,pl. before י--ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, your pl. heads of your pl. tribes, your pl. senior citizens, and your pl. policemen; every man of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ: 10 your pl. kids, your pl. women,
(This may be the origin of the idiom "cut" a deal.)
Stripping away the prefixes and suffixes usually reveals a three-letter שורש. For example, the suffix ך (khã) modifies a noun, verb or adj. to mean "your" in the masc. sing. The suffix כם (khëm) modifies a noun, verb or adj. to mean "your" in the masc. plural. The feminine counterparts are ך (ëkh) and כן (khën), respectively.
The suffix םי (im, rhymes with seem) changes a masc. noun, verb or adj. from sing. to pl. Words ending in a consonant or ה (ëh) are generally masc. sing. while ה (ãh) endings generally denote the fem. sing. As you probably noticed, some of these cannot be distinguished, except by context, unless the vowels are present. The ות (ot) ending generally transforms a fem. noun, verb or adj. from sing. to pl.
Hebrew has special combinative (or connective) forms. In the masc., the sing. "son," בן (bein) becomes בן (bën-). The masc. plural is בנים (bãn•imꞋ). To say "sons of'" requires the combinative plural form in which the ם ending is stripped away, leaving the י, and pronounced ei, yielding בני (bᵊnei-).
This becomes more complicated when they are mixed. גר (geir) is sing. and גרים (geir•imꞋ) is pl. The number modification precedes the possessive modification. Your sing. geir sing. becomes גרך (geirkhã). Your pl. geir sing. becomes גרכם (geirkhëm). Your sing. geir•imꞋ pl. becomes גריך (geireikhã). Lastly, your pl. geir•imꞋ pl. becomes גריכם (geireikhëm).
The prefix ל (l; to or for) signifies the participle (lacking a true infinitive, Hebrew also uses the participle as the infinitive). Other frequently used prefixes include ב (b; in—pronounced v when preceding certain consonants) and ו (v—pronounced u when preceding certain consonants).
The use of the plural in the pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ implies a number of individuals. The ten categories listed in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ demonstrates that "Every man of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ" collectively, comprises Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. sing.
Now you can see that the geir is not spoken of in the plural here. וגרך (wᵊ-geirkhã; and your sing. geir sing.), implies that each גר is seen as a single individual, not as a group (many individuals, plural). (S)he belongs to Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ as an individual, not as a group nor as belonging to individual members pl. of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. This implies that each geir is Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ's—i.e., subordinate—individually, not as a group—to Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ. geir•imꞋ are regarded strictly on an individual basis, never as a group. Nevertheless, all of these who were enumerated, including every legitimate geir, are embraced in the singular entity: "to cross or transfer you," sing. as one group, collectively and together, into the בְּרִית י--ה.
Just as we examined the suffixes that mean "your" (sing. and pl.), the ו (o) ending generally designates "his." When the word to be modified ends in a vowel sound ה (h), the ה changes to ת (t), to facilitate pronunciation, before adding the ו.
Depending on the vowelization, אלה has several meanings.
אלה (ëloha) means god, in the singular. אלה is a masc. noun with an irreg. fem. ending, but standard pl. אלהים (Ël•oh•imꞋ).
אלה (eilëh) means "these."
אלה (ãl•ãhꞋ) means swear, curse or oath, all with an imprecation. If we add the necessary suffix to mean "His oath / curse"—with an imprecation, then we have אלתו (ãlãto). Prefix this by ב (vᵊ; in), further prefixed by ו (u; and) yields ובאלתו—which we read in pã•suqꞋ 11.
The reverse process, stripping away prefixes and suffixes, is how to reveal the shorꞋësh, enabling you to find the word in the dictionaries.
I explained all of this for more than just the grammar lesson. אלה (ãl•ãhꞋ) is related to אלה (ëloha), along with their respective verbs of the same spelling ([1] to curse or swear with an imprecation and [2] to deify or worship as a deity, respectively). This implies [a] a divine swearing or cursing beyond ordinary curses or oaths, implying the imprecation and [b] a relationship between the concept of Ël•oh•imꞋ and the swearing of an oath that implies an imprecation. Perhaps this suggests that the earliest concept of Ël•oh•imꞋ was a deity that could be invoked to bring down a curse on one's enemies.
Arabic derived its counterpart terms from the Hebrew. The Arabic term for god is אַלְלָה. The similarity shouldn't be surprising since Arabs and Jews both descended from Av•rã•hãmꞋ Âv•iꞋnu. It shouldn't be surprising that we share some family traditions.
What may be more surprising is that אָלָה is the same term found in pᵊsuq•imꞋ 13, 18, 19 and 20. Other non-Jews are unaware, but geir•imꞋ must be keenly aware that the ברית י--ה אלהיך (בְּרִית י--ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ) involves undertaking more than just ברכתו (birkato; His bᵊrãkh•ãhꞋ). A בְּרִית is a treaty, a contract. Rejection of Parties to His בְּרִית are party to the whole בְּרִית or nothing—and that includes incurring אלתו (ãlãto, his curse with an imprecation) for failing to do one's utmost to be sho•meirꞋ-Tor•ãhꞋ!
Thus, beside protecting the Jewish people from heretics, the rabbis, by dissuading disingenuous converts, protect the superficial convert who is insincere or lacks real commitment from incurring this curse-with-an-imprecation.
On the other hand, those outside of the בְּרִית are goy•imꞋ who are already cursed.
|
|
| Setting: ca. B.C.E. 720 (Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu chapters 40-66). Location: Yᵊru•shã•layꞋim (31° 47' N, 35° 13' E) |
|
The bᵊrãkh•ãhꞋ for after hand-washing (before eating bread) is: עַל נְטִלַת יָדָיִם
The challenge is laid down in this pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ (30.19-20): "… May you choose life, so that you may live, you and your descendents—to love י--ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ, to hearken to His Voice and to adhere to Himm; for He is your Life…"
In an exemplar of Oral Law development, Dã•widꞋ ha-mëꞋlëkh explicates a part of the format for affirming this choice:
We find this rarely-used verb, נטל, in this Haph•tãr•ãhꞋ (Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 63.9), which has been associated with this pã•rãsh•ãhꞋ from antiquity. In Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 63.7-9:
7 Kha•sᵊd•eiꞋ 'ה a•zᵊkirꞋ to be Tᵊhil•otꞋ 'ה, as concerning all that 'ה has recompensed us; and great good to Beit Yis•rã•eilꞋ that He has recompensed them according to His ra•kham•imꞋ u-khᵊrovꞋ of His kha•sãd•imꞋ. 8 And He said, "Indeed, they are My am, bãn•imꞋ lo yᵊsha•qeirꞋu and He shall become their Mo•shiyꞋa. 9 All of their straits were His straits, so a mal•ãkhꞋ of His Countenance ho•shiy•ãmꞋ, in His love and in His pity He:
גְאָלָם; וַיְנַטְלֵם וַיְנַשְׂאֵם כָּל-יְמֵי עוֹלָם
This rarely-used verb, נטל, relates "נְטִלַת of holy hands" to the "נְטִלַת of Israel and the Jews" in this Haph•tãr•ãhꞋ. In other words, whenever we eat bread, we rinse our hands and recite the bᵊrãkh•ãhꞋ as a mnemonic that we are נְטִלַת holy hands not only for ourselves but also on behalf of, representing, Israel and the Jews.
" ‘Embodied‘ metaphors, rooted in our physical understanding of abstract concepts, shape our view of the world" ("Clean and Virtuous: When Physical Purity Becomes Moral Purity," Gary Sherman and Gerald Clore, Scientific American, 2009.03.10). "Metaphors of this sort—linking the abstract to the concrete, perceptual, and visceral—were studied systematically by the UC-Berkley cognitive linguist George Lakoff and philosopher Mark Johnson, at Brown University" (ibid.).
"What they and others realized is that our concepts are fundamentally shaped by the fact that our minds reside in fleshy, physical bodies. As a result, even our most abstract concepts often have an “embodied” structure. In a classic example, people seem to understand moral virtue as if it were akin to physical cleanliness. To be virtuous is to be physically clean and free from the impurity that is sin. As the University of Pennsylvania psychologist and disgust expert Paul Rozin has shown, experiencing morality in terms of the embodied dimension of contagion can lead to some striking behaviors, such as the refusal to wear a sweater belonging to an evil person because it seems somehow contaminated by the evil essence of that person."
"It's clear that people talk about morality in terms of purity—whether explicitly expressing concerns about contamination by evil or asserting that one‘s “conscience is clean”—but do they also experience morality that way? Could it be that the embodied structure of morality operates covertly to guide moral judgment and behavior?"
 |
 |
"Simone Schnall, Jennifer Benton and Sophie Harvey, psychologists at the University of Plymouth, have demonstrated just how this can happen. Having shown in previous studies that inducing disgust or a sense of dirtiness can make people‘s moral judgments more severe, they set out to explore the opposite. Might physical cleanliness encourage less severe moral judgments?…"
"…Apparently, participants‘ sense of physical purity influenced their evaluations of the actions of others… When they themselves were clean and pure, so were others."
"This finding, published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science, contributes to our emerging understanding of the embodied structure of morality. In particular, it demonstrates its bidirectional nature. Previous research has shown that thinking about one‘s sins evokes thoughts of, and desires for, physical cleansing. Now we know the opposite is also true—thinking about, or experiencing, cleansing can influence judgments of morality. What‘s more, the effect appears to act completely outside of awareness. The metaphorical structure of concepts can guide moral intuition and moral judgment without ever entering conscious thought."
"As this finding illustrates, cleanliness—with all its physical manifestations—is part of the concept of virtue. However useful the metaphor of moral purity may be for talking about morality, it does much more—it also infuses the concept of morality itself and may even be fundamental to moral meaning. It‘s hard even to imagine a disembodied, purity-free conception of virtue. More than a rhetorical tool, embodied metaphor shapes the very way we experience the world."
It isn't difficult at all for the spiritually-oriented—nonphysical-oriented—person, accustomed to thinking outside of the 4-dimensional box (the usual 3 dimensions + time) to a non-dimensional realm, to perceive virtue and morality entirely apart from physical attributes. For example, compassion and empathy for another is a non-physical abstraction, therefore apart from the physical and dimensional universe, and which is virtuous and moral. Conversely, deceiving, defrauding, lying, cheating and betraying are all non-physical abstractions, therefore apart from the physical and dimensional universe, which are evil and immoral.
The results of these studies suggest that a subtle benefit of this ritual is an increase in tolerance for fellow diners at the table. Only when one perceives oneself as physically-ritually clean/pure can one advance to the second level: doing one's best to conduct one's intentions and practice according to Tor•ãhꞋ.
A peripheral benefit appears to be that this ritual encourages the assumption that one's fellow diners at the table are similarly doing their best to conduct their intentions and practice according to Tor•ãhꞋ as well. Thus, we ascribe to them an initial assumption of purity of intention (unless they demonstrate otherwise) and the ritual facilitates a shared team identity.
This likely contrasts with the everyday assumption of impurity and evil inclination unless demonstrated otherwise. However, the "otherwise" is rarely demonstrated with certainty. Thus, the contrast between the assumptions we may subconsciously harbor about other people is stark, stands rarely contradicted corroborating these initial assumptions, and the usefulness of the ritual, while below the conscious radar, becomes evident.
Their endurance alone, through the ages, attests that scientifically-based usefulness almost certainly underlies all Tor•ãhꞋ rituals of purity that have come to us from antiquity. Thus, ritual purity must not be summarily dismissed. Rather, their subtle influences on our communal identity must be studied and recognized.
|
|
62.2— reads: "The goy•imꞋ will have seen your tzᵊdãq•ãhꞋ, and all of the kings your Kã•vodꞋ, וְקֹרָא לָךְ [by] a שֵׁם חָדָשׁ , which פִּי י--ה יִקָּבֶנוּ "
|
| 1QIsa 62.2 |
יִקָּבֶנוּ is confirmed in Dead Sea Scroll iQIsa as יקובנו. The import of this is that translating יִקָּבֶנוּ into English as "pronounce"—suggesting a bat kol—is grossly misleading. It is through the playing out of history that the "Mouth of י--ה" "pegs" (i.e., coins) the new name that, in future, Tzi•yonꞋ "is being called."
Coined for whom? Looking to the preceding pᵊsuq•imꞋ to establish the context accurately, we find that Yᵊru•shã•laꞋyim, one of only two fem. nouns being discussed, is referred to as "her," not "you." A priori, Tziy•onꞋ, the only other fem. noun candidate supplied in the context, is the fem. noun being referenced here by the fem. pronoun "you." Interestingly, what was known as Tzi•yonꞋ when Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu wrote this, is now "called" Ir Dã•widꞋ — "pegged by the Mouth of י--ה"!
Tziy•onꞋ is also described in 61.11 as the tzᵊdãq•ãhꞋ and Tᵊhil•ãhꞋ that "אֲדֹנָי י--ה יַצְמִיחַ." This is a clear reference to the Mã•shiꞋakh who is "called" His צֶמַח (cf. Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu ha-Nã•viꞋ 4.2; Yi•rᵊmᵊyãhꞋu ha-Nã•viꞋ 23.5; 33.15; Zᵊkhar•yãhꞋ Bën-Bë•rëkh•yãhꞋ Bën-Id•oꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ 3.8; 6.12)—who would be "called" the נֵצֶר according to Yᵊsha•yahꞋu ha-Nã•viꞋ 11.1!!! His only legitimate followers, for decades properly recognized within legitimate Israel (both Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Judaism and the State of Israel), are simply called by the plural of נֵצֶר, the נְצָרִים — "pegged by the Mouth of י--ה"!
Incidentally, those affiliated with "Holy Name" Christian groups should be aware that נָקַב, the verb often translated as "expressed" (cf. Divrei ha-Yãmim Âlëph 12.31; 16.41; Divrei ha-Yãm•imꞋ Beit 28.15; 31.19 & ËꞋzᵊr•ã 8.20), is also the verb describing the "expressing" of the Name—which the NT conceals as "blaspheming" in wa-Yi•qᵊr•ãꞋ 24.16! "Expressing" the Name without the requisite criteria for proper קֹּדֶשׁ (by Tor•ãhꞋ criteria) "perforates" the Name. In addition to piercing, a perforation makes something easier to tear along the line of perforation. The allusion in wa-Yi•qᵊr•ãꞋ is to perforating the Name: routine usage perforates its קֹּדֶשׁ, causing it to easily tear away from the קֹּדֶשׁ in which the Name is constrained to be held. See our paper: Profaning the Holy Name Unawares.
|
|
 |
 (Ha•dasꞋ is the spice; no European "castle spice box." While a sprig of myrtle is preferred, any fragrant herb or spice will suffice.) |
This week the Tei•mãn•iꞋ Ha•phᵊtãr•ãhꞋ includes several pᵊsuq•imꞋ (61.9-11) recited by many Tei•mãn•imꞋ every Mo•tzã•eiꞋ Shab•ãtꞋ as part of an optional preamble to the Tei•mãn•iꞋ Ha•vᵊdãl•ãhꞋ liturgy. I urge each ta•lᵊmidꞋ to learn this pã•suqꞋ well—in the Hebrew (of course!)—so that, when electing to recite the introductory part of Ha•vᵊdãl•ãhꞋ, the ta•lᵊmidꞋ will (at least) understand this pã•suqꞋ. It's a start.
Learning one word of תּוֹרָה (it's Hebrew) is better than memorizing an entire translation, writing best-selling books based on a translation, obtaining a "divinity" doctorate based on a translation or teaching "theology" in a "seminary" based on a translation — in the same way that genuine articles are genuine while counterfeits and knock-offs are fraudulent. Neither sincerity of belief nor good intentions mitigate peddling a fraud; being an expert counterfeiter is not to be admired or emulated.
61.9 — וְנוֹדַע בַּגּוֹיִם זַרְעָם, וְצֶאֱצָאֵיהֶם בְּתְוֹךְ הָעַמִּים; כָּל-רֹאֵיהֶם יַכִּירוּם, כִּי, הֵם זֶרַע בֵּרַךְ י‑‑ה:
This is concluded with the Ha•phᵊtãr•ãhꞋ melody for סוֹף פָּסוּק, which looks like a colon in the Hebrew text.
Ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ are urged to study these pãrãshot until you can read the pã•suqꞋ from the Tan"kh, with the correct phraseology as constrained by the cantillation. Then, on Shab•ãtꞋ, compare how the Tei•mãn•iꞋ tradition that you've learned here differs from how it's read in the Beit-ha-KᵊnësꞋët where you pray (which is usually Ash•kᵊnazꞋi). Let me know how you do.
|
|
|
(Ha•dasꞋ is the spice; no European "castle spice box." While a sprig of myrtle is preferred, any fragrant herb or spice will suffice.) |
Again this week, the Ha•phᵊtãr•ãhꞋ contains a part of the preamble to the Tei•mãn•iꞋ Ha•vᵊdãl•ãhꞋ, this time the portion (61.9-11) immediately preceding לְיְהוּדִים (For 61.9 see the commentary in 5756.)
61.10-11 — שׂוֹשׂ אָשִׂישׂ בַּי‑‑ה, תָּגֵל נַפְשִׁי בֵּאלֹהַי, כִּי הִלְבִּישַׁנִי בִּגְדֵי-יֶשַׁע, מְעִיל צְדָקָה יְעָטָנִי; כֶּחָתָן יְכַהֵן פְּאֵר, וְכַכַּלָּה תַּעְדֶּה כֵלֶיהָ: 11 כִּי כָאָרֶץ תּוֹצִיא צִמְחָהּ, וּכְגַנָּה זֵרוּעֶיהָ תַצְמִיחַ; כֵּן | אֲדֹנָי י‑‑ה, יַצְמִיחַ צְדָקָה וּתְהִלָּה, נֶגֶד כָּל-הַגּוֹיִם:
Combined with the previous Ha•phᵊtãr•ãhꞋ, readers have now learned about half of the Tei•mãn•iꞋ material in the Ha•vᵊdãl•ãhꞋ liturgy.
|
|
| Nᵊviy•imꞋ | Translation | Mid•rãshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
When, therefore,24.15.3 you see the ‘shi•qutzꞋ sho•meimꞋ’ 24.15.4 told by Dãniy•eilꞋ ha-Nã•viꞋ (9.27), standing in the Qã•doshꞋ Place, 24.15.5 he who reads should comprehend.24.15.6 16 Then those in Yᵊhud•ãhꞋ should flee to the mountains.24.16.1 17 He who is on the roof patio should not go downstairs to pick up anything 24.17.1 from his house. 18 He who is in the field should not return 13.15.1 to pick up his ku•tonꞋët.24.18.1 19 Then oy for those who are pregnant,24.19.1 and those who nurse children during those days. 20 Tit•pa•lᵊl•uꞋ 5.44.2 that your flight should not become in a winter storm nor during Shab•ãtꞋ.24.20.1 21 For then 24.21.1 shall be the Eit Tzãr•ãhꞋ it is lᵊ-Ya•a•qovꞋ,24.21.2 which will never have been since the creation of the world-age until now; nor shall there ever be anything like it.24.21.3 22 Unless those days were terminated no flesh would be delivered.1.21.2 For the chosen,16.18.3 however, those days shall be interrupted. 23 Then, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, Here is the Mã•shiꞋakh’ or ‘Here!’—don’t trust 8.10.1 them; 24 for many false messiahs,24.24.1 and nᵊviy•imꞋ 24.11.1 of the lie,24.24.2 shall arise, and they shall give great signs 24.24.3 and wonders.24.24.4 In this context, when possible, they will bring the chosen 16.18.3 into straying.24.24.5 So if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the mid•bãrꞋ,’ don't go out. Or if they say, ‘Look, he is in some secret place’ 24.26.1 don't trust 8.10.1 them. 25 Here I am, telling you in advance.24.25.1 This was fulfilled in 135 C.E.: "The Bar-KokhꞋvã revolt was crushed ferociously. Jewish sources report people burned alive wrapped in Tor•ãhꞋ scrolls, and other tortured with "combs" Cassius Dio, writing a century later, reported that over 580,000 people were killed, possibly a gross exaggeration. Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem and large numbers of Jews were certainly killed or deported and enslaved. Archeologists have found mass graves at several locations. The Romans systematically desecrated every Jewish [including Nᵊtzãr•imꞋ] holy place in Jerusalem, erecting a pig, symbol of the Tenth legion, but [a to•eiv•ãhꞋ] to Jews, on the Temple mount." (http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Bar_Kochba.htm; 2010.06.16) |
24.15-25 | |||||||||||||||||
| Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 30.4 | If your dispersed shall be at the edges of the heavens; from there 'ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ shall gather you, and from there He will take you. | Then, in that same hour after those days,24.29.1 ( Yo•eilꞋ 4:15-16)
30 And then the sign of a specific person 8.20.2 shall be seen in the heavens.24.30.2 31 And he shall send forth his malãkh•imꞋ 1.20.1 with a sho•phãrꞋ.24.31.1 He shall gather 24.31.2 his chosen 24.31.3 from the four rukh•otꞋ 8.16.1 of the heavens—from one end of the heavens 3.2.2 to the other.24.31.4 |
24.29-31 | ||||||||||||||||
| Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 31.26 | Take this SeiphꞋër Tor•ãhꞋ, and place it, right outside the Ä•ronꞋ Bᵊrit 'ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ and it shall be there by you for an eid. | Look, I send you forth as sheep among wolves. Therefore, you become as shrewd 10.16.1 as 10.16.2 serpents,10.16.3 and as wholesome 10.16.4 as doves. 17 Beware of men 8.20.1 for they will deliver you 10.17.1 over into the Bãt•eiꞋ-Din,5.22.3 and they will flog you in the local 9.35.0 Bãt•eiꞋ- ha-kᵊnësꞋët.4.23.2 18 You will be led before governors and mᵊãkh•imꞋ 14.9.1 for my sake, to testify as an eid 10.18.0 about me among them, and in the Tᵊphutz•ãhꞋ.10.18.1 | 10.16-18 | ||||||||||||||||
| Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 62.4 | It will not be said anymore of you, "A•zuv•ãhꞋ," nor of your ãꞋrëtz shall it be said anymore, "shᵊmãm•ãhꞋꞋ," because you shall be called "חֶפְצִי בָה," and of your ãꞋrëtz "Bᵊul•ãhꞋ" because חָפֵץ י--ה בָּךּ, and your ãꞋrëtz ti•bã•eilꞋ. | Having consummated tᵊvil•ãhꞋ,3.6.1 straightway RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa walked up onto the bank out of the water and look… the heavens 3.2.2 were opened to him 3.16.1 and he was struck with awe 3.16.2 —a ruꞋakh Bat Kol,3.16.3 cooing like a dove out of the heavens,3.17.1 saying,
3.17.2
זֶה בְּנִי…
בְּכוֹרִי…
בְּחִירִי " It is clear from Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 62.4 that NHM .חָפֵץ י--ה בּוֹ |
3.16-17 | ||||||||||||||||
|
This 21.4.1 became in order that what was spoken through the nã•viꞋ 11.9.1 (Zᵊkhar•yãhꞋ) might be fulfilled 5.17.3 saying (9.9):
|
21.5 | |||||||||||||||||
|
Therefore, tit•pa•lᵊl•uꞋ 5.44.2 thusly:21.22.2
6.9.1 אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָׁמַיִם … 12 6.12.1 וּסְלַח לָנוּ עַוֹנוֹתֵינוּ כַּאַשֶׁר אַנַחְנוּ סוֹלְחִים לְבְנֵי-אָדָם רָעַתָם Because Tor•ãhꞋ requires making recompense to humans for wrongs done to them a prerequisite for ki•purꞋ, this is not a request. Rather, it is a hermeneutic and reinforcement of the Tor•ãhꞋ doctrine that we receive no more forgiveness from 'ה than we grant to those who have properly recompensed us and sought forgiveness from us for whatever wrongs they may have done to us. |
6.9, 12 | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Christians universally include Mt. 15 and the story about washing hands in their polemics against "rabbinicism" and Oral Law. However, close scrutiny—and reliance on NHM instead of the Roman-Hellenist NT—provide a different, 1st-century Judaic, perspective.
The Pᵊrush•imꞋ and So•phᵊr•imꞋ in NHM 15.2 ask:
"Why do your tal•mid•imꞋ transgress the primary Masorët of the Zᵊqan•imꞋ, for [your tal•mid•imꞋ] don’t wash their hands before they eat bread?"
First, consider that his fellow Pᵊrush•imꞋ did not accuse RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa of not having washed before eating bread (which is the only case in which the ritual is required). Rather, they stated that he had not required his tal•mid•imꞋ to wash their hands before eating bread.
Second, consider that these are probably the same Herodian—Hellenist Roman-collaboraters—identified in the next chapter (16.1), who were also collaborators with the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ. These stand in stark contrast to the anti-Hellenist mainstream Pᵊrush•imꞋ of the School of Hi•leilꞋ and Jam•liy•eilꞋ. Not even the rival Pᵊrush•iꞋ School of Sham•aiꞋ is ever associated with the Hellenists collaborators of Herod or the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ priests—both considered "wicked" for their collaboration with the hated Hellenist Roman occupiers.
We know from DSS 4Q MMT and CD that the Biblical (original) Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ (Οs•inꞋ) held the Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ דּוׂרְשֵׁי הַחְלָקוׂת in contempt. Thus, it contradicts the historical record to represent RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's fellow Pᵊrush•imꞋ as the strict element of Judaism — particularly based on the feeble example of today's Medieval Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ who daily demonstrate their assimilation into Dark Ages Europe.
History documents the exact opposite: Hi•leilꞋ accepted the goy who insisted on learning Tor•ãhꞋ while standing on one foot; obviously not requiring all of the nuances—like hand-washing—from the start (Ma•sëkꞋët Shab•ãtꞋ 31). Hi•leilꞋ's dictum was to "Love people and bring them close to Tor•ãhꞋ" (Ma•sëkꞋët Âv•otꞋ 1). It's conspicuous that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was doing exactly that!
Further, the Beit Din hã-Jã•dolꞋ was, during the adult lifetime of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, predominated by the Pᵊrush•imꞋ. His critics were clearly in contradiction of the Beit Din hã-Jã•dolꞋ! There is, inescapably, a political motivation to find grounds for convicting a mainstream Pᵊrush•iꞋ, anti-Hellenist by definition, that could only have derived from elements among the Hellenist collaborators.
Beyond this example of simple tolerance, a careful reading discloses that nowhere does RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa express any disapproval, or even relaxing, of the ritual of hand-washing. Nor is there any indication that either he, or his more advanced tal•mid•imꞋ, were lax about washing hands before eating bread.
Unsurprisingly, one finds the antinomian / misojudaic inferences exclusively in the post-135 C.E. Hellenist-Roman Christian writings.
|
|
Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 62.2, proclaims: "The goy•imꞋ will have seen Your tzᵊdãq•ãhꞋ'"
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa elaborated on this, giving an analogy, in NHM 5.15-16: "You are the or of the legions, an ir (city) laid out on a hill, [which is] unable to be hidden. Neither do persons light an oil-lamp and put it under a basket, but rather on a Mᵊnor•ãhꞋ so that 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 praises and kã•vodꞋ for your Father, Who is in the heavens."
When was the last time you illuminated someone in your community with Or Tor•ãhꞋ?
 |
 |
Sections 1-6
Following the example of his cousin, Yo•khãn•ãnꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yãhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ, tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ was the first issue on RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's agenda. In NHM 3.11-12, Yo•khãn•ãnꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yãhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ declared, "Indeed, I issue a call to tᵊvil•ãhꞋ in water, into tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. He who is coming after me is stronger than me, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will issue a call to tᵊvil•ãhꞋ in the fire of the רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ'"
Section 7
In those days, Yo•khãn•ãnꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yãhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ came near, calling out in the arid-badland-hills of Yᵊhud•ãhꞋ, Israel, saying, "Khizru bi-tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ" [return in tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ], for the Realm of the heavens has converged with us' They proceeded out to him from Yᵊru•shã•laꞋyim, and from all of the region of Yᵊhud•ãhꞋ, Israel, and all of the realms around NᵊharꞋ ha-Yar•deinꞋ. They were consummating tᵊvil•ãhꞋ in NᵊharꞋ ha-Yar•deinꞋ as prescribed by him, admitting their kheit.
Having seen many from the [probably Herodian] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ [sect of Judaism who advocate that Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ must be exclusively oral] and from the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ [sect of Judaism] coming to his tᵊvil•ãhꞋ, he asked them, "Do you wish to escape from the future qeitz [interruption, cut-off] coming from Eil? Then produce fruit worthy of tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ!
"Don't suppose to say within yourselves, 'We are of our father, Av•rã•hãmꞋ,' for I say to you that Ël•oh•imꞋ can raise up physical children to Av•rã•hãmꞋ from these stones. Now [here investigate the context of his meaning in section 7 of this week's Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mã•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhãqꞋ Abuhav], the axe is being laid to the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that isn't producing good fruit is being cut out and thrown into the fire.
"Indeed, I issue a call to tᵊvil•ãhꞋ in water, into tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. He who is coming after me is stronger than me, whose sandals I'm not worthy to carry. He will issue a call to tᵊvil•ãhꞋ in the fire of the רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ. The fan to blow away the chaff is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his threshing floor and gather his wheat. Then he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (NHM
Then, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa demonstrated [by his own example, the efficacy of] tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ, consummated by tᵊvil•ãhꞋ (NHM 3.13-17).
Upon his reclining at supper in the home [of Ma•tit•yãhꞋu ha-Lei•wiꞋ], it became that, look—many turncoat-tax-gougers and wicked men, having come, were reclining [at dinner] with [RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ. Having seen it, those of the [probably Herodian] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ [sect of Judaism who advocate that Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ must be exclusively oral] said to his ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ, "Why does your RibꞋi dine with the turncoat-tax-gougers and wicked men?"
Having heard, [RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa said, "Those who are healthy have no need of a doctor. Rather those who are afflicted with evil need the doctor. Go and learn [the meaning of] Ho•sheiꞋa 6.6: 'For I desire khësꞋëd rather than qor•bãnꞋ.' For I did not come to call the tza•diqꞋ to return tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ, but rather to call khatã•imꞋ to return tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ" (NHM
Then he began to reproach the villages for whom most of his forces had become, because they didn't make tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ (NHM
This teaching of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is the implementation of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage teaching of tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ—and the consequences of refusing to return in tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. Chronologically, it is also the paradigm for the analogy of the topping of the tree (section 7 of this week's Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mã•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhãqꞋ Abuhav, which is, similarly, Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage).
Make a good tree with good fruit or make a bad tree with bad fruit, because the ë•mëtꞋ is that the tree is identified by its fruit. (NHM
 |
| Har Meiron, about 22 km NW of Yãm Ki•nërꞋët, is the highest mountain in the Gã•lilꞋ (second only to Har Khermon in all of Israel). Har Meiron, not Mt. Tabor as Christians assert, is the site of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's metamorphosis (NHM 17.1-13 with notes). Rabi Shim•onꞋ Bar-Yo•khaiꞋ, greatly revered by the Teimãn•imꞋ, chose to be buried on this mountain. At least since the Middle Ages, Har Meiron has been the central focus of the festival of L"g la-OꞋmër (see NHM note 28.1.2 Table, Secondmonth 18). |
Speaking on Har Meiron (not Mt. Tabor, as Christians assert—demonstrated in NHM note 17.1.2), RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa connects the arrival of Eil•i•yãhꞋu ha-Nã•viꞋ with tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ:
The ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ interrogated [RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa] saying, "Why, then, do the So•phᵊr•imꞋ say that Eil•i•yãhꞋu ha-Nã•viꞋ must come first?"
Replying, [RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa] said, "Indeed, Eil•i•yãhꞋu is to come 'before the great and awe-ful day of י--ה', and he will urge tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ in the hearts of fathers for sons and in the hearts of sons for their fathers' (Ma·lãkh·iꞋ 3.23). I tell you that Eil•i•yãhꞋu has already come and they didn't recognize him, but did to him as they wished. This Bën-ãdãm impends to suffer thusly from them [too]. Then the ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ related to [his words], that he spoke to them concerning Yo•khãn•ãnꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yãhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ. (NHM
[RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa said to his ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ, "Âmein, I tell you, hardly a wealthy person shall come into the Realm of the heavens. Again, I say to you that it is easier for a camel to come into [a walled village] through the 'Eye of the Needle' [the night gate] than for a wealthy person to come into the Realm of Ël•oh•imꞋ."
Having heard this [and, contrary to Christianity, familiar with the example of ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-mëꞋlëkh—both beloved and immensely wealthy—and that prospering and success are good things deserved by those who do good], the ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ were exceedingly astonished [at the apparent contradiction] saying, "So, who will be able to return tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ in order to be delivered?"
Karen investigates the 'Eye of the Needle,' a night entrance enabling a traveler to enter the walled city after the gate has been locked for the night, without the security danger of opening the gate. This example is in the Yafo (corrupted to "Jaffa") Gate, the Tower of Phasael (built by Herod for his cousin, Phasael; wrongly: "David's Citadel"), into Yᵊru•shã•laꞋyim.
Looking at them, [RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa said, "For persons this is an inability, but for Ël•oh•imꞋ all things are an ability." (NHM
For an imperfect person to co-mingle with Ël•oh•imꞋ implies Ël•oh•imꞋ co-mingling with the inextricable imperfection along with the person, rendering Him no longer perfect—an intractable contradiction—and the reason that hav•dãl•ãhꞋ is a requirement, not merely a recommendation. Yet, no person is able to return tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ to a perfect implementation of Tor•ãhꞋ. Only Ël•oh•imꞋ achieves perfection. Thus, for man attaining perfection is an inability; but for י--ה making perfect (via His gracious provision of ki•purꞋ, conditioned on our tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ to the non-selective practice of Tor•ãhꞋ to our "utmost") is an ability.
Because every person is fallible and can only do their utmost (which is all that Tor•ãhꞋ demands), relying upon the khein of י--ה for ki•purꞋ is the only possible bridge over one's shortcomings to perfect tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. Thus, it is י--ה's gracious provision of ki•purꞋ—the ability of Ël•oh•imꞋ—that delivers us to perfect tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. No person can achieve this. Conversely, however, without tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ to do one's utmost to keep Tor•ãhꞋ, satisfying the Tor•ãhꞋ requirement for receiving ki•purꞋ, the ability of Ël•oh•imꞋ providing ki•purꞋ is not enabled and the person isn't delivered.
The moral of this analogy is: For a wealthy person to do his or her utmost to keep Tor•ãhꞋ entails a level of tzᵊdãq•ãhꞋ that equalizes his or her situation with the poor. The tzᵊdãq•ãhꞋ required of the wealthy and powerful is far greater and more difficult than for one who is only marginally more prosperous than the poor and lives among the poor, every day seeing their situation and needs and helping.
This does not teach any desirability for poverty, as Christians are told to desire—so that the Vatican can continue to be the wealthiest power on earth.
|
|
tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ is the [very] existence of persons and their standing. If it weren't for tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ, mankind wouldn't be able to stand before the strong measure of the law.
As we memorized in përꞋëq 3 from the Pirqei of Rabi Ëliëzër: as long as the world hadn't been created ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu, was alone. It came up in His thought to create the world, He would chisel-out the whole world before Him—but it wasn't to stand.
The matter is similar to an allegory: a king wanted to build his palace. If he doen't [first] chisel-out the foundations of the land and its entrances, then he doesn't start to build. Thus, ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu, would chisel-out before him the whole world—but it wasn't to stand until he created tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ.
This mi•tzᵊw•ãhꞋ is more and more easier and closer for the ba•alei- Torah because it is for the am•imꞋ who are legislating it in khuq•imꞋ. (As we've already seen, the Notzrim [Christians, repenting within Christianity] are obligated to turn to many afflictions: looking for [lit. "walking toward"] the crossing of the sea, places distant places [to him], and mortification of his body by lashes.)
Not so by our Tor•ãhꞋ, which doesn't command you all of these afflictions—only by mouth and heart. As it is written, "Because this mi•tzᵊw•ãhꞋ that I command you today isn't too wondrous for you nor is it distant" (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 30.11). And that's that (!) concerning the Dᵊvar, "And you shall turn unto י--ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ" (ibid. 30.2).
Tor•ãhꞋ says concerning this, that for Dᵊvar tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ it isn't necessary to walk across the sea, nor to ascend to the allegorical high places of the heavens. Tor•ãhꞋ says that the bottom line [lit. "end of the matter"] is "that the matter is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it" (ibid. 30.14). It means that one should confess by mouth and restore-comfort [cf. Ho•sheiꞋa 13.14] in one's heart alone; and not turn anymore to do as before.
Although the Sages of blessed memory interpreted this mi•tzᵊw•ãhꞋ concerning the Tor•ãhꞋ generally, no implication deviates from the simple meaning; and the simple meaning of the pã•suqꞋ speaks of tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. The matter depends upon his mouth and his heart equally, whether he turns from his kheit.
Although you have to matter that stands facing tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ, there are matters of petty kheit that tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ alone will heal. There are also a•veir•otꞋ [of Tor•ãhꞋ] that require days of kaparah [expiatory qor•bãnꞋ] to expiate for them. Then there are grave [matters] that require suffering to scour-polish them according to the categories in which Rabi Hishmaeil categorized them., in reply to the question of Rabi Matya Bën-Kharash, the writing, in pereq Yom Ki•purꞋim (Yoma 76a), which is in the signature of the first oil-lamp (this work, 27.7), that categorized all of the awonot—outside of speaking khi•lulꞋ י--ה—to three categories of aveir•ãhꞋ of Tor•ãhꞋ:
And with each one of them tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ is necessary, and if not, when the days of tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ (or suffering upon hã-ãdãm) come, if there is no awakening from his sleep to turn from his wickedness, they catch up with hã-ãdãm at the eit of death and at the eternal punishment.
However, if he awakens from his sleep and khãzar bi-tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ, ha-Eil, may He be blessed, will accept it, because [that's the whole purpose of a man's] days: simply for accepting turn-arounds [from transgressing to tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ]. And He said, "Turn, Bᵊnei-•dãmꞋ!" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 90.3).
As we have memorized in përꞋëq Evenings of pᵊsakh•imꞋ (Ma•sëkꞋët pᵊsãkh•imꞋ 119a): •marꞋ Rav Kahana from the name of Rabi Yishmaeil by Rabi Yosei, and they said •marꞋ Rabi Shim•onꞋ Bën-Laqish from the name of Rabi Yᵊhudah ha-Nᵊsiyãh: What is written? "Hands of an ãdãm were under their wings" (Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 1.8). [That is the recited pronunciation.] The written [word] is "His Hand"—the Hand of ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu, which is spread under the wings of the beings, in order to accept ba•alei-khãzar bi-tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ from facing the measure of the Din.
We have memorized, in the books (Pinkhãs 137), "You have begun'" (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 3.24), this week, "Your greatness" (ibid.). This is the measure of Your good, as it is said, "Now, prithee, magnify the Power of י--ה" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 14.17). "And Your Hand" (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ, ibid.), this is simply Your Right Hand, from which everything comes, to the ages. As it is said, "Your Right Hand, י--ה, is Majestic in Power" (Shᵊm•otꞋ 15.6). And it is said, "Because [it was] Your Right Hand, Your Arm and the Light of Your Face—because You wanted them" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 44.4). And it is said, "I swear by Myself, tzᵊdãq•ãhꞋ has issued from My Mouth'" (Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 45.23). "Strong [Hand]" (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 3.24) is that You compassionately subdue the measure of the din. As it is said, "Who is Eil like You, bearing ã•wonꞋ'?" (Mikh•ãhꞋ 7.18). "He will return and be compassionate on us'" (loc. cit. 19). And it is said, "May You give ë•mëtꞋ to Ya•a•qovꞋ" (loc. cit. 20).
"For Who is Eil'?" (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ loc. cit.). For unlike the measure of bã•sãrꞋ and dãm is the measure of ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu. [What means] the measure of bã•sãrꞋ and dãm? He Who is Greater than his companion [is He Who] may annul the decree of his companion. You, however, are He Who can erase by Your Hand. Thus the Scriptures say, "He is באחד (bᵊ-Ëkhãd; in/by one), Who contradicts Him? '" (I•yovꞋ 23.13).
Rabi Yᵊhudãh Bën-Baba likened this to a man who was given-over by booklets of the kingdom. He even offered an inestimable amount of property to hinder the decree. But You said, "They made tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ and [that's what] I accepted." It is said, "I erased the pain of your pëshꞋa'" (Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 44.22).
We memorized in pᵊsiqta, "Good and straightforward is י--ה'" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 25.8). •marꞋ Rabi Pinkhãs, "Why is He Good? Because He is Straightforward. And why is He Straightforward? Because He is Good. 'Therefore, יורה (yorëh) khatã•imꞋ in the Way" (ibid.). For He is the מורה (Morëh) for khatã•imꞋ of the Way that they should make tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ.
Thus, we find that ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu, has no desire for the deaths of the wicked, but He desires tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ more. As it is said, "For I will not desire the death of those who should die' so return and live!" (Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 18.32).
In His compassion upon Israel, above the nations, He revealed His secret to His servants the Nᵊviy•imꞋ, in order that they would tell Israel the decree that was decreed upon them for their awon•imꞋ, and that [Israel] would surmount them, returning to good-works. Then, He would be tolerant with those returning in tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. So he weighed on their ears and strengthened their heart, but they didn't want to return, until [finally] He removed His Shᵊkhin•ãhꞋ and His khësꞋëd from upon them in order to disperse them among the nations of hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh. Yet, although He started, the decree was delayed. The Shᵊkhin•ãhꞋ distanced Itself from them in the mi•dᵊbarꞋ to await their tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ.
As we have memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Rosh ha-Shãn•ãhꞋ, Yom Tov chapter (31a), •marꞋ Rabi Yo•khãn•ãnꞋ, For six moons the Shᵊkhin•ãhꞋ was removed from Israel in the mi•dᵊbarꞋ so that they might return in tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ. But they did not return. Referring to their not returning •marꞋ, They puffed themselves [up]. As it is said, "The eyes of the wicked are myopic and refuge is lost for them, and their hope is a puffing [out, i.e. expiring] of the nëphꞋësh" (I•yovꞋ 11.20).
י--ה, May He be blessed, in His compassion upon Israel and upon the good among them in particular, punished them in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh for their awon•imꞋ, so that their goings were established. He gave them their full wage for hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-baꞋ, which is the age of victory.
What is it that He doesn't do thusly with the nations in general, and the wicked in particular; that He doesn't punish them in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh for their ã•wonꞋ? Yet, He credits it to them, in order that they shall go to Avadon to the victory of victories [i.e., forever].
As we have memorized at the end of Pirqa Qama of Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ (40b): •marꞋ Rabi Ëlãzãr Bar Tzãdoq , What are the tzadiq•imꞋ like in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh? For a tree in which all [of its branches and leaves] stand in the place of tã•hãr•ãhꞋ and its treetop leans toward the place of tum•ãhꞋ. The treetop is amputated, so that the entirety [of the tree] is found standing in the place of tã•hãr•ãhꞋ. Thus, ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu, will bring punitive-correction upon the tzadiq•imꞋ in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh in order that they may inherit hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-baꞋ. As it is said, "Your start was in a strait' (I•yovꞋ 8.7).
And what are the wicked like in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh? Like a tree in which all [of its branches and leaves] stand in the place of tum•ãhꞋ and its treetop leans toward the place of tã•hãr•ãhꞋ. The treetop is amputated, so that the entirety [of the tree] is found standing in the place of tum•ãhꞋ. Thus, ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu, flatters the wicked with good in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh in order that they shall inherit the stairway into the earth. As it is said, "There is a straight Way before a man'" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 14.12).
It is memorized, too, in Ma•sëkꞋët Ho•rãy•otꞋ (10b): Explained Rav Nakhman Bar-Khisdã, What is written? "There is an illusion that is made on hã-ÂꞋrëtz that there are tzadiq•imꞋ upon whom [misfortune] arrives like [that appears deserved by those practicing the] Ma•as•ëhꞋ of the wicked. And there are wicked upon whom [good fortune] arrives like [that appears deserved by those practicing the] Ma•as•ëhꞋ of the tzadiq•imꞋ'" (Qo•hëlꞋët 8.14).
A•shᵊr•eiꞋ are the tzadiq•imꞋ upon whom [misfortune] arrives in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh like [that seemingly deserved] in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-baꞋ [for those practicing the] Ma•as•ëhꞋ of the wicked. And Oy for the wicked, upon whom [good fortune] arrives in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh like [that seemingly deserved] in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-baꞋ [for those practicing the] Ma•as•ëhꞋ of the tzadiq•imꞋ.
•marꞋ Raba to him, [Only] for the sake of the tzadiq•imꞋ, there aren't two ol•ãmꞋs that [both] hate them, devouring them. •marꞋ Raba, rather, A•shᵊr•eiꞋ are the tzadiq•imꞋ upon whom [misfortune] arrives in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh like [that appears deserved by those practicing the] Ma•as•ëhꞋ of the wicked of hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh. And Oy for the wicked, upon whom [good fortune] arrives in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh like [that appears deserved by those practicing the] Ma•as•ëhꞋ of the tzadiq•imꞋ of hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh.
Rav Papa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yᵊho•shuꞋa came before Raba, ã•marꞋ him, "Did he interpret tractate so-and-so? [Or] tractate so-and-so?"
"No," ã•marꞋ them.
"Is the wealth divided?" ã•marꞋ him.
"No," ã•marꞋ them, "one buys ÂꞋrëtz little by little. He recited for them, "A•shᵊr•eiꞋ are the tzadiq•imꞋ upon whom [misfortune] arrives in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh like [that appears deserved by those practicing the] Ma•as•ëhꞋ of the wicked of hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh."
It is recited, too, in Pirqa Qama of Ma•sëkꞋët Ta•aniyot (11a): "Eil is ë•mun•ãhꞋ, and there is no crookedness'" (Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 32.4). Just as ha-Qã•doshꞋ, Bã•rukhꞋ Hu, pays a good wage to the tzadiq•imꞋ, etc. as it is, earlier, in the first oil-lamp [i.e., section of this work] (1.18).
Here we studied that the sho•pheitꞋ of all hã-ÂꞋrëtz makes mi•shᵊpãtꞋ. When the punishing of awonot is excluded in hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-zëh, it is the illusion of an evil [lit. bad] RuꞋakh—his days are like a transitional [i.e. fleeting] shadow. The reward for the majority of his credit—is hã-ol•ãmꞋ ha-baꞋ, entirely good and entirely long.
The dã•vãrꞋ reverses for those who excluded credits and most of their awonot. Therefore, ãdãm should appeal to return at every moment, and more so in all the days of readiness for the din and for kaparah. He shouldn't loath rebukes or corrections, which are the Dᵊvãr•imꞋ answering the body and pleasures of the nëphꞋësh, scour-polishing [away] the awonot. 'So make tᵊshuv•ãhꞋ and be healed!'
|
|
|
 250x167.jpg "Shitim, across the Yardein fm Yerikho (Jericho)")
 801x536.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small}
 0250x250.jpg "Map Shitim Baal Peor (images.google.co.il)")
 1000x1000.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small}
