Seventh-month 10: Special Shab•âtꞋ

יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים

Background

Contrary to the overly enthusiastic, but not religiously authoritative, EJ ("Day of Atonement," 5.1376), any Orthodox rabbi will confirm for you that יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים isn't "the most important day in the liturgical year." The Sages and every Orthodox rabbi will tell you the same thing (though you may have to ask some for clarification): the most important day in the liturgical year is Shab•âtꞋ. I would argue that יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים is the third "most important day in the liturgical year." While the Sages and Orthodox rabbis argue that Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ is the second most important day (after Shab•âtꞋ), Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ is completely empty unless it is preceded by tᵊshuv•âhꞋ – making Yom Tᵊru•âhꞋ – Tᵊshuv•âhꞋ Day – more critical and important than Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ. Failure to emphasize the greater importance of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, by focusing on Rosh ha-Shân•âhꞋ instead, is the greatest failing of Modern Judaism and Orthodox rabbis.

Demonic Fears

In early times, טָמֵא was regarded as demonic. Therefore, its removal wasn't enough. Its demonic-force had to be exorcised. This was accomplished in one of three ways, apparently patterned on the basic formula for גֵּרוּשִׁין (or vice-versa) and officiated by a Tza•diqꞋ, after immersion in a miq•wëhꞋ, and in the company of a min•yânꞋ:

1. curse or adjuration (supplemented by reading Tᵊhil•imꞋ 91 three times),

2. destruction by fire: subjecting the nostrils of the suspected possessed person to smoke of fire burning herbs or sulfur (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 2, 5, 8, 45-48; Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism {viewed 2010.07.15, Divrei Yoseiph, pp. 319-24, as translated in Spirit Possession in Judaism} and My Jewish Learning {2010.07.15} websites)

3. חֵרֶם (supplemented, variously, by, immersion in a miq•wëhꞋ and trumpeting on the שׁוֹפָר).

The last was usually employed. Rather than the evil entity being driven away by curse or fire, it was regarded as an involuntary יֵצֶר הָרַע (in later times regarded as a lost נֶּפֶשׁ) to be pitied and ordered by חֵרֶם to return to its place of origin (believed to be Gei-Hi•nomꞋ; cf. Exorcism in Judaism, New World Encyclopedia), or to some place where either its malefic powers could work in the interests of the sender (e.g., enemy territory), or where it could do no harm at all (e.g., mountains, mid•bârꞋ). Thus the scapegoat was sent to the mid•bârꞋ which was considered uninhabited except by the satyr-demon Az•â•zeilꞋ (Day of Atonement (Jewish Virtual Library), EJ, 1386).

Mitz•wotꞋ

Mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ is prohibited on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים just as it is on other special Shabât•otꞋ.

Tor•âhꞋ requires תְעַנּוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם—wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 16.29-31; 23.27-32; bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 29.7). This pi•eilꞋ form of עָנָה is popularly rendered "afflicted." However, this is probably more accurately a variation of the verb's main theme: "to cause to answer for" [something].

The connotation of "affliction" (and torture) derives, by extension, from the theme of causing (the pi•eilꞋ and pu•alꞋ constructs) someone to answer for something. Thus, the connotation of afflicting or torturing one's נֶּפֶשׁ on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים would seem to be an exaggeration of the Biblical instruction to make one's נֶּפֶשׁ answer for his or her עֲבֵרוֹת on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים.

The ultimate purpose is the affirmation of the earnestness of one's reply or response—tᵊshuv•âhꞋ for Jews—to the call to non-selective Tor•âhꞋ-observance which, all of the Kha•khâm•imꞋ concurred, is prerequisite to receiving כִּפּוּר. Tor•âhꞋ confirms this explicitly in wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 16.30: "For on this day כִּפּוּר shall be made for you [which doesn't imply a particular person qualifying to receive it] to make you טָהוֹר, from all of your חַטַּאוֹת you shall be טָהוֹר before י--ה.

כִּפּוּר can, at most, remove טָמֵא, providing only a current state of טָהוֹר which lasts only until the individual commits another עֲבֵרָה, causing reversion to a state of טָמֵא again. Consequently, "staying clean" has a very real parallel to one who has taken drugs. כִּפּוּר makes them clean. But the problem is one of "staying clean," which means doing one's utmost to keep Tor•âhꞋ non-selectively; i.e., not going back to the old ways of עֲבֵרָה. ("Staying clean" doesn't mean being "perfect," as Christians are wont to assert. Rather, Tor•âhꞋ requires that one does his or her utmost to (learn, as needed) and implement Tor•âhꞋ, non-selectively, in daily practice.)

To encourage reason (and discourage fanatics), the halakhic principle of פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ requires that medical considerations that jeopardize health must override not only afflicting oneself on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים, but even the laws of Shab•âtꞋ! Also, "only a few years before they reach the age at which [Jews] are obliged to fulfill the [mitz•wotꞋ] (13 years for a boy and 12 years for a girl) should one begin to accustom them gradually to keep these [mitz•wotꞋ] (EJ, 1378).

It was on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים that, in the יוֹבֵל year, the שׁוֹפָר was trumpeted to indicate the liberating of slaves and the restoration of the fields to their indigenous owners (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 25.9-10).

It is related that none of Israel's Khaj•imꞋ compared with the 15^th of Fifthmonth and יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים, on which days the daughters of Yᵊrushâ•laꞋyim would go forth, dressed in white, and dance in the vineyards — "And what did they say? — 'Young man! Lift your eyes and look what you choose for yourself'" (Masëkët Ta·anit 4.8; EJ 1377).

The penalty of kâ•reitꞋ applies only to eating, drinking and doing mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ (Masëkët Yomâ 74a; Masëkët Mᵊgilâh 1.5). Children (subject to the gradual accustoming mentioned) are exempted from all modes of affliction, except the wearing of leather.

יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים is the only day in which the A•mid•âhꞋ is recited five times.

The custom of trumpeting the שׁוֹפָר on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים was adopted "during the geonic era"—era of the Iraqi (Babylonian) Academy heads, 7^th-11^th centuries C.E. (EJ 1381).

According to the sages there are five ways in which the duty of afflicting one's נֶּפֶשׁ applies (Masëkët Yomâ 8.1; Yad, Shᵊvit•atꞋ A•sorꞋ 1.4; 3.9), by 24 hr., eve-to evening, prohibitions against:

1. צוֹם (from eating and drinking),

2. Washing oneself for pleasure,

3. Anointing the body (colognes, perfumes, deodorants, etc.),

4. Wearing of leather (belts, shoes, etc.) and

5. Sex.

Except for the prohibition against wearing leather, children are exempt until a few years before the age of responsibility (boys = 13, girls = 12). During these years (at least by 9), beginning with a few hours of tzom, increased each subsequent year, they gradually begin to become accustomed to the requirements of the day. After the blessing of lighting the ër•ëvꞋ candles, the woman of the house adds the shë-hë•khë•yânꞋu (that preserves-us-alive [to reach this occasion]) bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ.

In some years, Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ falls on Shab•âtꞋ. This occasions no changes in the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ or customs of Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ. The essential Shab•âtꞋ liturgy is included in the תִּכּלַאל for Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ.

Two Goats

The special offering of two goats was brought on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים and, apart from these, a ceremony peculiar to the day—the עֲבוֹדָה—was solemnized in the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 16.1-34). Only in the עֲבוֹדָה liturgy, once a year on this day, was the Tetragrammaton uttered, and then only by the Ko•heinꞋ Gâ•dolꞋ, in the QoꞋdësh Qâdâsh•imꞋ and in this עֲבוֹדָה liturgy.

Of the two goats, one was slain and the other led away into the mid•bârꞋ alive, paralleling the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ and Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, respectively. The dâm of the first, according to the Kha•khâm•imꞋ, made the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ and Kohan•imꞋ טָהוֹר, while the living goat provided כִּפּוּר for the עֲבֵרוֹת of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ (and, always included and counted in Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ, geir•imꞋ), who did their utmost to keep Tor•âhꞋ non-selectively.

EJ submits that the two יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים goats represent "two categories of טָהוֹר offering — the slain, whose dâm purges the [Mish•kânꞋ], and the live, which provides כִּפּוּר for the עֲבֵרוֹת of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ—are two inseparable parts of a unified ceremonial" ("Day of Atonement," EJ, 5.1385). This conclusion is contradicted by the requirement that, on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים, the Ko•heinꞋ Gâ•dolꞋ sacrifice a bull—not for providing טָהוֹר for a place but ''as his personal [עֲבֵרָה]-offering" ("Avodah," EJ, 3.976-7).

As EJ has noted (5.1382), "Atonement is made with a male goat as a reminder of the male goat which [Yo•seiphꞋ's] brothers slaughtered and in whose dâm they dipped his shirt." We may add that the other goat being sent away is reminiscent of Yo•seiphꞋ being sent off to Mitz•raꞋyim where he prepared a place of respite for Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ for their exile in Mitz•raꞋyim, paralleling the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ preparing a place of respite for Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ's in this world, and where Yo•seiphꞋ's family eventually joined him.

Similarly, the goat that was slain parallels the role of the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ, according to Yᵊsha•yahꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 53 as understood by the Kha•khâm•imꞋ of the Tal•mudꞋ, the Qum•rânꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, a Tza•diqꞋ to die, vicariously providing כִּפּוּר for the עֲבֵרוֹת of his Am, Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ.

כִּפּוּר is afforded neither to an עֲבֵרָה without tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, nor to those who practice Displacement Theology or other religions of the goy•imꞋ (i.e., all non-Jews other than geir•imꞋ).

The goat which was sent to Az•â•zeilꞋ in the mid•bârꞋ also parallels the role of the Mâ•shiꞋakh in being sent into what physicists might describe as a non-dimensional state (which Jews call ha-O•lâmꞋ ha-•BaꞋ and Christians call "heaven"). There, like Yo•seiphꞋ, he prepares a non-dimensional state ("place" contradicts non-dimensional) for us to join him in the domain where, again like Yo•seiphꞋ, he exercises great authority under the MëlꞋëkh.

Customs

Traditions, some of which are specific to the Teimân•imꞋ:

• Unlike the Ash•kᵊnazꞋim, "kittels" (a Yiddish—not Hebrew or Aramaic—term) aren't worn. In the Teimân•iꞋ tradition, some men wear white shirts, white pants, a white (non-leather) belt, white (non-leather) shoes and socks, and a primarily-white kip•âhꞋ. Some women wear white (non-leather) too. This appears to be the most ancient practice.

• Unlike the Ash•kᵊnazꞋim, Teimân•imꞋ recite ha•shᵊkâv•âhꞋ, not Yiz•korꞋ.

• Unlike the Ash•kᵊnazꞋim, there s no prostration in the עֲבוֹדָה liturgy at the point that the Ko•heinꞋ Gâ•dolꞋ pronounced the Name.

• Unlike the Ash•kᵊnazꞋim, no one beats their chests or emulates self-flagellation during the סְלִיחוֹת as in Ash•kᵊnazꞋim congregations.

• יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים is the only day of the year that Yᵊhud•imꞋ wear their ta•litꞋ for Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ and A•rᵊv•itꞋ.

• Special sidur•imꞋ, containing all of the special liturgy, are used

• The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and Teimân•imꞋ don't observe the contra-Biblical ultra-Orthodox practices of Ta•shᵊlikhꞋ or Ka•pâr•otꞋ.

The custom of taking a miq•wëhꞋ on the afternoon preceding יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים, introduced during the Gᵊon•imꞋ period (Babylonian Academy heads, 7^th-11^th centuries C.E.), which Rav Yo•seiphꞋ QâꞋpakh also describes as the custom among the Tei•mân•imꞋ.

Customs in Tei•mânꞋ – Rav Yo•seiphꞋ QâꞋpakh

Yᵊhud•imꞋ Tei•mân•imꞋ "are accustomed to immerse in a kâ•sheirꞋ mi•qᵊwëhꞋ on the night [preceding] ërꞋëv Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ or on ërꞋëv Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ itself, in the early hours of the morning. But they are not accustomed [to do] so in the rest of the ërꞋëv Shab•ât•otꞋ or Khaj•imꞋ"

"Finishing eating and drinking, they rest a bit, dressing in silk clothes or lovely white clothes and flocking to the beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët. Some of them are shod with cloth shoes but most of them go barefoot like the "מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת." There is no person, large or small, who shods himself in leather shoes. It should be noted that the hour of "כָּל נִדְרֵי" has no special meaning [above the gravity of the other hours of Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ] for Yᵊhud•imꞋ Tei•mânꞋ and it is said like "counting pennies," by playing it simple, while the peak elevation and ascension is when saying "יְרֵאִים שְׁלָחוּנִי, poetry attributed to Rabbeinu Hai Gaon" … (loc. cit.).

On Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ, "Before Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ, they leave their homes for a limited time to change [from the] white clothes of Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ to dress in regular Shab•âtꞋ clothes. Then, upon their return, they bring in their hands sprigs of fragrance (basil). Until the end of the day everyone holds in his hand a sprig of basil for his nëphꞋësh to enjoy its good blossom and in order to complete a hundred bᵊrâkh•otꞋ. So everyone brings a פָּרִישׁ in his pocket to end the fast with it… They pray Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ and, after that, they open tᵊphil•atꞋ נְּעִילָה by reciting poetry: "May no awful plot [i.e., pogrom] be fabricated for us; absolution in the hour of הַנְּעִילָה", in a tone similar to the tone of songs of Si•mᵊkh•atꞋ-Tor•âhꞋ. After that, pray הַנְּעִילָה, say a few poems, in the tone of הַנְּעִילָה until it's dark, then pray Ma•a•rivꞋ according to custom, blast תשר"ת on the sho•phârꞋ and say seven times: "י--ה הוּא הָאֱלֹקִים," etc. according to custom. After that, they make Ha•vᵊdâl•âhꞋ in the beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët and immediately after Ha•vᵊdâl•âhꞋ everyone brings out his פָּרִישׁ from his pocket, recites the bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ and eats; thereby ceasing his fast. [Members of] the congregation each bless the other with the bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ: "!תְּבוּשְּׂרוּ בְּמְחִילָה וְסְלִיחָה וְכַּפָּרָה" and the response is: "!וְאַתָּה תְּבוּשֵּׂר בְּמְחִילָה וְסְלִיחָה וְכַּפָּרָה"

Finally, "They depart to their homes… They begin one meal involving the matters of the Four Species, and in the preparations for making the Suk•âhꞋ and its ornaments, to realize: "they shall go from valor to valor."" (ibid.)

Greeting

The authentic Teimân•iꞋ greeting from antiquity, beginning at the conclusion of Yom Tᵊru•âhꞋ until the end of Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ is (slightly different from the Sᵊphâ•râd•iꞋ greeting) the most pensive greeting in the Jewish world:

צוֹם מוֹעִיל וְגְמַר חֲתִימָה טוֹבָה

(i.e., into the yu•khas•inꞋ in the heavens).

Liturgy

Sundown Seventh-month 9 עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים	כָּל נִדרֵי This opening tᵊphil•âhꞋ of ërꞋëv יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים is a medieval addition. "The first reference to כָּל נִדרֵי as a collective declaration is found in the responsa of the Babylonian Gᵊon•imꞋ (beginning in the eighth century [C.E.]). It is stated that כָּל נִדרֵי was familiar to them from 'other lands'; but the Gᵊon•imꞋ (especially of Sura) sharply condemned it for many generations" (EJ, 10.1166-7). כָּל נִדרֵי was not accepted until about 1000 C.E. In direct contradiction to Tor•âhꞋ shë-bikh•tâvꞋ, Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 23.22-24, et al.), "worshipers proclaim that all personal vows, oaths, etc., that they made unwittingly, rashly, or unknowingly (and that, consequently, cannot be fulfilled) during the year should be considered null and void" (ibid.). The Teimân•imꞋ, by contrast, pray that they not make such vows in the coming year.
	Tor•âhꞋ	Ma•phᵊtirꞋ	Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ
Seventh-month 10 יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים Sha•khar•itꞋ	וַיִּקְרָא ט"ז א'-ל"ד	בְּמִדְבַּר כ"ט ז'-י"א	יְשַׁעְיָהוּ נ"ז י"ד – נ"ח י"ד; נ"ט כ'-כא‫' (Last two pᵊsuq•imꞋ are exclusive to Tei•mân•imꞋ)

תְּפִלַּת הַשְׁכָּבָה

עֲבוֹדָה

(near the end of the Mu•sâphꞋ service)

In the Beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët ha-Teimân•iꞋ the עֲבוֹדָה service is included near the end of Mu•sâphꞋ. Unlike an Ash•kᵊnazꞋi Beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët, there is no break between Mu•sâphꞋ and the עֲבוֹדָה liturgies.

וַיִּקְרָא ‭ ‬ 16 – ‭ ‬ עֲבוֹדָה was the only service in the year when the Ko•heinꞋ Gâ•dolꞋ would entered the QoꞋdësh Qâdâsh•imꞋ. Only in the עֲבוֹדָה service, once a year, the Ko•heinꞋ Gâ•dolꞋ pronounced the holy Tetragrammaton. In Ash•kᵊnazꞋim synagogues (but not in the Teimân•iꞋ tradition), everyone in the congregation prostrates themselves at the point where the Ko•heinꞋ Gâ•dolꞋ pronounced the Tetragrammaton (cf. "Avodah," EJ, 3.976-8).

	Tor•âhꞋ	Ma•phᵊtirꞋ	Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ
Seventh-month 10 Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ	וַיִּקְרָא י"ח א'-ל‫'	-	יוֹנָה, מִיכָה ז' י"ח-כ‫'

5753 (1993.09 Tor•âhꞋ)

וַיִּקְרָא ‭ ‬ 16.29 — And you ^m.pl. have a khuq•atꞋ o•lamꞋ: on the Tenth of Seventhmonth: "תְעַנּוּ your ^pl. נְפָשׁוֹת and don't do any mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ, both הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר in your midst."

אמר ריבי יהושע

(Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua)

מתתיהו בעברית

Matityâhu bᵊ-Ivrit; Hebrew Matityâhu —
The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM)

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

5770 (2010.09)

Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ

Nᵊviy•imꞋ	Translation	Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM)	NHM
Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ: Yon•âhꞋ 3.5 The men of NiꞋnᵊweihꞋ believed in Ël•oh•imꞋ; and they called a tzom and dressed in sacks, from their great to their small Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ: Yon•âhꞋ 3.6 The dâ•vârꞋ reached the mëlꞋëkh of NiꞋnᵊweihꞋ, and he stood up from his seat, and (un)crossed his robe from himself; and he covered himself in a sack, and sat on ashes (see also The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 11.21.3) Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ: Yon•âhꞋ 3.7-8 Then [the town crier] proclaimed and said in NiꞋnᵊweihꞋ, מִטַּעַם of the mëlꞋëkh, and his greats saying; the â•dâmꞋ and beast, the cattle and the tzon, אַל-יטְעֲמוּ anything, they shall neither graze nor drink water. Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ: Yon•âhꞋ 3.9 He who knows יָשׁוּב, and may hâ-Ël•oh•imꞋ נִחַם; and שָׁב, from His burning fury and we will not be lost. Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ: Yon•âhꞋ 3.10 And Ël•oh•imꞋ saw their Ma•as•imꞋ, that שָׁבוּ from their ways of râ; and Ël•oh•imꞋ וַיִּנָחֵם concerning the râ, that He had spoken to do to them, and did not do it. Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ: Yon•âhꞋ 4.1 וַיֵּרַע to Yon•âhꞋ—a great רָעָה; and he was incensed . Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 14.[5-6,9,] 11,13,15 The נֹגֵשׂ… ‭ ‬ 9 שְׁאוֹל, from below, is excited to call your coming… 11 Brought down to שְׁאוֹל were your pride… 13 You had said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; higher than the stars of Eil I shall raise my throne… 15 But you have been lowered into שְׁאוֹל, to the bottom of the pit. Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 23 (chapter) Prophecy of Tzor Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 34.8 Because it is יוֹם נָקָם of י--ה; a year of payments for the conflict of Tzi•yonꞋ. (See also The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 11.22.1.) Dâniy•eilꞋ 9.3-19 Dâniy•eilꞋ's tᵊphil•âhꞋ of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ: I will give my face to A•don•âiꞋ hâ-Ël•oh•imꞋ, to request tᵊphil•âhꞋ and ta•khan•un•imꞋ; in a tzom, and a sack and ashes… Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 31.14-17 (Using trees to symbolize "lofty" leaders of Syria) … So that none of any of the well-watered trees would become haughty about their stature, and they would not give their crown among the thick branches… because they are all given to death to the ËrꞋëtz beneath, among, bᵊn•eiꞋ-â•dâmꞋ who descend into the pit… (See also The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 11.23.2.) Then he 11.20.1 began to reproach 11.20.2 the âr•imꞋ 2.23.0 for whom 11.20.3 most of his forces 11.20.4 had become, because they didn't make tᵊshuv•âhꞋ.3.2.1 21 "Oy for you of Ko•râz•inꞋ in the Gâ•lilꞋ. Oy for you of Beit-Tza•yâd•âhꞋ 11.21.0 on the northeast shore of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët. Because if the forces 11.20.3 that have been exercised in you had been exercised in Tzor 11.21.1 and Tzi•donꞋ,15.22.1 Lᵊvân•onꞋ they would have made tᵊshuv•âhꞋ 3.2.1 by this time in sackcloth and ashes.11.21.3 22 I tell you only 11.22.0 that it will be easier for Tzor 11.21.1 and Tzi•donꞋ 15.22.1 in the day of adjudication-of-Halâkh•âhꞋ 11.22.1 than for you. 11.20-22 Then some of the So•phᵊr•imꞋ 5.20.1 and of the [probably 'Herodian' 22.16.1] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ sect advocating that Halâkh•âhꞋ 7.1.1 must be exclusively oral 3.7.1 replied to him 12.38.1 saying, "RibꞋi,23.7.1 we wish to see a sign from you." 12.38.2 39 Replying, he said to them, "It is an evil 5.39.1 generation of an adulteress 12.39.1 that seeks after a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Yon•âhꞋ 12.39.2 ha-Nâ•viꞋ:11.9.1 40 Like Yon•âhꞋ (2:1) was in the bowels of the 'Fish' 12.40.1 3 days and 3 nights,12.40.2 so RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa will be in hâ-•ârꞋëtz 2.20.0 3 days and 3 nights. 41 Men of NiꞋnᵊweihꞋ 12.40.2 shall take the stand for the adjudication-of-Halâkh•âhꞋ 7.1.1 with this generation and they will incriminate it—because they made tᵊshuv•âhꞋ 3.2.1 at the call 12.41.1 of Yon•âhꞋ,12.41.2 and I am greater than Yon•âhꞋ.12.41.3 42 The queen of the Ethiopians 12.42.1 shall rise to take the stand for the adjudication-of-Halâkh•âhꞋ 7.1.1 with this generation, and will incriminate it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the logic 13.54.2 of Shᵊlom•ohꞋ ha-•MëlꞋëkh 12.42.2 and look, something greater than Shᵊlom•ohꞋ is here.12.42.3 12.38-42
Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ Yon•âhꞋ 1.4ff The shipwreck and story of Yon•âhꞋ in NiꞋnᵊweihꞋ Yo•eilꞋ 4.19 Mitz•raꞋyim shall be לִשְׁמָמָה, and Εd•omꞋ for a mid•bârꞋ שְׁמָמָה; from bullying Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yᵊhud•âhꞋ wherein they spilled dâm נָקִיא in their âꞋrëtz. Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 1.3-6 Thus says י--ה Tzᵊvâ•otꞋ, שׁוּבוּ to Me, declares י--ה Tzᵊvâ•otꞋ; וְאָשׁוּב to you," said י--ה Tzᵊvâ•otꞋ… Oy 23.13.1 for you, So•phᵊr•imꞋ 5.20.0 and those of the [probably 'Herodian' 22.16.1] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ sect of Judaism 23.25.1 who advocate that Halâkh•âhꞋ 7.1.1 must be exclusively oral 3.7.1 – hypocrites…23.13.2 because you build 23.29.1 the tombs 27.61.1 of the Nᵊviy•imꞋ 11.9.1 and put the sepulchers 27.60.0 of the Tzadiq•imꞋ 1.19.1 in order and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers we wouldn't have shared in the dâm of the Nᵊviy•imꞋ.' 23.30.1 In the following you witness 23.31.0 against yourselves that you are the sons 23.31.1 of those who murdered the nᵊviy•imꞋ:23.30.1 You measure up fully 5.17.3 to your fathers. Serpents, offspring of vipers… how shall you escape the adjudication-of-Halâkh•âhꞋ 7.1.1 of Gei-Hi•nomꞋ 10.28.2 if you don't return in tᵊshuv•âhꞋ? 23.33.1 Look, I send forth nᵊviy•imꞋ 23.34.1 to you, and intellectuals,11.19.4 and So•phᵊr•imꞋ.5.20.0 You 23.34.2 will kill some of them, even hang 10.38.1 some of them and flog some of them in your Bât•eiꞋ- ha-kᵊnësꞋët 9.35.0 and pursue them from ir 2.23.0 to ir, so that all of the dâm of the Tzadiq•imꞋ 1.19.1 spilled out on hâ-•ârꞋëtz 23.35.1 should come upon you, from the dâm of HëvꞋël 23.35.2 the Tza•diqꞋ 1.19.1 to the dâm of Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 23.35.3 whom you murdered between the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ and the Miz•beiꞋakh.23.35.5 •meinꞋ! I tell you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Yᵊrushâ•laꞋyim… Yᵊrushâ•laꞋyim, who kills the Nᵊviy•imꞋ 23.30.1 and stones those who have been sent forth to her. How often I wished to gather 24.31.2 your children like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings—but you would not.23.37.1 Look, your BaꞋyit 23.38.1 is left 23.38.2 שָׁמֵם 23.38.3 to you, for I tell you—you shall in no case see me anymore until you say (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 118:26): בָּרוּךְ הַבָּא בְּשֵׁם ה' 23.39.1 & 1.22.1 23.33-39
Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ Yon•âhꞋ 2.1 וַיְמַן י--ה a big "Fish"; to swallow-up Yon•âhꞋ; and Yon•âhꞋ was in the innards of the "Fish," 3 days and 3 nights… Having come near, those of the [probably 'Herodian' 22.16.1] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ sect of Judaism 23.25.1 who advocate that Halâkh•âhꞋ 7.1.1 must be exclusively oral,3.7.1 and of the aristocratic, Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple," 3.7.2 testing him, grilled 16.1.1 him to teach them some sign 16.0.1 from the heavens. Replying, he said to them,16.2.1 An evil 5.39.1 and adulterous 5.23.2 seed seeks 6.32.2 a sign.16.0.1 No sign 16.0.1 shall be given to them except the sign 16.0.1 of Yon•âhꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ." 16.4.1 Then, leaving them, he went away. 16.1-4
Yon•âhꞋ 4.6 ה' apportioned a קִיקָיוֹן, and it rose up over [where] Yon•âhꞋ [was], to be a shade over his head, to rescue him from his bad [situation]. Yon•âhꞋ rejoiced about the [exploding-star shaped leaves of the] קִיקָיוֹן with great rejoicing. Having heard the mëlꞋëkh,14.9.1 they went. Then look… the celestial-phenomenon 2.2.1 which they had seen in the east 2.1.4 brought them on ahead 2.9.1 until they came to Beit LëkhꞋëm. 10 When they had arrived in Beit LëkhꞋëm, the celestial-phenomenon stood in conjunction 2.9.2 in front of the place where the little boy was. Seeing the celestial-phenomenon,2.2.1 they rejoiced 5.12.1 with exuberant rejoicing. 2.9,10
Yon•âhꞋ 4.9 Then Ël•oh•imꞋ said to Yon•âhꞋ, Is your being incensed over the קִיקָיוֹן better" [than your being incensed over not punishing the Ninevans, earlier in the chapter]? And he said, "It's better I [would remain] incensed [over the קִיקָיוֹן rather than over not punishing the Ninevans] to the death." Note that the parallel with NHM 26.38 derives from both LXX and even the Artscroll English, which both translate "grieved" (for חָרָה, in the latter case). The parallel to The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 26.38 is due to the LXX translation of the verb to λελυπησαι and λελυπημαι, both from the root λυπεω Then he said to them (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 42.6, 12; 43.5): " 'How downcast you are my nëphꞋësh…' 2.20.1 Lean on me in this." 26.38.1 "Downcast" is translated for the Hebrew תִּשְׁתּוֹחֲחִי, from the root שׁחח (cf. Tᵊhil•imꞋ), in preference over the Greek περιλυπος, from the root λυπεω (paralleling LXX). The parallel is artificial and Hellenist. 26.38
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 57.15 For thus said the High and Borne-aloft, שֹׁכֵן until [forever] and Qâ•doshꞋ is His Name: High and Qâ•doshꞋ, אֶשְׁכּוֹן—with the crushed and lowly of ruꞋakh, to enliven the ruꞋakh of those who are lowly, and to enliven the heart of those who are crushed. "Happy 5.3.1 are they to be who are poor and broken-hearted,5.3.2 for the Realm 4.17.1 of the heavens 3.2.2 is theirs. 5.3
Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ: Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 58.3-4 Why [when] we fasted, didn't You see [it]? Why [though] עִנִּינוּ with our nᵊphâsh•otꞋ You didn't even know [it]? Look, on your tzom day you pursue your own desires, and עַצְּבֵיכֶם תִּנְגֹּשׂוּ. Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 58.5-6 Can such be the Tzom I shall choose, a day when â•dâmꞋ ân•âhꞋ his nëphꞋësh? Can it be bending his head down like a marsh-reed or spreading [a mattress of] sackcloth and ashes? Do you call such as this a tzom or a day of favor to י--ה? ‭ ‬ 6 Surely, this is the tzom I will choose: To open the cuffs [that shackle one to] rëshꞋa, to loose the bundles of the yoke, to send those crushed [under its weight] to freedom, and to tear-away every yoke. Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 58.7-9 Shouldn't you break your bread with the hungry? And bring the homeless humble to a house? That you may see the scantily-clad and clothe him, and not conceal yourself from your flesh. Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 18.5, 7 Then a man who will be a Tza•diqꞋ… 7 … gives his bread to the hungry and covers the scantily-clad with clothing… Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 58.10-14 Issue forth your nëphꞋësh to the hungry, and satisfy the humbled nëphꞋësh; then your or will shine in the darkness, and your gloom like the noon. 11 Then י--ה will direct you always, sate your nëphꞋësh during scorching droughts, and invigorate your bones; and you will be like a drenched garden and a source of water whose waters shall not fail. 12 Ruins of o•lamꞋ will be (re)built from you, foundations of ancient generations shall you raise-up; and you shall be called, 'stone-fencer of the breach' and 'chiseler of paths for settling.' When you tzom,6.16.1 don't become like the mournful hypocrites 23.13.2 who make their appearance mournful and alter their faces 6.16.2 to be seen fasting 6.16.1 by persons.8.20.2 •meinꞋ! I tell you, they obviate their payment.6.2.1 17 When you tzom 6.16.1 sprinkle your head 6.17.1 and wash 6.17.2 your face 18 so that you may not appear to be afflicting yourselves 6.18.0 for persons 8.20.2 but rather for your Father who is in secret, and your Father who is in secret shall render your payment.6.18.1 6.16-18 Then the tal•mid•imꞋ 5.1.1 of Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Mat•bilꞋ' 3.0.1 Ben-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Ben-Tzâ•doqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ 3.0.2 came near to him saying, "Why do we and the Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ sect of Judaism 23.25.1 who advocate that Oral Law 7.1.1 must be exclusively oral 3.7.1 tzom often 9.14.1 and your tal•mid•imꞋ 5.1.1 don't tzom?" 6.16.1 15 And RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa said to them, "Do the friends of the groom 9.15.1 mourn while the groom is with them? The days will come when the groom will have been picked up from them, and then they will tzom.6.16.1 9.14-15 For I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me to drink. I was a visitor 25.35.1 and you gathered 1.18.5 me in. I was scantily-clad and you outfitted me. I was weak 8.17.2 and you monitored 25.36.1 me. I was in the dungeon 25.36.2 and you came to me. Then the tza•diqꞋ 1.19.1 will reply to him saying, 'A•don•iꞋ,22.43.2 when did we see you hungry and nurture you? Or thirsty and give you to drink? When did we see you as a geir 25.35.1 and gather 1.18.5 you in? Or scantily-clad and outfit you? When did we see you weak 8.17.2 or in the dungeon 25.36.2 and come to you?' 25.39.1 Then, replying, the mëlꞋëkh 1.5.6 will say to them, '•meinꞋ! I tell you, Every time you did it for one of the needy of these, little ones like these,25.40.1 you did it for me.' 25.40.2 25.35-40 Having left Nâtz•ratꞋ, having come, he dwelled in KᵊpharꞋ Na•khumꞋ along the north shore of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët within the borders of the lands of the tribes of Zᵊvul•unꞋ and Naph•tâl•iꞋ, in order that it would be fulfilled 5.17.3 that which was spoken by Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 4.14.1 ha-Nâ•viꞋ (8.23–9.1) saying, "In the first period, Mâ•shiꞋakh ha-mëlꞋëkh 4.15.1 will lighten the weight on the land of Zᵊvul•unꞋ 4.15.2 and the land of Naph•tâl•iꞋ.4.15.3 Then, in the later period, by way 3.3.3 of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët,4.15.4 he will place more weight on the district 4.15.5 of the goy•imꞋ 6.32.1 – Trans-Jordan. The am who were walking in blackness will have seen a great or.4.16.0 The or will have shined upon the residents of the land of the picture-of-death." 4.16.1 From that time, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa began to call out 12.41.1 and to say "חִזְרוּ בִּתשׁוּבָה‎,3.2.1 for the Realm 4.17.1 of the heavens 3.2.2 has converged." 10.7.1 4.13-17

5768 (2007.09)

וּסְלַח לָנוּ עַוֹנוֹתֵינוּ כַּאַשֶׁר אַנַחנוּ סוֹלְחִים לִבְנֵי-אָדָם רָעַתָם
(The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 6.13).

When RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught that sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ for one's עֲבֵרוֹת depends upon granting the same sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ to others, he was elucidating an unavoidable implication of Tor•âhꞋ and כִּפּוּר. Just as Tor•âhꞋ requires restitution as an integral element of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, acceptance of that fair restitution (stipulated by a Beit Din) is no less tzëdꞋëq and, therefore, no less a mitz•wâhꞋ. עֲבֵרָה of this mitz•wâhꞋ, therefore, would preclude sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ for the one defiantly refusing to accept fair restitution (set by a Beit Din) and grant sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ.

Accordingly, •mar′  RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, "If you sâ·lakhꞋ even the â•wonꞋ of bën•eiꞋ-â•dâmꞋ, then your Father of the heavens will sâ·lakhꞋ even your â•wonꞋ. If you won't sâ·lakhꞋ bën•eiꞋ-â•dâmꞋ, then He won't sâ·lakhꞋ you your kheit" (NHM 6.14-15).

כִּפּוּר & Sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ
versus (lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ)
Christian Linkage To Miraculous Healing

While the linkage between the disfavor of the ël•oh•imꞋ, vague and amorphous "sin" and "consequent" sickness traces back through Hellenism to Egyptian beliefs, there is no such linkage in Tor•âhꞋ (contrary to some rabbinic heresies whose basis is solely in superstition). There are imprecations upon Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ as a whole for straying from Tor•âhꞋ, but no direct correlation between an individual disappointing Ël•oh•imꞋ through עֲבֵרוֹת and consequent physical sickness or injury to that individual. Thus (exposing the fakery of all religious "healers"), sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ that absolves the עֲבֵרָה has no connection to healing from an unrelated sickness.

Noting the modern Christian linkage, one should, therefore, look for the change, expecting an account of the Judaic practice, כִּפּוּר and sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ, to be Hellenized in support of the modern Christian belief. Such evolution is indisputably documented in the Greek accounts of the forgiving and healing of the sick, demon-possessed man in KᵊpharꞋ Na•khumꞋ, in the Gâ•lilꞋ, in 3789 (0029 C.E., The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 9.2-6).

Note that pᵊsuq•imꞋ 6-7 are supported by the Hebrew 12^th-century Ms. Or. Rome #53 (125b) and pᵊsuq•imꞋ 2 & 6 are supported by the 13^th-century Hebrew SeiꞋpher Nitzâkh•onꞋ Yâ•shânꞋ as well as the ËvꞋën Bo•khanꞋ. The Hellenized (Christianized) version is supported by א, β, a-3 and the PᵊshitᵊtâꞋ (see The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM)).

The earliest extant (all 4^th century C.E. and later, post-135 C.E.) source mss. of the Hellenized (Greek) Christian NT "Saint Matthew" 9.2 read:

Και ιδου προσεφερον αυτω παραλυτικον επι κλινης βεβλημενον

However, according to the 12^th century Ms. Or. Rome 53, the earliest extant Hebrew tradition reads:

הָלַך יֶשׁוּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּמָצָא שָׁם חוֹלֶה שֶׁחָלָה שָׁנָה אַחַת

.

The 15^th-century ËvꞋën Bo•khanꞋ appends the word מִכִּווּץ (The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 9.2.1.)

It is clear from the evolution of the Hebrew tradition, under pressure from the Church, that the later, Hellenized (Christian) version has redacted the account to read a "paralyzed" man instead of a merely "sick" man, who, in 9.6 (Ms. Or. Rome 53), we learn is sick by demonic-force; not paralyzed as the Hellenized version there, too, stipulates.

The ancients attributed the cause of everything for which natural explanations weren't known to demonic forces. Here, in the Hebrew tradition, we have the account of a man who has been "sick" and lying in bed for a year, attributed to a demonic force—linked expressly to sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ (since sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ cured him). As there is no Tor•âhꞋ linkage of sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ to demonic forces another, different, linkage must be found. One of the most prevalent symptoms attributed to demonic possession was a broken-spirit (or broken heart)— i.e., depression. Is there an obvious connection between depression and sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ? The answer seems obvious: this man was sick at heart, depressed to the point of retiring to a bed for the preceding year, over sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ. This certainly suggests that he felt guilty about something so terrible that it broke his heart, something for which he attempted with all of his being to make restitution and obtain sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ, but, apparently, the wronged party refused to accept the restitution or forgive the man despite his acute demonstration of depression and abject sorrow.

Let's examine the critics of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and exactly what they criticized him for. His critics are described as "Scribes." In the first century, "scribes" didn't refer only to those who wrote Tor•âhꞋ, tᵊphil•inꞋ and mᵊzuz•âhꞋ scrolls (as it does today). Of the three major sects of Judaism, only the Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple," had codified—"scribed" – their (previously Oral) Law into their Hellenist (Greek) Χειρογραφον τοις Δογμασιν (corrupted to the "Book of Decrees").

These Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple," the "scribes" of this passage, held that Χειρογραφον τοις Δογμασιν was their (codified Oral Law—comparable to Tal•mudꞋ of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ today) authority, negating Halâkh•âhꞋ and the Bât•eiꞋ Din of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ (which included RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa) as an infringement of their claimed exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, the dispute was between Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple,", who denied the Pᵊrush•imꞋ Bât•eiꞋ Din authority to set restitution—and, where the victim refused to accept such restitution and confer sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ, as decreed by the Beit Din, to declare sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ.

This is precisely what the Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi (and, presumably therefore, head of a Beit Din), Yᵊho•shuꞋa, did: declare the man's restitution to be fair and adequate (probably confirming the decree of an earlier, Pᵊrush•iꞋ (not Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple,") Beit Din) and declaring him forgiven.

The Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple," weren't criticizing RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa of blaspheming for pre-empting י--ה, but for pre-empting the Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple"!!! He was merely discharging his duties as Tor•âhꞋ prescribed. Rather, the Roman-collaborating, Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the "Temple" accused him of blaspheming for having the khutz•pâhꞋ declare sᵊ•likh•âhꞋ—which they claimed was solely their own authority, not Pᵊrush•imꞋ authority.

5753 (1993.09) Mi•nᵊkh•âhꞋ

wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 18.26, And you ^pl. shall be sho•meirꞋ of My khuq•imꞋ and My mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ.

In Hebrew, "not" followed by a list {a,b, …, n} is understood logically as "not a, not b, …, and not n"; i.e., "neither a, nor b, …, nor n."

Logically, (–a) * (–b) * …, * (–n) = –(a + b + …, + n)

This is the case in translating the two Hebrew objects of "not" in this pâ•suqꞋ as "neither… nor":

לֹא… הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר

.

There is no implication in the Hebrew that negative "abomination" prohibitions are the only mitz•wotꞋ applicable to geir•imꞋ. Tor•âhꞋ is always consistent that there is only one Tor•âhꞋ—that is applied without discrimination except where explicitly stated otherwise.

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