כִּפּוּר

According to the EJ, "the customary rendering of [כִּפֵּר] is 'to atone for,' or 'to expiate' but in most cases this is incorrect" ("Kipper," [sic] 10.1039)—and certainly "dumbed down," through Hellenization (Greek, i.e., Christianization), to a doctrine of a•vod•âh′ zâr•âh′.

Wipe Away, Wipe Up, Wipe Out, Wipe Off…

"In poetry references, its parallel synonym is מָחָה (Yirm^әyâh′u 18.23), or הֵסִיר (Y^әsha•yâh′u 27.9, cf. also the passive form, Y^әsha•yâh′u 6.7), suggesting that כִּפֵּר means [טִהֵר]." This implication is reinforced by passages coupling כִּפֵּר with טִהֵר (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 14.48, 53) and חִטֵּא (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 14.52; EJ, loc. cit.).

The more accurate meanings of these terms, derived from Klein's, reveals that כִּפֵּר conveys מָחָה ("to blot out, blot away"—"Wipe Up, Wipe Off") and הֵסִיר (causing a swerving-back or deviation-back)—and resulting divergence between

1. the עֲבַרְיָן Tor•âh′ (who swerves or deviates back (a return) from his previous contra-Tor•âh′ practice – and from עֲבֵרוֹת Tor•âh′—to make t^әshuv•âh′), on the one hand, and

2. the עֲבֵרָה (with its penalty of curse, destruction or banishment, as noted earlier and elaborated below), thereby rendering the penitent טָהוֹר.

This is corroborated by the regular coupling, in ritual texts, of כִּפּוּר with טִהֵר and קָרבָּן חַטָּאת (cf. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 14.48, 52-53).

Wipe On…

Some Biblical passages couple כִּפֵּר with כִּסָּה, suggesting that כִּפֵּר "connotes smearing on a new substance rather than effacing an existent one"—i.e., "Wiping On" (see N^әkhëm•yâh′ 3.37; Yirm^әyâh′u 18.23; Sh^әm•ot′ 12.23, 27 and Y^әsha•yâh′u 31.5; EJ, ibid.)

"Wipe on… wipe off."

"… [T]he meaning "to rub off" predominates in the ritual texts, whereas that of "to cover" probably never occurs. This is best illustrated by the דָּם of the חַטָּאת… Its use is restricted to the [Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′]: it is never used on a person. The rites for the healed leper and for the consecration of the [Ko•hein′] call for a חַטָּאת, but the דָּם daubed on them does not come from the חַטָּאת but from other animal קָרבָּנוֹת (EJ, ibid.).

In other Scriptures, by contrast, כִּפּוּר parallels כִּסָּה (N^әkhëm•yâh′ 3.37; Yirm^әyâh′u 18.23), as if כִּפּוּר connotes מָשַׁח rather than wiping-off or blotting-up an existing substance. "Linguists have been divided as to which is the basic meaning, since evidence from Semitic cognates can be cited in support of both, mainly from the Arabic for 'to cover' and from the Akkadian for 'to wipe.' But perhaps both these meanings go back to an original common notion of [smear-on or wipe-off]." Since, for examples, דָּם or oil may be either wiped-off or smeared-on (thereby "covering over"), these connotations are complementary.

Stripped of the Greek with its intrinsic Hellenist misperceptions, this paraphrase of the famous instructions of "Master Miyagi" (the late Pat Morita) to his student, "Daniel-san," in the movie, "The Karate Kid," aptly describe the almost universally misrepresented (Hellenized) and misunderstood Hebrew concept of כִּפֵּר and its cognate verbal noun, כִּפּוּר, popularly Hellenized to "atonement."

Transferral Agent

The key to understanding the relationship between the apparent conundrum of "wipe on" and "wipe off" intrinsic in כִּפֵּר then reduces to their complementary, rather than contradictory, nature as understood by the ancients, converging in the operation (and likely origin of the entire concept framework) of the דָּם nid•âh′ (see mei nid′âh) being applied (flowing onto)—"wipe on"—the nid•âh′ as a death-contaminant-blotting agent (see wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 17.11) and the agent of transferring away; flushing or washing away (i.e. blotting out or "wiping off") the death-contaminant (thought responsible for the death of the egg), producing טִהֵר.

Vicarious כִּפֵּר

The theme of a transferal agent is further abstracted, as a vicarious agent of transferral, in the Ko•hein′ whose death transferred or conveyed כִּפֵּר, freeing man-slaughterers from exile (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 35.32-33), the L^әwi•yim′ (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 8.19) and the plague-deaths consequent to a•vod•âh′ zâr•âh′ transferring or conveying כִּפֵּר to the remnant of Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 25.1-15). The Sho•âh′, consequent to the apostasy of the introduction of the Reform Movement in late 19^th-century Europe—followed by Hitler and the Nazis—is no less an identical example: transferring or conveying כִּפֵּר for the holy restoration of Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ in 1948 (see Sh^әm•ot′ 30.16; b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 8.19; 25.13; Sh^Əmu•eil′ Beit 21.1, 3; for other examples of vicarious agents of transfer, see Az•â•zeil′ and הָעֶגְלָה, whose neck was broken, D^әvâr•im′ 21.1-9).

Symbolism of דָּם

Modern physicians and other scientists recognize that the blood absorbs toxins in the body and carries the toxins away for the body to dispose of them. As archeologists discover that ancients, as far back as the Egyptians, practiced rudimentary medicine and surgeries, it isn't far-fetched to suppose that a few basics of the blood, as the "carrier of life," were understood to carry "evil" (demonic life) away as well as carrying support of the נֶּפֶשׁ (cf. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 17.11). Similarly, just as "evil" (demonic forces) were supposed to be contracted—transferred-in to the דָּם—by contact or proximity, the same reasoning would conclude that the demonic forces could be transferred-out to דָּם by contact or proximity: leaning one's hands on the head of the efficacious קָרבָּן and calling upon י--ה, Who is superior to any other, to effect the transfer. Thereafter, the קָרבָּן or דָּם was either burned (going up in smoke) or otherwise destroyed (e.g., the breaking of the neck of הָעֶגְלָה, D^әvâr•im′ 21.1-9) or banished (as the goat of Az•â•zeil′).

This transference of "demonic-evil" from one's own דָּם to the דָּם of another defines the core of the principle of vicarious טִהֵר. Therein, כִּפּוּר connects to its noun form: כֹּפֶר (Sh^әm•ot′ 21.30).

To paraphrase EJ (10.1041), making corrections, Having begun as a symbol "blotting-up" טָמֵא by absorption through direct contact or indirect transference (e.g., by proximity), כִּפּוּר evolved into expiation generally. Thus, the כִּפּוּר role of all other קָרבָּן—whose דָּם is not daubed on the qa•r^Ən•ot′ of the Miz•bei′akh like the חַטָּאת, but is spattered on its (nearly red-hot copper) sides—is to expiate the עֲבֵרָה Tor•âh′. This is one of the functions of the ol•âh′ (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 1.4) and the Mi•n^Əkh•âh′ (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 14.20), and the sole function of the אָשָׁם (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 5.16, 18, 26). So, with the Ka•por′ët, placed over the A•ron′ hâ-Eid•ut′ (Sh^әm•ot′ 25.17-22); being a feminine abstract noun from כִּפּוּר, it's probably the feminine counterpart of כֹּפֶר. Since it also designates ha-Mâ•qom′ where Mosh•ëh′ "would hear the Voice addressing him" (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 7.89), it indicates the כִּפּוּר par excellence: t^әphil•âh′ (cf. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 26.40-41; D^әvâr•im′ 4.29; M^әlâkh•im Âl′ëph 8.28-30, 33, 35, 47-48; T^әhil•im′ 51.19; 141.2).

Essential Principles

Limited Coverage of כִּפּוּר

Expiatory קָרבָּן dealt only with עֲבֵרוֹת against י--ה – i.e., an עֲבֵרָה against His Tor•âh′—they did not redress wrongs against fellow humans. עֲבַרְיָנִים of Tor•âh′ that caused injury or damage to humans required first making restitution plus 20% to the victims. Only after having made restitution plus 20% to the human victims did the עֲבַרְיָן become eligible to offer an expiatory קָרבָּן.

T^әshuv•âh′

T^әshuv•âh′ is a prerequisite for כִּפּוּר and סְלִיחָה. Two elements are essential:

1. Negative Element: ceasing עֲבֵרוֹת of negative mitz•wot′ Tor•âh′ (Y^әsha•yâh′u 33.15; T^әhil•im′ 15. 24.4) and

2. Positive Element: practicing positive mitz•wot′ Tor•âh′ (Y^әsha•yâh′u 1.17; 58.5ff; Yirm^әyâh′u 7.3; 26.13; •mos′ 5.14-15; T^әhil•im′ 34.15-16; 37.27).

There are two disparate types of repentance:

1. T^әshuv•âh′: lit. "return" to Tor•âh′. Obviously, only Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ (Y^әhud•i′ or geir) who has previously practiced Tor•âh′ can "return" to Tor•âh′.

2. For all others, abandonment of contra-Tor•âh′ doctrines and practices to undertake learning and implementing (practicing) Tor•âh′ non-selectively as a geir. Tor•âh′ is an indivisible whole. Selective practice is a constructive rejection of the "unselected" parts, which constitutes a rejection of Tor•âh′ as an indivisible whole.

The possibility of sacrificial כִּפּוּר is explicitly denied to the individual who presumptuously transgresses Tor•âh′ (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 15.30-31). This, however, does not mean, as many critics aver, that sacrificial כִּפּוּר is possible only for inadvertent עֲבַרְיָנִים Tor•âh′. Presumptuous implies, inter alia, refusal to make t^әshuv•âh′. To cite but one exception, the קָרבָּן אָשָׁם is prescribed for that premeditated crime called by the rabbis אָשָׁם גְזֵלוֹת (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 5.20ff; b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 5.5-8). A more correct assertion, then, would be that the K^Əhun•âh′, in such instance, invalidated sacrificial כִּפּוּר to the עֲבַרְיָן who had not made t^әshuv•âh′, for the one who "acts defiantly· it is י--ה Whom he reviles" (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 15.30). (EJ 10.1041).

From square one it must be recognized that any possibility of כִּפּוּר is explicitly denied to the individual who presumptuously transgresses Tor•âh′ (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 15.30-31. There is no exception to this and every suggestion to the contrary is Displacement Theology, prohibited by D^әvâr•im′ 13.1-6.

As EJ (ibid.) acknowledges, however, this… does not mean, asBeit ha-Miq•dâsh′ many critics aver, that כִּפּוּר is possible only for inadvertent or involuntary (i.e., forced) עֲבַרְיָנִים of Tor•âh′ . The correct understanding is that Tor•âh′  specifically invalidates any attempt at כִּפּוּר by a עֲבַרְיָן of Tor•âh′  who has not made t^әshuv•âh′, continuing to act defiantly… "it is י--ה he reviles" (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 15.30).

"Contrition, therefore, is an explicit sine qua non for [כִּפּוּר]. Furthermore, it is precisely when the [עֲבֵרָה] is deliberate (an עָוֹן), not accidental, that another penitential requirement is added, namely that the contrition must be openly declared; it must be supplemented by וִדּוּי [public, viz., יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים]—e.g., הִתְוַדָּה (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 5.5; b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 5.7; cf. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.21; 26.40).

Even the annual טִהֵר rite for theBeit ha-Miq•dâsh′ and Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ required that the [Ko•hein′ Gâ•dol′ publicly] הִתְוַדָּה the willful, deliberate [עָוֹן] of [Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′] (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.21), while the latter demonstrate their penitence, not by coming to the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′—from which willful, deliberate [עָוֹן] were barred—but by Tzom and עָנָה. On this day we are to be ascetic (afflicted, denying all else, single-purposed) and especially attenuated (occupying ourselves)—to respond (chant responses) to the call to t^әshuv•âh′. (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.29; 23.27-32; b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 29.7).

Thus, contrition for an inadvertent or involuntary [עֲבֵרָה Tor•âh′] plus the added requirement of [public] וִדּוּי for a willful, deliberate [עָוֹן] are indispensable requirements for t^әshuv•âh′, which is the only path leading to כִּפּוּר and the קָרבָּן כִּפֵּר system, and they differ in no way from the call to t^әshuv•âh′ formulated by the N^әviy•im′.

Finally, the prescriptions of the קָרבָּן אָשָׁם, ordained for cases of calculable loss, to י--ה stipulate that restitution [plus 20%] must be made to the wronged party (man or Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′) before כִּפֵּר by קָרבָּן is permitted. Indeed the prophetic insistence that t^әshuv•âh′ is not an end in itself, but must lead to rectification of the עֲבֵרָה Tor•âh′ (e.g., Y^әsha•yâh′u 1.13-17; 58.6-12; Mikh•âh′ 6.6-8), is merely the articulation of a basic postulate of the קָרבָּן system. (EJ 10.1042).

Requisite to the attainment of כִּפּוּר is t^әshuv•âh′ for the Jew (or the non-selective shouldering of Tor•âh′ by the goy•im′, becoming a geir). Finally, כִּפּוּר by דָּם (i.e., קָרבָּן), including messianic, sanitizes only עֲבֵרוֹת of those mitz•wot′ against י--ה. Whereas כִּפּוּר for עֲבֵרוֹת of mitz•wot′ committed against fellow humans is entirely dependent upon seeking forgiveness—including making reasonable restitution (as fixed by a Beit-Din)—from the victim of the עֲבֵרָה. Thus, כִּפּוּר—including on יוֹם הַכִּפֻּוּרִים—is never obtained by many, because they ignore this critical point.

כִּפּוּר For Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′

Renunciation of Punishment versus כִּפּוּר

One illustration of this contrast is •mos′ 7.1-8; 8.1-2). Although Â′mos ha-Nâ•vi′ asks סְלִיחָה (7.2), nevertheless, י--ה cancels only the punishment (7.3, 6). This is consistent with the paradigm of Av•râ•hâm′'s mediation on behalf of S^әdom and A•mor•âh′ (b^ә-Reish•it′ 18.16-33) and Mosh•ëh′ on behalf of Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ subsequent to the incident of the golden calf-mask (Sh^әm•ot′ 32.9-10). These examples imply that י--ה, being Immutable (Malâkh•i′ 3.6; T^әhil•im′ 89.35), withholds punishment of Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ for the sake of a min•yân′ of tzadiq•im′. This, too, however, is a withholding of punishment, not a conferral of כִּפּוּר. Thus, this principle is in complete accord with Y^әkhëz•qeil′'s declaration that each will be judged according to his or her own merit (Y^әkhëz•qeil′ 18.3-4).

Four syntactical constructs of כִּפֵּר used in the Bible:

1. …עַל (for example, עַל הַמִּזְבֵחַ) ‭ ‬ – 61 instances of כִּפֵּר meaning "wipe-off an …עֲבֵרָה עַל‎"

Shәm•ot′ 29.36	Shәm•ot′ 29.37	Shәm•ot′ 30.10	Shәm•ot′ 30.10	Shәm•ot′ 30.15	Shәm•ot′ 30.16
wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 1.4	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 4.20	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 4.26	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 4.31	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 4.35	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 5.6
wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 5.10	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 5.13	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 5.16	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 5.18	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 5.26	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 8.15
wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 8.34	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 10.17	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 12.7	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 12.8	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 14.18	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 14.18
wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 14.20	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 14.21	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 14.29	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 14.31	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 14.53	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 15.15
wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 15.30	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.10	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.18	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.30	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.33	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.34
wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 17.11a (to wipe-off an …עֲבֵרָה עַל)	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 19.22	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 23.28	wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.16	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 5.8 ("which will wipe-off an עֲבֵרָה in [the ram of הַכִּפֻּוּרִים‎] עַל him")	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 6.11
bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 8.12	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 8.19	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 8.21	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 15.25	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 15.28	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 15.28
bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 17.11	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 17.12	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 25.13 (Pin•khas′ )	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 28.22	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 28.30	bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 29.5
bƏ-Mi•dƏbar′ 31.50	Yirmәyâh′u 18.23	Yәkhëz•qeil′ 45.15	Tәhil•im′ 79.9	Nәkhëm•yâh′ 10.34	Div•rei′ ha-Yâm•im Â′lëph 6.34
Div•rei′ ha-Yâm•im′ Beit 29.24




2. …-את (including with no trailing preposition) – 14 instances, meaning "bring the agent (דָּם) that blots-out the עֲבֵרָה into transference proximity and then, in the case of -את ha-Miz•bei′akh, burn the דָּם, which bears the עֲבֵרָה, sending it all up in smoke."

   While the other syntactical constructs are directed inward, to the assuaging of one's inner guilt and paving the way to t^әshuv•âh′, this construct is oriented outward: to publicly demonstrate remorse to, and assuage the anger of, the victim who was wronged by the עֲבַרְיָן.

   Thus, this construct is used abstractly, to remedy an עֲבֵרָה (in contrast to the עֲבַרְיָן) against [a] another person or [b] י--ה. While, in the former case, restitution (+20%) must be made directly to, and כִּפּוּר demonstrated for, the wronged party; in the latter case, כִּפּוּר can only be related to representatives, and objects representing earthly parallels, of י--ה. Noteworthy, in neither case does כִּפּוּר apply to personal כִּפּוּר of the עֲבַרְיָן offering the קָרבָּן.

   1. b^ә-Reish•it′ 32.21 (wipe-on an עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent [gift] to cover-over [assuage] Ei•sau′);
   2. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.20 (from the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′);
   3. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.32 (from the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′);
   4. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.33a (the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′);
   5. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.33b (the O′hël Mo•eid′ and Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′);
   6. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 17.11b ("given upon the Miz•bei′akh… because it is the דָּם that, בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר"—exactly like the mei nid′âh). In other words, it is the effect of the דָּם on one's sapience and reasoning, operating on one's free will—together constituting the נֶּפֶשׁ—that, by the free will decision of one's sapience, wipes out/away a practice of עֲבֵרָה. (Note that, apart from affecting one's reasoning, physical דָּם cannot get "in" one's sapience or free will—the נֶּפֶשׁ. This is made explicit in the beginning of the pâ•suq′: "the נֶּפֶשׁ is in the דָּם"; therefore, not be the reverse.)
   7. Sh^Əmu•eil′ Beit 21.3 (wiping-on an עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent [gift] to cover-over [assuage] the Giv•on•im′  for Sha•ul′ 's עֲבֵרָה in killing them);
   8. Y^әkhëz•qeil′  43.20 (wipe-on the עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent on the Miz•bei′ akh);
   9. Y^әkhëz•qeil′  43.26 (wipe-on the עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent on the Miz•bei′ akh);
   10. Y^әkhëz•qeil′  45.20 (wipe-on the עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent on the bay′ it);
   11. T^әhil•im′  65.4 (You will wipe-on the עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent of our פֶּשַׁע);
   12. T^әhil•im′  78.38 (wipe-on the עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent of an עָוֹן);
   13. Mi•sh^әl•ei′  Sh^әlom•oh′  16.14 (wipe-on an עֲבֵרָה-blotting [wiping-off] agent [gift] to cover-over [assuage] the king's wrath));
   14. Dâniy•eil′ 9.24 (wipe-on the עֲבֵרָה-blotting (wiping-off) agent of an עָוֹן).
   
   
   
3. בְּעַד, ‭ ‬ 9 instances, meaning "wipe-off an …עֲבֵרָה בְּעַד"
   1. Sh^әm•ot′ 32.30
   2. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.11
   3. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.17
   4. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.24
   5. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 16.6
   6. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 9.7a (for yourself)
   7. wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 9.7b (for the kindred)
   8. Y^әkhëz•qeil′ 45.17
   9. Div•rei′ ha-Yâm•im′ Beit 30.18
   
   
   
4. -לָ, ‭ ‬ 2 instances, meaning "wipe-off an …עֲבֵרָה -לָ"
   1. D^әvâr•im′ 21.8 (wipe-away an עֲבֵרָה for your kindred Yisraeil)
   2. Y^әkhëz•qeil′ 16.63 (in wiping-away an עֲבֵרָה for you, for all you have done)
   
   
   

From the root כפר derive three other connotations (Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English, Y^әrushâ•la′yim: Carta and Univ. of Haifa, 1987, p. 284):

1. The pu•al′, כֻּפַּר (ku•par′) meaning be wiped on/off, wiped away, blotted out.
   
   
2. כָּפַר (kâ•phar′; to deny), and
   
   
3. כָּפַר (kâ•phar′; to smear over with pitch, besmear)
   
   

The proper masc. noun form is כֹּפֶר. The relationship between The "Wiping-on" (of an עֲבֵרָה-blotting agent) or "Wiping-off" (of an עֲבֵרָה) and a ransom is evident also in the money required by the military census (Sh^әm•ot′ 30.12, 15-16).

Compare and contrast with פִּדְיוֹן (pi•d^Əyon′; ransom, redemption), from the root פדה.

Cognates of כפר include:

• כַּפֹּרֶת – Just as קְטֹרֶת is the product of קִטֵּר, the כַּפֹּרֶת was the ultimate mechanism of כִּפֵּר—the transceiver between the physical realm and the spiritual realm, surmounted by two Mirrored Sphinxes touching at three points (the key to understanding this is found in my book, "The Mirrored Sphinxes")!
  
  
• כַּפָּרָה, plural כַּפָּרוֹת – swinging a chicken over one's head for כִּפּוּר as practiced by Khab"ad and, perhaps, some other modern kha•sid•im′ (not N^әtzâr•im′, however).
  
  

Ër′ëtz Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′

Ër′ëtz Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ is defiled when Am Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ commits an עֲבֵרָה (of Tor•âh′; wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 18.25, 28; b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 35.33-34; Y^әkhëz•qeil′ 36.17; D^әvâr•im′ 21.23 and b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 35.33), it causes Ë′ rëtz Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ to "vomit out" Am Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ (wa-Yi•q^әr•â′ 18.28; 20.22). This is confirmed in there being no separate rite by which the land, alone, can be sanctified.

The קֹדֶשׁ of Ë′ rëtz Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ is a direct function of the קֹדֶשׁ of Am Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ unconnected (contrary to many commentators who don't understand כִּפּוּר) to the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′ (which symbolizes the Sh^әkhin•âh′ of י--ה). When Am Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ commits an עֲבֵרָה, Am Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ and Ë′ rëtz Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ alike become טָמֵא, requiring טִהֵר by means of כִּפֵּר of Am Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′, thereby restoring the קֹדֶשׁ of both, Am Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ and Ë′ rëtz Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′.

Vicarious כִּפֵּר by merit of a Tza•diq′

A particularization of the principle of vicariously conveying כִּפֵּר by means of the plague deaths (discussed above) is the conveyance of vicarious כִּפֵּר by the merit of a Tza•diq′ (e.g., Av•râ•hâm′'s intercession on behalf of S^әdom and A•mor•âh′ (b^ә-Reish•it′ 18.16-33; see also Sh^әm•ot′ 32.9-10 with T^әhil•im′ 106.23). Note that the direction is one-way: downward, revealing the Will of י--ה to man; never upward as man's intercessor to the deity. To elevate the Tza•diq′ to peerage with י--ה, however, is blasphemy prophesied of Dâniy•eil′'s "11^th king" (7.25, Aramaic reads: "he will speak as a peer of the Supreme") and a•vod•âh′ zâr•âh′. While the Tza•diq′ may appease י--ה, the appeasement and forgiveness are the khein of י--ה, not of the Tza•diq′, who is merely the servant of י--ה. Thus, the Tza•diq′ who conveys vicarious כִּפֵּר is peripheral, not intrinsic, to the formula for כִּפֵּר. There are other types of כִּפֵּר, but there is no Provider of כִּפֵּר beside י--ה; and it is His khein in affording כִּפֵּר, none other's.

The power of a Tza•diq′ to vicariously convey כִּפֵּר operates vertically as well as horizontally—to posterity. This principle under-girds all of Ël•oh•im′'s b^әrit•ot′ with Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′: with the Fathers for offspring and the Promised Land (b^ә-Reish•it′ 15; 17.1-8; 22.17-18; 23; 35.9-12; Sh^әm•ot′ 32.13); with Pin•khas′ for a priestly line (b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 25.13) and with Dâ•wid′ for a royal dynasty (Sh^Əmu•eil′ Beit 7.12-16).

It is sometimes argued, mistakenly, that Y^әkhëz•qeil′ contradicts these passages (18.3-4)… Of course, it is axiomatic that the Bible is not self-contradicting. Rather, as has been discussed earlier, no כִּפֵּר is possible for the unrepentant! That includes vicarious כִּפֵּר via the conduit of a Tza•diq′. Rather, Y^әkhëz•qeil′ ha-Ko•hein′ explained that while the unrepentant would be held accountable for their own עֲבֵרוֹת, the Tza•diq′ would not be held accountable—see Y^әkhëz•qeil′ 22.30!

L^ә-hav•dil′

The contrast between the Tor•âh′ formula for כִּפּוּר and, l^ә-hav•dil′, the Hellenist-Christian "plan of salvation" exemplifies the intractable antithesis of these mutually exclusive belief systems:

1. For Yi•s^ә•râ•eil′ and Y^әhud•im′ since Av•râ•hâm′—including Rib′i Y^әho•shu′a and the N^әtzâr•im′, כִּפּוּר is obtained through the complementary combination of [a] doing one's utmost to keep Tor•âh′, according to the Sho•ph^әt•ei′ Beit-Din, and [b] making t^әshuv•âh′. Therefore, כִּפּוּר is the product of the khein of י--ה, which He promised in His b^әrit / Tor•âh′, not the product of His Mâ•shi′akh"; whereas, l^ә-hav•dil′,
   
   
2. Hellenists (including Zeus and other idol-worshipers) and their Christian offspring must "believe" in / worship a man-god (tracing back to the Egyptian religion but absent in Judaism) for "salvation," displacing any connection to Tor•âh′.

Note the absolute absence of any of the Hellenist elements in the Judaic formula.

As our books Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (eWAN), Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC Live-Link), and The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) clearly demonstrate, Rib′i Y^әho•shu′a's teachings are in complete harmony with 1^st- century Judaism (Tor•âh′ according to Halâkh•âh′)—which כִּפּוּר accrues only to those committed to non-selective Tor•âh′-observance according to Halâkh•âh′.

For the Hebrew term that Christians perverted to conform to their Hellenist concept of "salvation" see y^әshu•âh′.

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