Christian Misojudaized Torah

וסמך ידו, על ראש העלה; ונרצה לו לכפר עליו‮:

The idea of supernatural transference of "sin," via blood or other supernatural means, has been covered in my commentary to b^ә-Midbar 29.7.

Beyond that, if a (self-contradicting) physical-to-spiritual transfer of one's "sin" depended upon physically pressing his or her hand firmly on the head of the qârbân, then physically pressing one's hand down on the head of Yësh"u is no less required of Christians for their belief.

If the qârbân and the "laying on of hands" was merely symbolic, then no vicarious symbol at all is necessary. Kipur directly by means of the vehicle of the khein of ha-Sheim is available for those who do their utmost to keep Torâh, through t^әshuvâh — precisely as prescribed by Torâh.

The following is taken from pârâshat Akharei Mot:

There is so much controversy associated with this pâsuq that I will provide a complete translation, phrased according to cantillation, with explanation of each word.

כי-נפש הבשר בדם הוא, ואני נתתיו לכם על-המזבח, לכפר על-נפשתיכם; כי-הדם הוא בנפש יכפר‮:

נפש was translated into LXX as ψυχη. However, the popular translation, "life," in Hebrew would be חיים, always used in the plural (except as a number in gimatriyâh).

To put it all together, this pâsuq is accurately rendered:

"Because the nëphësh of the bâsâr in the dâm s/he [is], and נתתי it for you on the Mizbeiakh, to make kipur for your n^әphâshot; because the dâm is what in the nëphësh will make kipur."

To smooth out the English a little:

"Because the nëphësh ^fem. sing. of the bâsâr ^masc. sing. s/he is in the dâm,^masc. sing. and נתתי it ^masc. sing. for you on the Mizbeiakh, to make kipur for your n^әphâshot; because it is the dâm that will make kipur in the nëphësh."

The most basic interpretation of this pâsuq depends on the word "it" in the phrase "I have allowed it for you on the Mizbeiakh…"

What "it" modifies is dictated in Hebrew by the masc. sing. pronominal suffix ו ("v") at the end of the word נתתי it ^masc. sing.. The gender rules out the possibility that "it," being masculine, could modify nëphësh, which is a feminine noun.

A priori, "it" modifies either dâm or bâsâr.

Most commentators assume that "it" refers to dâm, so that the meaning is "I have allowed [dâm] for you on the Mizbeiakh…" The secondary reason is because dâm was the last masc. noun before the instance of "it." The primary reason, however, is the association of the ancient goyim, reinforced by Christians, in the belief in supernatural transferal of "sins" by blood (see my commentary on b^ә-Midbar 29.7).

If this interpretation were viable, it would imply that blood was the primary substance, all of it, offered up on the Mizbeiakh. However, this isn't true. The blood was generally poured out. Only sometimes a symbolic small amount was spattered toward the Mizbeiakh. Other times, the blood smeared on a toe or thumb, or even spattered away from the Mizbeiakh, toward the Miqdâsh. This militates against interpreting "it" as referring to blood. Further, a plethora of other factors militate against this interpretation (see my commentary on b^ә-Midbar 29.7).

The remaining interpretation, that "it" refers to bâsâr, yields the meaning "I have allowed [bâsâr] for you on the Mizbeiakh…" This, it turns out, is the only interpretation that agrees with the primary material sacrificed according to the ancient Israeli practice on the Mizbeiakh. Further, it is the only interpretation that agrees with the Scriptural constraints discussed in the commentary on b^ә-Midbar 29.7). Moreover, it should be recalled from the commentary on wa-Yiqrâ 1.4 that the person seeking kipur rested his hand not on a basin of blood, nor even in a bleeding gash in the animal, but on the animal's head – its bâsâr.

This is confirmed in pâsuq 14:

כי-נפש כל-בשר, דמו בנפשו הוא‮,

"For the nëphësh of every bâsâr, its dâm it is in its nëphësh…"

Notice that pâsuq 11 informs that the nëphësh of the bâsâr is in the dâm, while pâsuq 14 informs that the nëphësh of every bâsâr has its dâm in its nëphësh. While this might, at first, seem contradictory, together, the two p^әsuqim inform that the dâm and nëphësh of every bâsâr are inextricable. An ancient soldier might lose an arm, leg or eye in battle and survive. But in every case where the dâm drained out, the result was always the disappearance of the nëphësh. This held for animal sacrifices as well.

This is utterly clarified, corroborated and confirmed in D^әvârim 12.23:

כי- הדם הוא הנפש; ולא-תאכל הנפש עם-הבשר‮:

"For the dâm it is the nëphësh; and you shall not eat the nëphësh with the bâsâr."

The idea of supernatural transference of "sin," via blood or other supernatural means, has been covered in my commentary to b^ә-Midbar 29.7.

 ^י"ב והגר הגר בתוככם

 ^י"ג ומן- הגר הגר בתוכם‮…

Christians who are ignorant of Hebrew and the Biblical status of geir misread these phrases as "and the gentile [which would be זר ] who sojourns among you" and "from the gentile who sojourns among them" to argue that "the promise" has always applied to "gentiles," i.e. the Church. The entire argument for the validity of Christianity and its Church dangles from this ignorant misconception.

Christians quote verses like wa-Yiqrâ 26.14-39, coupled with D^әvârim 28, to argue that the Jews have been rejected by "G*od" and, based especially on p^әsuqim 38-39, totally annihilated – "total non-existence" – and, therefore, those called "Jews" today ("of the flesh") are no different than any other gentiles. Therefore, they argue, the Church has become the "real Israel" and Chrisians are the "real Jews" of today – Displacement Theology.

In this regard, the Artscroll Tana"kh commited an incredible blunder in its translation of pâsuq 16. P^әsuqim 14-15 conclude: "to refrain from doing all of My mitzwot, להפרכם את-בריתי," followed by the consequence (pâsuq 16): "Then אף-אני אעשה-זאת לכם to you: … (followed by listing these consequences)"; not I will do אותו דבר‬, דומה or זהה (i.e. "להפרכם את-בריתי") to you.

Christians quote pâsuq 17, "and ונגפתם before your enemies" to argue this implies the complete annihilation of Israel. "Strike" does not imply השמדה, much less complete השמדה. Further, the plural "you" – not ונגפת – necessarily implies that the pâsuq refers to individuals within Yisrâ·eil, not Yisrâ·eil (sing.) as a whole. Moreover, pâsuq 18 demonstrates that there remains a Remnant whom ha-Sheim warns to make t^әshuvâh.

Christians also quote pâsuq 30, "וגעלה נפשי אתכם" to argue that this implies the complete annihilation of Israel. However, pâsuq 33 contradicts this assertion or there wouldn't be any people to scatter. It is clear to any reasonable person that this passage describes the period from 135 C.E. to 1948.

Christians also quote pâsuq 38, "ואבדתם בגוים; ואכלה אתכם, ארץ איביכם‮:‬" to argue that this implies the complete annihilation of Israel. Yet, the very next pâsuq, 39, informs us that there remains a Remnant.

Christians also quote pâsuq 39, "and the Remnant among you ^masc. pl., ימקו in their âwon, in the land of their enemies; and, too, in the âwon of their fathers with them ימקו" to argue that this implies the complete annihilation of Israel. Clearly, however, ימקו does not imply השמדה , much less complete השמדה.

The answer to all of these Christian arguments, based on wa-Yiqrâ 26.14-39, has always been as close as p^әsuqim 40-42!

(Christians also argue, ex falso quodlibet, that this false premise of rejection and annihilation was caused by ha-Sheim's foreknowledge that the Jews would reject Yësh"u.)

After all of the warnings, pâsuq 40 promises: "והתודו את-עונם ואת-עון אבתם."

Christians also argue that pâsuq 41 – "or perhaps then will be humbled, לבבם הערל" – proves that "physical Israel" has an "uncircumcised heart" and is, therefore, inferior to gentile Christians, who claim to be "spiritual Jews circumcised in the heart."

Apart from the Christians' brazen hypocrisy (claiming to be "circumcised in heart" while everything that proceeds from their heart, reflecting their heart, confirms that they follow uncircumcised practices and produce only uncircumcised fruits), Ha-Sheim is merely likening the hearts of B^әnei-Yisrâ·eil to the hearts of goyim in this pâsuq. He confirms His b^әrit in the very next pâsuq (42): "וזכרתי את-בריתי…"

The ultimate conclusion is declared unambiguously in p^әsuqim 44-45: "… לא-מאסתים ולא-געלתים לכלתם, להפר בריתי" with them; for I am ha-Sheim, their Ëlohim. ⁴⁵ וזכרתי להם ברית ראשנים those whom I took out of the land of מצרים.before the eyes of the goyim, to be for them Ëlohim, I am ha-Sheim."

"These," pâsuq 46 summarizes, "are החקים and המשפטים and התורת, which ha-Sheim gave, between Himself and between B^әnei-Yisrâ·eil; on Har Sinai by the hand of Moshëh."

Concerning the b^әrit, ha-Sheim declared (Yirm^әyâhu 33.25-26): "Even if my b^әrit with day and night would no longer exist, or if I had not set the khuqot of the heavens and earth, ²⁶ then I might also reject the זרע of Ya·aqov and Dâwid My servant, from taking from his זרע the rulers over the זרע of Avrâhâm, Yitzkhâq and Ya·aqov; for I will reverse their captivity and show them compassions."