|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
While coding one of my books into ebook format this morning (2007.08.23), to be read in Firefox or Explorer (allowing one-click glossary & look-up links), a Hellenist LXX Greek phrase correspondence to a particular MT Ivᵊr•it′ phrase caught my attention.
Among many such analyses in my book, I had researched the correspondence of υποτασσω (Greek) to MT Ivᵊr•it′. Of the dozen or so correspondences, the instance in Παραλειπομενων Α 29.24 corresponded to the MT Ivᵊr•it′ phrase in the corresponding pâ•suq′ of Divrei ha-Yâmim Âlëph …
ðÈúÀðåÌ
éÈã
úÌÇçÇú
ùÑÀìÉîÉä. In this passage, the translators had no difficulty understanding that this Ivᵊr•it′ phrase was an idiom meaning "Give a leg up [i.e., your support to, Shᵊ
Use of the synonymous verb ùÒÈí, instead of ðÈúÇï, in no way diminishes the obvious: that the similar phrase in this week's pâ•râsh•âh′, 24.2 & 9:
ùÒÄéí-ðÈà éÈãÀêÈ úÌÇçÇú éÀøÅëÄé
must be understood to mean simply: "Put your support, please, for my progeny" or "Give my progeny your support (or a boost)" – or perhaps even more simply, "Give me your support," "Support me [in this]."
 300x224.jpg "Put your hand under my thigh") |
| Ancient Hebrew Idiom: "Put your hand under my thigh" |
I routinely try to place events in, and related to conditions of, the ancient setting. Once I made the connection to "Give [me, or so-and-so] a boost (or your support),"
In hindsight, machinations of non-Israeli (i.e. non native-Hebrew) academicians and scholars seem hilariously obscene.
 |
 |
To minimize the enormous bandwidth consumed by video data (disk space, dictating loading time), as much content as possible is diverted to the text section (below), with the video handling only the parts that cannot be handled as well by text alone. For this reason, videos are archived in YouTube. Ta•na"kh′ selections are read from the Seiph′ër Tor•âh′ ha-Tei•mân•i′, the ëÆÌúÆø àÂøÈí öåÉáÈà (Aleppo Codex), an Artscroll Ta•na"kh′ or iQIsa, as appropriate, and pronounced according to No•sakh′ Tei•mân•it′.
|
|
Christians Worship |
[lᵊ-hav•dil′] | Jews Bow & Pray |
Despite its adoption by Reform and Conservative heresies (and, occasionally, even in Orthodox usage), the idea of "worship" is an English, gentile / church, rendering that is alien to the original Tor•âh′—Hebrew—text, for which there are only the Hebrew terms:
ñÈâÇã,
äÄùÑÀúÌÇçÂåÈä,
òÈáÇã and
äÄúÀôÌÇìÌÅì.
One of the connotations of "worship" is the veneration of an idol. The Aramaic sᵊgid is rendered "worship" in the book of Dâniyeil, where it consistently references an idol and is, therefore, condemned.
The vagueness of "worship" is also problematic. "Worship" doesn't accomplish anything except provide a "warm, fuzzy" feeling, an emotional rather than spiritual product, which is all that most people get out of religion; an empty substitute that probably fails to rival drugs but, nevertheless, is all that most people ever experience in religion.
In 23.7 & 12 of this week's pâ•râsh•âh′, we're concerned with äÄùÑÀúÌÇçÂåÈä, where Av•râ•hâm′ äÄùÑÀúÌÇçÂåÈä to the tribe of Khit•im′, descendants of Kheit, great-grandson of No′akh through Kham and Kᵊna•an′ (bᵊ-Reish•it′ 10.15).
The confusion caused by rendering "worship" for all of these Hebrew terms creates tension concerning whether Tor•âh′ allows or prohibits bowing to people. Dismissing the non-sacred and often misleading substitute language(s), Tor•âh′:
prohibits any of these relative to an idol,
Av•râ•hâm′ and other, similar, examples demonstrate that äÄùÑÀúÌÇçÂåÈä is obviously permitted except relative to an idol / alternative "god,"
òáã is a mi•tzᵊw•âh′ six days of the week, except relative to an idol / alternative "god," and
äúôìì may only be directed to
Never rely on a substitute language. Texts in a substitute language AREN'T Tor•âh′! The same principle applies to úôéìä (tᵊphil•âh′). Forget "worship" and relate to Tor•âh′ concepts. Pray like Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a prayed: from the most pristine, Hebrew, source extant on the planet today: a Tei•mân•i′ si•dur′.
|
|
24.8 – åÀàÄí ìÉà úÉàáÆä äÈàÄùÉÌÈä ìÈìÆëÆú àÇçÂøÆéêÈ,
(and if the woman doesn't acquiesce to follow after you)
There are several lessons, which apply to our everyday äÂìÄéëÈä, which we should draw from this short stipulation.
was both
authority of
actively trusting upon his informed knowledge of
acknowledged his own fallibility, that his understanding of
prepared and provided "Plan B" in case of his own error.
Probably most readers have heard the axiom "When you pray, row for shore." We find here that Av•râ•hâm′ was a practitioner of this principle millennia before the axiom was coined in English.
One Christian songstress properly spoofed the popular, but clearly wrong-headed, practice of praying for everything from wealth to a Mercedes-Benz. Satisfying our material needs is one thing. Hedonism, pursuing beyond genuine needs is a form of idolatry (because it is the worship of materialism over the mi•tzᵊw•âh′ of
Many people have little difficulty believing in full trust that
And in this realization comes the next: to achieve the goal of aligning your tᵊphilot with Tor•âh′ you must learn and understand Tor•âh′. A simple step to recognize. And the better you come to understand Tor•âh′ the closer you'll approach 100% positive answers to your tᵊphilot. More in-depth details and explanations of the issues concerning effective prayer are found in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)
note 21.22.2.
|
|
This pâ•râsh•âh′ begins åÇéÌÄäÀéåÌ çÇéÅÌé ùÒÈøÈä. Because "life" is plural in Hebrew, the verb "to be" is also in the plural. Lit., the English translation is: "So the lives of
 |
| Karen, Yael & pâ• |
Here it is recorded that
Interestingly, when Av•râ•hâm′ instructs his senior servant to arrange a wife for Yi•tzᵊkhâq′ Âv•i′nu, Av•râ•hâm′ tells his chief servant (24:7), Ël•i•ëzꞋër the Syrian (15.2), that "
Is there a contradiction? The only way we can reconcile this is to surmise that Av•râ•hâm′ said both things to his servant. What might this imply?
The simplest solution is to look at the grammar. Av•râ•hâm′ instructs Ël•i•ëzꞋër that he would send a îÇìÀàÈêÀ "before (I send) you" m.s. (Ël•i•ëzꞋër). Whereas, in Ël•i•ëzꞋër's quote, Av•râ•hâm′ had assured Lâ•vânꞋ that Av•râ•hâm′ had instructed that his îÇìÀàÈêÀ, Ël•i•ëzꞋër, was to caravan "with her" (
If
 250x188.jpg "Camel caravan (Mauritania, allposters.com)") |
 473x355.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Camel caravan (Mauritania, allposters.com) |
Keep in mind that air travel, video-Skyping and photo-texting were not available to these ancient couples.
In those days, marriages were arranged by the parents. Caravans were expensive and incurred considerable risk of robbery and death from bandits. They had to be both transport train and traveling squad of armed combat warriors. It is true that Av•râ•hâm′ trusted
It seems likely that Av•râ•hâm′ first sent a îÇìÀàÈêÀ to his old home town in Iraq, where his relatives continued to live, inquiring about arranging a marriage for Yi•tzᵊkhâq′ Âv•i′nu. A îÇìÀàÈêÀ who is on a mission for note 1.20.1). In this scenario, Av•râ•hâm′ arranges, with Lâ•vânꞋ, the terms and conditions of a marriage between Yi•tzᵊkhâq′ Âv•i′nu and
Only an approximate date of the caravan's arrival would have been known. Nor were there telephones, email or even regular postal service. Probably, their mutual recognition was to be established by the family's usual form of hospitality, or perhaps this was a pre-arranged welcoming ritual of recognition, not unlike wearing a certain flower or color of apparel today.
If this was a pre-arranged ritual of recognition and approval, lesser hospitality might have signaled that some arrangements had soured or details remained outstanding to seal the deal, and she would not have identified herself thusly. Then Ël•i•ëzꞋër would be put on notice to approach Lâ•vânꞋ ready to negotiate further, work out details, and solve problems.
In the Middle East, how one was welcomed indicated (and still indicates) a great deal. If
These arrangements constitute a viable mission for a îÇìÀàÈêÀ sent in advance of the caravan. But, then, what does Ël•i•ëzꞋër mean when he talks about the îÇìÀàÈêÀ
Like the unidentified (in this chapter and story) "senior servant," the ùãëï (shadkhan, marriage negotiator), is also unidentified except that he was regarded as a îÇìÀàÈêÀ
This suggests two things. Human Israelis (Hebrews or Jews) performing service on a mission for
|
|
ðúï (Nâ•tânꞋ) is identified here (1.8, et al.) by the title of ðáéà (Nâ•vi′)—corrupted to "prophet." The Jewish Sages tell us that there is a Nâ•vi′ in every generation, but that, often, not even Israel (much less the goy•im′) recognizes him. Yet, we can clearly derive from this week's portion the only way in which we, today—or anyone in any era, from Biblical times through end times—may validly discern a
Where, in this passage, does Nâ•tânꞋ break out a crystal ball, tea leaves, read any palms, consult the stars or act like Nostradamus, or Uri Geller, and foretell the future? Much less act like today's many purveyors of supernatural escapism from reality, sin•at′ khi•nâm′, lᵊ
 |
 BBC video 2011.10.10 – Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ spit on an eight year old Orthodox elementary schoolgirl, calling her a ôÌÀøåÌöÈä (whore), a æåÉðÈä (slut-prostitute) and a ùé÷öò or ùé÷ñò" (assimilated German – namely, Yiddish – for "detestable goyah girl"); according to mother, Hadassah Margolis (dossim.com/ContentPage.aspx?item=352). They also assault an Orthodox rabbi (blue shirt) for being moderate – Beit ShëmꞋ ësh, Israel  |
Quite the opposite of many of today's Ultra-Orthodox khareid•im′, who incur guilt of khi•lul′
Nâ•tânꞋ neither spewed sin•
The Orthodox Jewish community today is ravaged, globally, by schisms between a myriad of Ultra-Orthodox cults, non-Orthodox sects, "secular" Jews and atheist "Jews": from Kha•reid•
This doesn't even begin to take into account the gaping gaps between the entire Orthodox community versus the non-Orthodox (Conservative, Reform, et al.). Beyond these are the secular Jews. In the Ultra-Orthodox community especially, over the past year, The Jerusalem Post has carried dozens of reports of Ultra-Orthodox rabbis being convicted, both in Israeli and US courts, of bribery, corruption, even homosexual pedophilia. But, worse than all of these anomalies, is the constant and incessant unrestrained sin•
They should learn from Nâ•tânꞋ.
 |
The popular modern perception of a "prophet" is that of Nostradamus, crystal ball readers, palm readers, astrologers and the like; claiming to see into the future; or perhaps a long-haired and bearded weirdo in a robe holding a shepherd's crook and a placard reading "Repent, the end is near!" Beyond this anachronistic, and humorous, mental picture of somebody in a robe holding a placard reading "Jn. 3:16" in the pre-Christian times of the Biblical nevi•im′ (when there was no NT), the successful among these are all charlatans who couch their 'predictions' in such ambiguous terms that their 'prophecies' can be applied to virtually any event around which their 'interpreters' wish to construct a framework of 'interpretations' after the fact. The more successful such 'prophets' would be, the more ambiguously and mysteriously their predictions must be encrypted, so that they may later be applied to whatever wars, evil leaders, good leaders, and events eventually develop. It must be emphasized that this is the goy•im′ perspective of a "prophet."
"As Hirsch points out, it is not the function of a prophet to foretell the future. To whatever extent he does that, it is incidental to his primary role, which is to be the vessel and organ through which [
Virtually all of the Jewish Sages agree that in Ta•na"kh′, the primary function of the Nâ•vi′ isn't to foretell the future but, rather, to elucidate and demonstrate Tor•âh′, which is "
To align one's perspective in harmony with Ta•na"kh′, the reader must learn to shed the pagan notion of future-teller and begin to think, instead, of the Nâ•vi′ / "prophet" as one who discerns the Will—Instruction (Hebrew Tor•âh′) of
|
|
When
A•don•i•yahꞋ knew better than to invite the legitimate Ko•
 145x143.jpg "Bishop of Rome Hyginus (ca 138CE, from fabricated list)") |
| Bishop of Rome, Hyginus (ca. 138 C.E., from fabricated list – see "Fabrication of Popes" pages in our History Museum) |
The most blatant example in the entire history of mankind is the forcible usurpation of the Fifteenth Nᵊtzâr•im′ pâ•qid′ by the first gentile "bishop," Marcus, of the conquering Roman occupiers in 135 C.E.—the false fulcrum from which the pope's entire claim to validity is suspended. (The Christian claim of "St. Peter" as the first pope, wasn't even conceived until well after 135 C.E., and, hence, ultimately dangles from the same self-proclaimed thread.) However, the Authority of
Moreover, we see that Nâ•tânꞋ was also aligned with the legitimate Ko•hein′, Tzadoq. It's clearly intimated in pâ•suq′ 6, and explicitly stated in Divrei ha-Yamim aleph 22.6-10, that Shᵊlom′oh was the choice of
And in this we find the only critera to discern whether Nâ•tânꞋ, or any other person, is a legitimate Nâ•vi′: he elucidated, proclaimed and stood for the Will of
| Tor•âh′ | Translation | Mid•râsh′ Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
|
|
In four places, Tor•âh′ warns about the mi•tzᵊw•âh′ of fruitfulness [i.e. procreation] and generation in bᵊ-Reish•it′. And it is given in [Tal•mud′,] Yᵊbamot [sisters-in-law], the next chapter, concerning yᵊvimᵊto [his sister-in-law] (61.2).
Beit-Hi•leil′ says, A man cannot cancel fruitfulness or generation, unless he has a male [i.e., a son] and a female [i.e., a daughter]. And they say, in the case (62.1) that he had sons and they died, Rav Hu′na â•mar′, 'Raise up fruitfulness and generation.' And Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′ •mar′, 'Don't raise up.' And the Ha•lâkh•âh′ is like Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′.
Hence, a man shall attempt with all of his might to raise his sons to establish the mi•tzᵊw•âh′ of fruitfulness and generation. And more concerning a male child, in order to clear away òáøä (a•veir•âh′; crossing the line, crossing sides, transgressing) from him. As it is memorized in tractate Batra, there is a chapter on acquisitions (116.1): •mar′ Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′ in the name of Rab′i Shim•on′ Bar-Yo•khai′, Everything that isn't laid-up for a male child, for his inheritance, ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, is raising for him an a•veir•âh′. From this it is written, "The man who dies and has no son, then you äòáø" (ha•avar; cause to cross, bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar′ 27.8). And it is written there, "The day of òáøä (evᵊrah; crossing, crossness, fury) is today" (Tzᵊphanyah 1.15).
"Those in whom there is no change and don't revere Ël•oh•im′" (Tᵊhil•im′ 55.20)— Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′ and Rab′i Yᵊho•shu′a Bën-Lei•wi′; one â•mar′, [that it refers to] "Everyone who isn't laying-up a son." The [other] one •mar′, [that it refers to] "Everyone who isn't laying-up a ta•lᵊmid′." Let it be settled that Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′ is he who •mar′, "ta•lᵊmid′," that •mar′ Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′, 'This bone is the wealth of the castle,' (explanation: he carried with him a tooth of one of his sons and it was a comfort against vexation), let it be settled.
And where Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′ •mar′, "ta•lᵊmid′," Rab′i Yᵊho•shu′a Bën-Lei•wi′ •mar′, "son." And this Rab′i Yᵊho•shu′a Bën-Lei•wi′ shouldn't have gone away into a house of mourning. However, for one who lays down [i.e., dies] without sons it is written, 'Weep absolutely for the one who goes' (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâh′u 22.10).
And â•mar′ Rav, 'Going—without male children? However, Rab′i Yᵊho•shu′a Bën-Lei•wi′ •mar′ ta•lᵊmid′; Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′ •mar′, "son." Does Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′ contradict Rab′i Yo•khân•ân′? It is not a contradiction; one is opinion, the other is elaboration.
Rabi Pin•khâs′ Bar Khâmâ expounded: what is the meaning of "And Hadad heard in Egypt that Dâ•wid′ reposed with his ancestors and that Yoâv the minister of the military died" (Mᵊlâkhim Âlëph 11.21), why did it say "lie" for Dâ•wid′ and "death" for Yoâv? For Dâ•wid′, who set forth a son, reposing was used, For Yoâv, who didn't set forth a son, death was used. And did Yoâv not set forth a son, as it is written: "from the sons of Yoâv, Ovadyâh Ben Yᵊkhi•eil" (Ë′zᵊr•â 8.9)? Rather, Dâ•wid′ ,who set forth a son like himself, [the term] "reposing" was said, and Yoâv who didn't set forth a son like himself, [the term] "death" was said. Therefore, a man should do all he can to raise his son and to distance him from the happenings and to guide him in a straight way and to teach him Tor•âh′ and marry him to a woman and teach him a craft for his living; and, as is studied in the first chapter of Ma•sëk′ët Qi•dush•in′ (29a): Rabânân memorized: The father is obligated [to do the following] for his son: to circumcise him and to redeem him and to teach him Tor•âh′ and to marry him to a woman and to teach him a craft. And there are those who say: also to teach him to swim in the river. Rabi Yᵊhud•âh′ says: All those who don't teach their sons a craft teach them to rob. Would you think that he would [actually teach him of] robbing? Rather, it is as if he is teaching him to rob.
And they said there (30a): It is taught: "And you shall teach them, your sons" (Dᵊvâr•im′ 11.19) and not the sons of your sons. And it is written: "And you shall let it be known to your sons and the sons of your sons" (ibid, 4.9)? To tell you, that everyone who teaches his son Tor•âh′, it is thought of him as though he taught it to the son of his son until the end of all the generations. And this is which is said that this Tan•â′ memorized it: "And you taught them, your sons", I have nothing but 'your sons', from where [do we know of] the sons of your sons? A Biblical teaching says: "and you shall let it be known to your sons and the sons of your sons", so what is [the meaning of] the Biblical teaching 'your sons'? Your sons and not your daughters.
And it has been memorized in Ma•sëk′ët Sot•âh′, chapter "he was taking" (21b): Rabi Eliezer says: Everyone who teaches his daughter Tor•âh′ teaches her shrewdness. Would you think that he would [actually teach her of] shrewdness? Rather, it is as if he taught her to be shrewd. Rabi Avâhu said: What is the reason of Rabi Eliezer? As it is written: "I am smart, I have dwelled in shrewdness" (Mi•shᵊl•ei′ Shᵊlom•oh′ 8.12), when wisdom enters a man, shrewdness enters.
And the best craft a man can teach his son is the study of Tor•âh′, which is his living in this world and sustains him in the next world, as is memorized in the end of Ma•sëk′ët Qi•dush•in′ (82a): Rabi Nᵊhorai said: I set all the crafts in the world and I teach nothing other than Tor•âh′ to my son, thus they will eat the fruit of their labor in this world and the virtue will stand in the next world. As all crafts in the world do not stand for a man, except in his youth and while his power is on him, but when he falls to sickness, or a degree of suffering, or comes into old age, or cannot stand in his mᵊlâkh•âh′, he would be found dead of starvation. But the Tor•âh′ is not so. Rather, it raises him and keeps him from all râ in his youth and gives him posterity and hope in his old days. And no more, rather ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, likes the tzadiq•im′ in their elder days more than in their youth. And you find such in tzadiq•im′, that they kept the Tor•âh′ though You didn't come, and ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, blessed them. In his youth what does he say? "They will yield [good] in old age" (Tᵊhil•im′ 92.15). And the same you find in Av•râ•hâm′ Âv•i′nu, who kept the Tor•âh′ though You didn't come. As it is said: "Because he heard Av•râ•hâm′" etc. (bᵊ-Reish•it′ 26.5). And ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, blessed him in his youth and in his old age. In his youth what does he say? "And I shall make you a great goy" (ibid 12.2). And in his old age what does he say? "And Av•râ•hâm′ is old, advancing in days, and
|
|
|