Home (Netzarim Logo)

Toldot
Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

úÌåÉìÀãÉú
(bᵊ-Reish•it 25.19—28.9) 'áøàùéú ë"ç æ'-è
bᵊ-Reish•it 28.7-9 :(Ma•phᵊtir) îôèéø
TorâhHaphtârâhÂmar Ribi YᵊhoshuaMᵊnorat ha-Maor

Rainbow Rule

5767 (2006.11)

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 Seiphër 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.

Note: YouTube, upon being acquired by Google, deleted our account and our videos – leaving a host of phonies calling themselves "Netzarim."
Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5760 (1999.11)

25.1 åÀàÅìÌÆä, úÌåÉìÀãÉú éÄöÀçÈ÷ áÌÆï-àÇáÀøÈäÈí;

The Sages have noted that the bulk of the summary of the life of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu is devoted to æÆáÇç with its prescribed ùÑÀçÄéèÈä.

Har ha-Bayit (Har Moriyah) from Qidron Valley
Site of the A•qeid•âh: Har ha-Bayit (Har Moriyah), photographed from nakhal Qidron. Photograph © 1983 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-Dawid.

The òÂ÷ÄéãÈä of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu is one of the most compelling prefigures of the Mâ•shiakh in the entire Ta•na"kh. For the summary of his life to be mainly occupied with ka•shᵊr•ut merits notice.

In Ta•na"kh, æÆáÇç most frequently refers to the ùÑÀìÈîÄéí sacrifices. The ùÑÀìÈîÄéí sacrifice marked the completion of the process of tᵊshuv•âh. As the Artscroll editors of "BeReishis" point out, the ùÑÀìÈîÄéí sacrifices are partly eaten by the Ko•hein and partly by the contributor of the ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï. "Why," the Artscroll editors rhetorically ask, "should the word [æÆáÇç] be used to refer particularly to offerings which are eaten?" (since other ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú were burned entirely).

Har ha-Bayit Foundation Bedrock
Islamic "Dome of the Spirits" covers The Foundation Bedrock on Har ha-Bayit. where the A•qeid•âh likely occurred; also where the •ron hâ-Eid•ut rested within the Qodësh ha-Qâ•dâsh•im in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh. Photograph © 1983 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-Dawid.

Answering their rhetorical question, the editors respond, "The answer lies in the similar nature of ùÑÀçÄéèÈä, and the sort of eating which makes an altar of even the ordinary [legitimately úÌåÉøÈä] table."

"Eating with the intention of preserving one's health in order to serve [é--ä] better," they continue, "removes a feast from the level of epicurean indulgence and elevates it into a holy offering. Both the offering and the feast can be called æÆáÇç if they serve the same purpose as ùÑÀçÄéèÈä."


Har ha-Bayit fm Foundation Rock facing E
"Har ha-Bayit from Foundation Rock, facing due East—directly over Sha•ar ha-Rakham•im to Har ha-Zeit•im." Talmud instructs that this aligns the front door of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh. The mosque is south, to the right, not even in the photograph. Photograph © 1983 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-Dawid.

"As Mesillat Yesharim writes, the food and drink placed before [an observant Jew or geir; the obvious meaning of the observant Jewish editors who specify "Israelite" below; ybd] become elevated. The food is like an offering, like first fruits, the drink is like the ðÀñÈëÄéí, poured upon the altar. This explains, he continues, the Talmudic dictum that ëÌÉäÂðÄéí àåÉëÀìÄéí åÌáÇòÂìÄéí îÄúÀëÌÇôÌÀøÄéí—that an Israelite enables the [just Kohan•im] to eat from his offering and replenish their energies is in itself a source of untold merit for him; their eating too, is in the nature of an offering upon [é--ä]'s altar."


Har ha-Bayit lined-up with Shaar ha-Rakhamim looking west to The Foundation Rock
Har ha-Bayit, lined-up with Har ha-Zeit•im and Sha•ar ha-Rakham•im, looking west to The Foundation Rock. The "Dome of the Spirits" can be seen across the plaza (center of photograph). The mosque is to the south, to the left, entirely out of the photograph. Photograph © 1983 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-Dawid.

So, in the post-Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh era, the table of the observant Jew and geir symbolizes the heavenly Mi•zᵊbeiakh (Altar). Lacking an earthly Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, this necessarily refers, a priori, to the cosmic (heavenly or spiritual; i.e. extra-dimensional) third Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh prophesied by Yekhezqeil. The ëÌÈùÑÅø (not tâ•reiph, which defiles) food and drink on the table symbolizes the ki•pur provided in the heavenly Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh officiated by the Mashiakh Bën-Dawid as prophesied in Yᵊkhëz•qeil 34.23-24; 44.1-3; 46.1-16 and prefigured in éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu at the òÂ÷ÄéãÈä.

In this, the implications of profaning of one's table (symbolizing the heavenly Mi•zᵊbeiakh é--ä) with tâ•reiph becomes obvious; and comparable to the Romans who sacrificed a swine on the Mi•zᵊbeiakh.

Even among observant Jews and geir•im, on the feast days we are always in danger of forgetting that our feasting should be to replenish our energies to serve é--ä more zealously; enjoying food, drink and friends but never losing sight of this goal by regarding food or drink solely for its epicurean—nihilistic—pleasure.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5759 (1998.11)

Aqeidah, sacrifice of the Ayil (ram)
Hover cursor over different areas for suggested interpretationsClick to enlargeA•qeid•âh (incognizant surreal fingerpainting by Yâ•eil in 1990 – at 4 years old).

We learned in the pâ•râsh•âh concerning the A•qeid•âh that éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu is well documented by the Sages as presaging the Mâ•shiakh. This included his A•qeid•âh as well as what the ArtScroll editors called éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's subsequent – "second" – life. Moreover, the ArtScroll editors noted, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's second, post-A•qeid•âh, life represents the life of redemption. These two lives of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu parallel and presage the dual roles of the Mâ•shiakh, first as Mâ•shiakh Bën-Yo•seiph and now beginning to emerge in the restored (Christians would recognize the term "resurrected") authentic Tor•âh teachings – i.e., spirit – of the Mâ•shiakh Bën-Dâ•wid.

This theme is reinforced in éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's re-opening of the wells of Av•râ•hâm, which had become "stopped up" – significantly, by non-Jews.

Wells, and water, in Ta•na"kh typically symbolize the Ruakh ha-Qodësh.

That éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu re-opened the wells of Av•râ•hâm Âv•inu, symbolizing the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, during his redemptive life further corroborates the same theme in the roles of the Mâ•shiakh—re-opening the "stopped up" wellsprings of ë•mët – which is Tor•âh, repairing the breaches, in úÌåÉøÈä and re-invigorating Yi•sᵊrâ•eil with the Ruakh ha-Qodësh (Shᵊkhin•âh).

It is sometimes asserted by the ignorant that no precedent can be found in Ta•na"kh or Tal•mud supporting two roles of the Mâ•shiakh. Not only is support conspicuous here, but just as conspicuous in the account of Yo•seiph Bën-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil as well.

Being condemned to death in the pit by his brothers parallels the A•qeid•âh of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu.

Again like éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu, Yo•seiph was spared for a 'second life' (his subsequent life after being thrown in the pit, sold into slavery and thought dead by his family).

éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's first life – and redemptive death – parallels the life and redemptive death of the Mâ•shiakh's first role—as Mâ•shiakh Bën-Yo•seiph. It is Yo•seiph's first life, condemned to death in the pit, much later to rise, succeed and, by great surprise (!), redeem his family — note: he redeemed Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, not the goy•im — from which the pattern of Mâ•shiakh Bën-Yo•seiph derived.

As vice-regent of the world's superpower – Egypt, under Par•oh, over all of the civilized world, Yo•seiph's 'second life' parallels the Mâ•shiakh's 'second life' as Mâ•shiakh Bën-Dâ•wid, the future vice-regent of the eternal world as the appointed Nâ•si of the eternal Beit Din in Yom ha-Din under é--ä.

Beyond these two conspicuous examples (and many other more subtle references), the very titles of Mâ•shiakh Bën-Yo•seiph and Mâ•shiakh Bën-Dâ•wid were recorded in Tal•mud!!! Despite whatever titles, credentials or mentors a rabbi may boast, those who argue against two roles of the Mâ•shiakh contradict, and fail to understand, even the most basic principles of both Ta•na"kh and Tal•mud. In other words, such rabbi may excel in in the pedantic details of Medieval superstitions (e.g., 10th century C.E. Zohar / Qa•bâl•âh), Medieval ritual incantations of Costume Jewry, and its European perspective and culture, but such a rabbi is woefully ignorant of Tor•âh (which is Middle Eastern, not European) – áÌÀðÅé òÄãÌÈï çÈùÑåÌêÀ!

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5757 (1996.11)

This pâ•râsh•âh begins åÀàÅìÌÆä úÌåÉìÀãÉú. As we explained last year, úÌåÉìÀãÉú is a plural fem. noun deriving from the verb éÈìÇã. Therefore, this noun could also be rendered offspring, descendants, generations, or éËçÂñÄéï — the "Tree of Life" / "Book of Life"; cf. Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC).

Medieval Jewish superstition - hamsa ( Ishtar's hand) against the evil eye
Medieval Jewish superstition: Mesopotamian Ishtar's Hand – Hamsa apotropaic prohibited by Tor•âh.

25.21— åÇéÌÆòÀúÌÇø éÄöÀçÈ÷ ìÇé--ä. Although the Zohar is a Tor•âh-prohibited mixture of superstition, handwavium (magic) and ritualistic incantations, its interpretation of òÈúÇø as implying úÌÀôÄìÌÈä accompanied by offerings; with an analogy based on a kindred term in the passage, "åÇéÌÅòÈúÅø é--ä for the land" (Shᵊmu•eil Beit 24.25), attests to the Jewish awareness of this interpretation at least as early as the 10th century C.E. There, also, the úÌÀôÄìÌÈä was accompanied by offerings (cf. Artscroll BeReishis [sic] 18.1048-9).

With the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, it became the custom to follow its úÌÇáÀðÄéú by offering monetary offerings with prayer requests in the Beit-ha-Kᵊnësët. This extends to pledges of (Jews don't carry, or transact, money on Shab•ât) offerings accompanying a•liy•âh for recitation of úÌåÉøÈä.

On the surface, this might at first seem to conflict with Ribi Yᵊho•shua's overturning of the foreign currency exchange dealer's tables and the seats of those selling doves, based upon Yᵊsha•yâhu 56.7 and Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu 7.11 (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 21:12-13). It was at these money changers' tables that the corrupt Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha may have diverted the offerings to their own pockets, thus making them, indeed, thieves.

Their pretense was that many of the vows weren't valid and, therefore, there was no legal requirement to forward the offerings to the Mi•zᵊbeiakh. This relates to the dispute mentioned in NHM 23.18.

de-fence

A system of substitutionary language was devised – as a rabbinic fence – to preclude uttering the Name profanely. The basis of the substitutionary language was ìÇé--ä ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï. The fear was, however, that the individual, whether being interrupted, changing his mind, fainting, dying, or whatever, might utter ìÇé--ä ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï without completing the phrase, thus uttering the Name profanely. (Ma•sëkët Nᵊdâr•im 10b). This, by the way, is one of the reasons that é--ä is neither spelled out nor uttered, being substituted in úÌÀôÄìåÉú by "A•don•âi" and elsewhere by "ha-Sheim".

de-fence

Consequently, yet another rabbinic fence was imposed, saying ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï was discouraged, lest one might forget and inadvertently attempt to say ìÇé--ä ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï and hazard profaning the Name.

As a result of the imposition of multiplying rabbinic fences, disputes arose regarding what constituted a valid vow: "by the Mi•qᵊdâsh," "by the Mi•zᵊbeiakh in the Mi•qᵊdâsh," or "by the gold on the Mi•zᵊbeiakh in the Mi•qᵊdâsh."

Bernie Madoff (with everyone's money)
Good frauds don't look like frauds

Apparently, some who were unscrupulous would "vow" possessions in dispute rather than acknowledge their obligations, under the ruse of giving it to charity .Later, they would recant the "vow" on the grounds that it wasn't a binding vow ("I recited it wro-ong. Neener, neener, neener. It reverts to me now!"), sell the rejected ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï and pocket the money.

Creeping Rabbinic Fences

Combined with "tradition," over a generation, rabbinic fences become regarded as law, and laws then need further fencing-off. What is prohibited grows larger without end until there is rebellion and revolution. What is permitted grows smaller without end until there is rebellion and revolution. The inescapable direction is exactly the ridiculously fanatical lunacy (in direct contravention of Tor•âh's prohibition against adding to Tor•âh), criticized by the Essene áÌÀðÅé àåÉø as áÌÀðÅé çÉùÑÆêÀ, who brought about the gratuitous hatred and destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i. Today's parallel are the áÌÀðÅé òÄãÌÈï çÈùÑåÌêÀ of Ultra-Orthodox (Kha•reid•im) Costume Jewry.

(Orthodox) Rabbi Harvey Falk suggested that corrupt Kohan•im may have used this as an excuse to divert ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú from goy•im to their own pockets. "We know from Josephus that by the year 66 CE the Zealots refused all gifts of Gentiles to the Temple, and they were surely inclined to some such behavior in Jesus' time. According to the Mish•nâh (Ma•sëkët Shᵊqâl•im 1.5), only ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú which could be vowed or brought as free-will offerings were accepted from Gentiles, whereas it was at the option of the priests to accept gifts for Temple repairs or, upkeep from non-Jews (Ma•sëkët Arâkh•in 6a; Maimonides, Matanot Aniy•im 8.8).

"Most offerings from Gentiles were surely given for 'the Temple' or 'the Altar'—we should assume they were unfamiliar with the intricacies of these laws—and the Shammaite Pharisees' rulings on vows would have enabled the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im priests to refuse such gifts, or even pocket the money themselves—since they were not specifically earmarked for ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú, and formulas such as 'the Temple' or 'the Altar' were not being interpreted as referring to ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú. (That many gifts were offered by Gentiles is evident from Josephus, Wars 5.17, who records ''that altar universally venerated by Greeks and barbarians.')

Noting that the Pᵊrush•im agreed with Ribi Yᵊho•shua (Ma•sëkët Nᵊdâr•im 10b), Rabbi Falk wonders with whom, or which (of seven types of Pᵊrush•im), Ribi Yᵊho•shua was arguing.

Rabbi Falk also suggests that it was the responsibility of the money changers at the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh to direct the ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú to the Mi•zᵊbeiakh on behalf of those who paid for them. A non-binding vow would allow them to pocket the money.

It was only thievery and corruption on the part of the foreign currency exchange dealers and Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha that Ribi Yᵊho•shua condemned. We find, however, that the accompanying of úÌÀôÄìÌÈä with a voluntary offering is ordained in Tor•âh (e.g., Shᵊm•ot 23.15). It is in this framework, and the úÌÇáÀðÄéú of the services of the first Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, that it became customary to accompany úÌÀôÄìÌÈä, prayer requests, and thanksgivings with voluntary offerings. This is particularly de rigueur in personal úÌÀôÄìåÉú requested in the Beit-ha-Kᵊnësët.

In Tei•mân•i Bat•ei-ha-Kᵊnësët, an auction is conducted both on ërëv Shab•ât for the volunteering of such pledge-offerings, to reserve a•liy•ot for Bar-Mi•tzᵊwâh, weddings, annual memorial of the death of a parent, and the like. An auction is also conducted during Shab•ât Sha•khar•it for those wishing to volunteer an offering for any remaining a•liy•ot. Similar pledge-offerings accompany other Sha•khar•it honors, like taking the Seiphër úÌåÉøÈä out of the àÈøåÉï äÇ÷ÉãÆùÑ, returning the Seiphër úÌåÉøÈä to the àÈøåÉï äÇ÷ÉãÆùÑ, etc.

Since Jews don't handle money (checks, credit cards, etc.) on ùÑÇáÌÈú, winning "bids" amount only to pledges (not vows) to donate the amount during the ensuing week.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5756 (1995.11)

26.5 åÀúåÉøÉúÈé – The plural number indicates [both Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv and the Tor•âh shë-bᵊ•al pëh] which includes those rules and interpretations transmitted to Mosh•ëh at Har Sin•ai (Rashi, Artscroll BeReishis, la.1083). Tor•âh shë-bᵊ•al pëh, is referred to specifically in Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv and Ta•na"kh as mi•shᵊpât, the Biblical counterpart of the Talmudic term: Ha•lâkh•âh.

27.40 – Speaking of Ei•sau, åÀàÆú àÈçÄéêÈ úÇòÂáÉã (and for your brother you shall work). Just as Yi•sᵊr•â•eil is an òÆáÆã é--ä, Yi•tzᵊkhâq envisioned Ei•sau as an òÆáÆã éÇòÂ÷Éá.

éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's idea for a division of responsibility between Ei•sau and Ya•a•qov, which didn't work out, is likely the embryonic idea that developed into the establishment of the Lewiy•im and Kohan•im centuries later. As éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu remarked (27:23), "the voice is Ya•a•qov's voice, but the hands are Ei•sau's hands" (Artscroll BeReishis, la:1023). "The two —hands and voice, hard labor and sacred words —would seem to be gulfs apart, but they are not. éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's intention was to forge a harmony between his sons that would place Ei•sau's world at the service of Ya•a•qov's world" (Artscroll BeReishis, Ia.1023).

Consider Tᵊhil•im 149.6. Ei•sau's world, as the outdoorsman trapper, was to provide venison sustaining éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu and ( éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu hoped) Ya•a•qov and his descendants, to accomplish the work of é--ä.

Shekhitah
Click to enlargeShᵊkhit•âh

ùÑÀìÈîÄéí is a cognate of ùÑÈìåÉí. These are offerings, portions of which are eaten by the Ko•hein and by the [donors] of the offering. The term æÆáÇç derives from æÈáÇç (slaughter according to the laws of ùÑÀçÄéèÈä; [halakhic laws governing slaughter and ÷ÈøÀáÌÈðåÉú]).

Adherence to ùÑÀçÄéèÈä is implicit in éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's request for meat. The editors of Artscroll BeReishis ask rhetorically, Why should the [verb æÈáÇç] be used to refer particularly to [æÆáÇç] which are eaten? The answer lies in the similar nature of ùÑÀçÄéèÈä and the sort of eating which makes a Miz•beiakh of even the ordinary table. Eating with the intention of preserving one's health in order to better serve Ël•oh•im removes a feast from the level of epicurean indulgence and elevates it into a holy offering—something too often overlooked (la:1014).

Solidly based in Scripture, Tal•mud teaches that the Kohan•im eat and the donors receive ki•pur (la.1015). A Jew who enables a just Ko•hein to eat from his offering and replenish his energies supports, and thereby participates with, him in accomplishing the work of é--ä. The eating of both is then in the nature of an offering upon the Miz•beiakh é--ä.

Moreover, the law of ùÑÀçÄéèÈä elevates slaughter from a primal act of survival of the fittest to sanctification of the meat on our Mi•zᵊbeiakh-table that is to sustain His servant to carry on His work. The act of slaughter is justified only when it serves to further the work of é--ä. To satisfy mere epicurean indulgence does not justify slaughter. ùÑÀçÄéèÈä acknowledges the holy objective of furthering the work of é--ä beginning with the act of slaughter itself.

Slaughter of animals by the goy•im merely to satisfy their lust for meat is not worship, but a kind of idolatry in the tradition of Ei•sau-Εd•om. Ordinary slaughter is nothing more than the law of the jungle, "but ùÑÀçÄéèÈä is different —it is symbolic of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu" (Artscroll BeReishis, la:1012), who was the Patriarchal prefigurement of the Mâ•shiakh. Are we working sufficiently hard furthering the work of é--ä to justify the sacrifice of the Mâ•shiakh?

Commenting on éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's request for Ei•sau to bring him venison for a feast before blessing him, the editors of Artscroll BeReishis (Ia. 1010) liken the Patriarchs to the îÆøÀëÌÈáÈä upon which the Shᵊkhin•âh rides. "The Shᵊkhin•âh rested upon them just as it rested upon [the vessels and implements] in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh. Hence, the food that they eat is like an offering that is brought upon the flames [of the Mi•zᵊbeiakh]." The food fuels His servants enabling them to accomplish His Work. Likewise, the Shᵊkhin•âh dwells in the hearts of His servants today. This is another reason that the Jew's table today parallels the Mi•zᵊbeiakh (Altar) and eating is transformed into the act of refueling His servant (a human îÆøÀëÌÈáÈä), enabling him or her to accomplish His Work (bearing the Shᵊkhin•âh).

The Mi•dᵊrâsh comments that just as ùòèð"æ is forbidden, so, too, Sârâh understood that éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu and Yi•shᵊm•â•eil, who had abandoned the family's bᵊrit with é--ä, could not remain together in the same family" (Artscroll BeReishis, la:838f)

This is the meaning of the prohibition of intermarriage memorialized in the seven crowned letters of the Seiphër úÌåÉøÈäùòèð"æ â"õ. The same was true of Ei•sau and Ya•a•qov ."With this [inter]marriage [to the Kᵊna•an•it / Khit•it], accordingly, Ei•sau set the seal on his complete unfitness to be the one who was to carry on the mission of Av•râ•hâm" (Artscroll BeReishis, la:1112).

By intermarrying, Ei•sau disqualified himself from the oath-blessing bᵊrit and, corroborated by his own actions, despised his heritage. "Therefore, Rivᵊq•âh had to find a way for Ya•a•qov to gain the blessing that would permit him to turn the material world to the service of [the spiritual world]." (Artscroll BeReishis, la.l023). It is clear from this that intermarriage results in excision from the bᵊrit of Av•râ•hâm, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu and Ya•a•qov.

As Rav Saad•yah Gâ•on opined, "Ei•sau was not bidden to do menial chores for his brother; this 'serving' was with dignity. Ei•sau was to act as Ya•a•qov's sword bearer in the sense of protecting him while leaving him free to attain the spiritual goals destined for him and his descendants." (Artscroll BeReishis, la.1157). éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu envisioned Ei•sau providing sustenance and protection with his sword in support of Ya•a•qov's responsibilities for study and worship.

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (1994)
Click to enlargeCosmological Sign: Veiled Bride Israel with her veiled bridesmaids (Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, 1994) converges with the Mâ•shiakh Planet.

This blessing-prophecy may relate directly to the Messianic Era in which, by Nᵊtzâr•im reckoning, we have been living since 1948 (establishment of the State of Israel) and which was announced in the heavens on Tisha bᵊ-Av, 1994.07.17, shortly after Israel signed the prophesied The 1993 Covenant Live-Link  (of 7 years with the "antichrist" and broken in mid-term), when the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comets system, shaped like an angelic veiled-bride (symbol of Israel) with her bevy of veiled bridesmaids (symbols of a mixed multitude), merged with the planet called, in Hebrew, Tzëdëq—the planet that has symbolized the Mâ•shiakh from antiquity.

In bᵊ-Reish•it 22.13-17, é--ä swore by Himself that because Av•râ•hâm had not withheld his only son, Yitzkhaq, at the Aqeidah, åÀéÄøÇùÑ æÈøÀòÂêÈ, àÅú ùòø àéáéå (wᵊ-yirash zar•akha eit Sha•ar oiyvayv; and your seed [offspring] shall inherit the gate of his enemy). This Messianic oath sworn at the Aqeidah was so widely acknowledged that it was reiterated to Rivᵊq•âh by her relatives in Iraq (24.60).

The phrase, "inherit the gate of your enemy ," has been assumed to mean conquering one's enemies. Today, however, a far more literal interpretation is likely. Israel's enemies today include, among other Arabs, descendants of Ei•sau. And what do we see happening in everyday's news? While we turn over Arab populated cities to Arab control, Israel essentially retains control of the gates of these cities!

Is the ceding of control over any of these villages supported in Scripture? éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu, the first to prefigure the Mâ•shiakh, fittingly provides precedence for the Messianic Era (26.18-22). This classic "nomad vs city-dweller" confrontation parallels land disputes in the same lands today. By (desert) nomadic law, land is owned only as it is improved (by digging wells, planting trees, etc.). City dweller law recognizes deeds of bounded tracts of land. Disputes between the two approaches are inevitable.

Tel Beer Sheva
Tel Bᵊeir Sheva

At the stage of Av•râ•hâm and éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu, the family included many armed servants. As they traveled from place to place, they constituted a wealthy tribe of desert nomads traveling with their own cavalry-army of camel-mounted armed herdsmen-soldiers. Commanding in excess of 300 armed herdsmen-soldiers, Av•râ•hâm and éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu were a force to be feared even by city-dwellers who could "hole-up" in a fortified village. Fortified villages, in those days, were often populated by tens or a few score—not hundreds or thousands —of men. It should not be surprising to find the local "kings" of small village-areas giving Av•râ•hâm and éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu great respect.

Beer Sheva, ancient well
Ancient well in Bᵊeir-Sheva (English: "Well Seven").

As a nomad, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu led his herdsmen to a valley midway between Bᵊeir Sheva and Azah City (Jᵊrar, corrupted to Gerar; prob. today Teil Haror, 18km SE of Azah City), in which his father had dug wells years before. Under city law, the wells were abandoned when Av•râ•hâm departed them. The local Kᵊna•an•im filled in the wells to negate Av•râ•hâm's nomadic claim to ownership. Reasserting the family's right to ownership of the valley, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu reopened his father's wells, calling them by the same name Av•râ•hâm had named them. When éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu dug additional new wells for the tribe, which had grown larger, a land dispute followed.

The first of these three wells, which caused a dispute, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu fittingly named Bᵊeir òù÷ (Eiseq; foiled, exploited, taken advantage of). Consequently, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu resigned his claim to Bᵊeir Eiseq and moved inland where he dug a second well.

The second well resulted in a second dispute, and éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu called the second well Bᵊeir ùèðä (Sitnah; adversity , from ùèï [Sâ•tân). As a result of this dispute, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu resigned his claim to Bᵊeir Sitnah and withdrew again from Azah (then Philistia) inland.

The Weizmann Institute, Rekhovot
The Weizmann Institute, Rᵊkhovot.

Finally, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu moved inland and dug a third well which, free of dispute, he named Rᵊkhovot —in the vicinity of today's city of Rᵊkhovot. (The exact site of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's Bᵊeir Rᵊkhovot is unknown.)

If only éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's borders were today's "red lines," this Messianic Patriarch would serve as our guide to resolve the land conflicts in the Messianic Era of today. Until éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's borders become Israel's "red lines" there will be no peace.

One can perceive the Concurrent Village Networks—two interlaced yet mutually exclusive networks of villages in Yᵊhud•âh and the Sho•mᵊr•on (Samaria)—in the blessing-prophecy. Except for Peres-Beillin-Rabin & Co.'s foolish rush to capitulate beyond intelligent "red lines," one can almost perceive the Concurrent Village Networks, though distorted and misshapen by Rabin & Co., on the ground today. Under this model, Arab-populated villages, whose gates are controlled by the Israeli Tzah"l, would be formed into a network of non-contiguous Arab-controlled islands of Arab autonomous governments, while Jewish-populated villages in the remaining parts of Yᵊhud•âh and the Sho•mᵊr•on remain under Israeli control.

Moreover, to whom is Israel looking to enforce the policing of terrorism in these areas? Could this be the primary fulfillment of bᵊ-Reish•it 27.40? If so, our pre-intifada warnings to ensure fair and impartial justice to Arabs in Yᵊhud•âh and the Sho•mᵊr•on, which went unheeded, may have brought 27.40 back to haunt us: "and it shall be that when you descend you shall break off his [Ya•a•qov's] yoke from your neck."

Ovadyah ha-Nâ•vi foresaw our situation (21): "And îåùòéí (moshi•yim; saviors) shall ascend Har Tziy•on to render mi•shᵊpât, for the mount of Ei•sau, and the Realm shall be é--ä's." Like éäåùò (Yᵊho•shua), îåùòéí is a hiph•il form of the verb éùò (yash•a).

As we have noted in other studies, the Islamic mosque sits south of the original site of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh. There's room for Har Tziy•on also to be the mount of Ei•sau. However, Har Tziy•on must be administered (rendering mi•shᵊpât) by Jews, not the present Islamic Wakf. It is Islam that, like the Roman Christians before them, has "changed the times and the laws" of úÌåÉøÈä. According to Mikh•âh ha-Nâ•vi (4.2): ëé îöéåï úöà úåøä (ki mi-Tziy•on teitzei Torah; because from Tziy•on shall go forth úÌåÉøÈä), "and the Saying of é--ä from Yᵊrushâlayim."

Karen, Yael & Paqid Yirmeyahu at Khevron (Hebron) Makhpeilah (Multiple-Cave)
Karen, Yaeil & Paqid Yirmᵊyahu—in 1996-vintage police cap (since changed) with mandatory on-duty M-1—Khevron (corrupted to "Hebron") Makhpeilah (Multiple-Cave). Photograph 1996, Yirmeyahu Bën-David.

The Three Patriarchs, the "tripod upon which Judaism eternally rests" (Artscroll BeReishis, 1a.1000), represent three major milestones of Judaic eras. Av•râ•hâm represents the initial "calling out" from among the peoples and the initial digging of the wells establishing claim to the land of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil. éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu gives his life as a ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï on the Miz•beiakh, and later redigs Av•râ•hâm's wells that had been stopped up by the Kᵊna•an•im – prefiguring perfectly the dual role of the Mâ•shiakh! Ya•a•qov envisions the ladder bridging the earthly-material realm with the spiritual Realm of the heavens—the primary theme explained in the teachings of Ribi Yᵊho•shua.

These three Patriarchs thus mark the three major manifestations of é--ä to mankind:

  1. Av•râ•hâm embodies é--ä's calling of a family to be His own servants as the paradigm for all mankind;

  2. Ya•a•qov, Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, embodies in his dream of the ladder, the kindred who would bridge the gap between the earthly-material and the heavenly realms; the bridge sought for centuries by the Par•oh's of Mi•tzᵊr•ayim—but realized only by the Hebrew stepchild of Par•oh Tuth-Moses I: Moses (Mosh•ëh).

  3. Then what does in-between éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu symbolize?

Rashi, on 26.2, comments upon é--ä prohibiting éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu from leaving eretz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil to go to Mi•tzᵊr•ayim because of the famine (Artscroll BeReishis, 1a.1077): "For such had indeed been éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's intent following, as he was, the example set by his father, to go down to Mi•tzᵊr•ayim in time of the famine Ël•oh•im accordingly said to him, , Do not go own to Mi•tzᵊr•ayim for you are an òåìä úîéîä (olah tᵊmimah; an unblemished —pop. perfect—ascendance [offering]) and [residence] outside hâ-Ârëtz does not befit you.'

In other words, [having been consecrated as an offering to Ël•oh•im on the Miz•beiakh at the A•qeid•âh], éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu was compared to a perfect offering without blemish. Just as an offering becomes unfit if it passes beyond the enclosures of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ' so would éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu become 'unfit' if he left the environs of hâ-Ârëtz" (Artscroll BeReishis, 1077-8).

Tal•mud teaches (Ma•sëkët Sha•bât 89b), "The time will come when the salvation of his descendants will rest with éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu:

"Rabbi Shmueil bar Nakhmeni said in the name of Rabbi Yo•khân•ân, In time to come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Av•râ•hâm, 'Your children have transgressed-úÌåÉøÈä.' [Av•râ•hâm] will say before Him, 'Master of the Universe, let them be wiped out in sanctification of Your Name.'

"Ël•oh•im will say, 'Let me tell this to Ya•a•qov who endured the suffering of raising children. Perhaps he will pray for mercy upon them. ''

"Ya•a•qov will say ''Let them be wiped out in sanctification of Your Name.'

"' éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu will say, 'Master of the Universe, are they my children and not Your children? When they said, "We will do" before they said, "We will hear" You called them "My firstborn" —now You call them my children and not Yours? ' If You endure all [the a•veir•ot of úÌåÉøÈä], good. If not, let half be upon You and half be upon me. If You want them all to be upon me—I have already offered myself before You [at the A•qeid•âh]" In this, also, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu is the paradigm for the Mâ•shiakh.

"But when Yi•sᵊr•â•eil will come to express its gratitude, he will point, as it were, to Ël•oh•im and tell them to direct their praises to Him (ibid.)" (Artscroll BeReishis, I a:998-9).

In Yᵊsha•yâhu 63.16 éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu is not mentioned with the other two Patriarchs. éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu has a special role. Av•râ•hâm is depicted as no longer knowing the Jews, and Ya•a•qov as no longer recognizing them. But not so éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu of the Miz•beiakh A•qeid•âh, the Patriarch who first introduces the Father-Redeemer facet of é--ä, His provision for redemption and blood ki•pur through the éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu-like Mâ•shiakh of é--ä.

The rabbis don't grasp, indeed until é--ä now reveals it, no one has grasped, the significance or meaning of Yi•tzᵊkhâq. To reiterate: Yi•tzᵊkhâq 1. willingly submitted to be bound on the Mi•zᵊbeiakh at the A•qeid•âh, and 2. redug the wells of Av•râ•hâm (paralleling restoring Tor•âh, a primary task of the Mâ•shiakh). This is a perfect prefigure of the dual "goings forth" (plural – Mikhâh 5.1) of the Mâ•shiakh, who would, likewise, be the conduit between the original "calling out from the goy•im" and the restoration of the messianic era!

Billy goat
Billy goat
Why two goats?

éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu had requested öÇéÄã, not goats.

öÇéÄã is the qᵊrei form given in the margin of the Seiphër úÌåÉøÈä. The kᵊtiv form found in the text of Seiphër Tor•âh reads öéãä, with an apparently superfluous ä "because," the rabbis wildly innovate, imagineer and reform: "éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu was instructing Ei•sau in the laws of ritual slaughter, and cautioned him to avoid the five acts which render ritual slaughter invalid" (Artscroll BeReishis la.1118). So much for rabbinic reasoning.

Perhaps it took more than one goat to provide the quantity of delicacies éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu was expecting from the öÇéÄã. Or perhaps more than one goat was needed to provide seamless, and undetectable, coverings for Ya•a•qov's arms and neck. But the Sages are unanimous that úÌåÉøÈä is never capricious. The very mystery surrounding the second goat is of utmost importance. This is the central event through which the A•qeid•âh ki•pur of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu flows to Ya•a•qov / Yi•sᵊr•â•eil the very empowerment that enables the three Patriarchs to be a blessing for us.

Where else do we find two goats, one shrouded in mystery, providing ki•pur? Yom Ki•pur, of course. There (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 16.5, 22), the term for goat is ùÒÈòÄéø, a cognate of (Har) ùÅÒòÄéøý, a reference to "hairy" Ei•sau (e.g., bᵊ-Reish•it 32:4; 33:14-16; 36:8-9). Seen in this light, the mysterious term ìÇòÂæÈàæÅì (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 16.8, 10, 20 [pop. "scapegoat"]) is easily deciphered: ìÀòÅæ àæ"ì ‭ ‬ (àæ"ì is an acronym for àÂáåÉúÅéðåÌ æÄëÀøåÉðÈí ìÄáÀøÈëÈä; i.e., our fathers or patriarchs, their memories [are] for a blessing).

The ùÅÒòÄéø ìÇòÂæÈàæÅì, instituted here by Rivᵊq•âh, became a memorial (remembrance) of the patriarchs' blessings, and of the ki•pur typified at the A•qeid•âh in éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu, flowing to Yi•sᵊr•â•eil = Ya•a•qov rather than Ei•sau = ùÅÒòÄéø who despised his birthright to go, like the Yom Ki•pur ùÅÒòÄéø, into the wilderness.

NHM 25.31ff asks, will our lives be judged as the first òÅæ of Rivᵊq•âh and Yom Ki•pur, symbolizing éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inuYa•a•qov = Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, and the blood ki•pur of Yom Ki•pur? Or like the second sa•ir = Sei•irìÀòÅæ àæ"ì – sending "hairy Sei•ir Ei•sau," who had infiltrated Israel, back to the wilderness!!! Today finds Sei•ir in the spiritual wilderness and, though lost in Displacement Theology, still attesting to the existence of the patriarch Av•râ•hâmìÀòÅæ àæ"ì.

24.63—The Tal•mud (Ma•sëkët Bᵊrâkh•ot 26b) and Mi•dᵊrâsh ' derive from this pâ•suq the tradition that éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu instituted Mi•nᵊkh•âh. That Av•râ•hâm instituted Sha•khar•it is derived from 19.27; and that Ya•a•qov instituted Arᵊv•it is derived from 28.11 (Artscroll BeReishis, la.959).

In a note, the editors of Artscroll BeReishis include a comment of Kli Ya•qar: Although Av•râ•hâm and Ya•a•qov, respectively, instituted Sha•khar•it and Arᵊv•it, we find nowhere that Ël•oh•im responded to them immediately. That éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's request was granted without delay may, therefore, be taken as an indication that Mi•nᵊkh•âh is especially efficacious" (ibid.). We may also take it that

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5755 (1994.11)

23.27— And Ei•sau was a man knowing how to öÈã, a man of the field. öÇéÄã derives from the verb of the same spelling meaning to provide meat for the table. In Biblical usage, this term does not suggest sport hunting. The phrase "man of the field" equates roughly to "an outdoorsman." Ya•a•qov, by contrast, was a tent-dwelling àÄéùÑ úÌÈí

Like father, like son. 26:6, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu told the pᵊli•shᵊt•im (Philistines) that Rivᵊq•âh was his sister, reminiscent of Av•râ•hâm (12.13).

In the case of Av•râ•hâm, Sarah was his half-sister, the daughter (20.12), as well as the daughter-in-law (11.31) of Av•râ•hâm's father, Terakh.

In the case of éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu, Rivᵊq•âh was the granddaughter of Nakhor, Av•râ•hâm's brother (bᵊ-Reish•it 22.23; 24.15 ,24, 47) by Bᵊtu•eil. This would make Rivqah Yi•tzᵊkhâq Âv•inu's niece. Since éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu and Rivᵊq•âh had different fathers, the only way that Rivᵊq•âh could have been éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu's half-sister is if they were born of the same mother—Sârâh:

Partial Family Tree
Noakh
Sheim
|
Nâ•khor
— —————— ——— —Tërakh————————
|
Av•râ•hâm Âv•inu
|
Sârâh
|
Nâ•khor
éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu————————Bᵊtu•eil—————— —
||
Rivᵊq•âh
|
Lâ•vân
Ya•a•qovLei•âh & Râ•kheil

We must conclude that, unlike his father, éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu deliberately lied to the Pᵊli•shᵊt•im to preserve the safety of himself and Rivᵊq•âh. éÄöÀçÈ÷ Âv•inu provides the precedent establishing that Ha•lâkh•âh permits lying to an enemy in matters of ôÌÄ÷ÌåÌçÇ ðÆôÆùÑ. The principle is supported by Shmueil Beit 22.2 and the principle of ôÌÄ÷ÌåÌçÇ ðÆôÆùÑ, which takes precedence even over ùÑÇáÌÈú. The latter accords with the teaching of Ribi Yᵊho•shua (NHM 12.9-13). While khareid•im deny that this principle extends to health short of life-threatening situations, the principle is well-established in the wider community of Judaism.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5753 (1992.11)

Recall that "red" in Hebrew is àÈãÉí ‭ ‬ (àÈãåÉí). In 25.30 we read that Ei•sau asked Ya•a•qov for some of the red-meat stew, he asked for äÈàÈãÉí äÈàÈãÉí. Therefore, he was called àÁãåÉí.

This is the birth of the àÁãåÉîÄéí. Whenever we read àÁãåÉîÄéí we should think Ei•sau and his grandson who personifies àÁãåÉîÄéíA•mâ•leiq!

Yi•shᵊm•â•eil was the father of the Arab nations. But here, Ei•sau is the father of a second level of a more closely related, subdivision of Arab tribes.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule
äôèøä

(Haphtâr•âh; resolution, wrap-up, dismissal) Tei•mân•it Bal•ad•it:

îìàëé à' à'—á' é"æ, â' à'-ã'

The Haph•târ•at Tei•mân•it is Malâkh•i 1.1 – 3.4,
not the Sᵊphâ•râd•it and Ashkᵊnazit Malâkh•i 1.1 – 2.7.

5760 (1999.11)

In contrast to how úÌåÉøÈä commands each to regard His table outlined above, we find in 1.12-14 that, He curses (1.14) those who defile (1.12) His table with tâ•reiph offerings (1.13-14), and rejects their offerings: "I don't want the Mi•nᵊkh•âh of your hand" (1.10).

This defiling of His table is described (1.12) as one example of çÄìÌåÌì é--ä.

Many goy•im remain locked in a misunderstanding of çÄìÌåÌì é--ä due to an unfortunate confusion promulgated in the Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ). Speaking of the four letter Name, EJ reads (7.680): "At least until the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. this name was regularly pronounced with its proper vowels, as is clear from the Lachish Letters, written shortly before that date."

What these poorly informed goy•im (and the EJ editors) fail to realize as a result of shallow study and inability to read Hebrew is that:

  1. The Lachish Letters weren't vowelized, so how the editors concluded the Name was spoken with its proper vowels wasn't elucidated and should be closely questioned;

  2. Idolatry was also practiced, so even if the Name were pronounced that doesn't make it compatible with úÌåÉøÈä; and

  3. Those who believe Ribi Yᵊho•shua is the Mâ•shiakh should realize from his teachings (NHM 23.15-22) that:
    1. swearing vainly using substitutes for the Name was rife,

    2. the pervasive use of substitutes, included in Ribi Yᵊho•shua's criticisms, documents that the Name was already deemed too sacred to utter,

    3. this is the only use of the Name mentioned in NHM, and

    4. swearing vainly in the Name is there explicitly condemned by Ribi Yᵊho•shua.

Moreover, these poorly informed goy•im, who can't even read Hebrew, deliberately avoid the immediately following sentences in EJ: "But at least by the third century B.C.E. [emphasis added; ybd] the pronunciation of the Name [é--ä] was avoided, and A•don•âi, [my Lords], was substituted for it, as evidenced by the use of the Greek word κυριος for [é--ä] in the LXX, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was begun by Greek-speaking Jews in that century" (ibid.).

Ta•na"kh is explicit in prohibiting the pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton (four letter Name). Details and documentation may be found in my monograph: Profaning the Holy Name Unawares.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5759 (1998.11)

Ma·lâkh·i, in 3.1, is well documented by the Sages as referring to the Mâ•shiakh. Interestingly, Ma•lâkh•i ha-navi continues this same theme of dual roles for the Mâ•shiakh, heralding two comings ("he will come" followed by "he comes") of Ma·lâkh·i in 3.1:

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5755 (1994.11)

The Haphtâr•âh section this week emphasizes the prohibitions against intermarriage. According to 2.11, whenever éÀäåÌãÈä (used as a fem. n.) åÌáÈòÇì áÌÇú-àÅì ðÅëÈø, thereby áÌÈâÀãÈä éÀäåÌãÈä, and committed a úÌåÉòÅáÈä. As well, çÄìÌÅì éÀäåÌãÈä ÷ÉãÆùÑ é--ä (where éÀäåÌãÈä is used as a masc. n.).

Ma·lâkh·i ha-Nâ•vi (2.12) leaves no doubt about the consequences of intermarriage. The man who does this éÇëÀøÅú é--ä from the tents of Ya•a•qov… the òÅø åÀòÉðÆä. Thus, declares Ma·lâkh·i ha-Nâ•vi, the living and future offspring of one who intermarries is cut off from the tents of Ya•a•qov.

Is there no remedy for the one who has intermarried or the offspring? Through the Nᵊtzâr•im, yes. The environment in which a non-Jewish Christian spouse can see and understand that following Ribi Yᵊho•shua of Nâtzᵊr•at means observing halakhic Judaism is provided exclusively by the Nᵊtzâr•im. This opens the door for the non-Jewish spouse to reconcile with Tor•âhꞋ  so that the couple can heal their relationship and dwell in the tents of Ya•a•qov. Offspring that are cut off from the tents of Ya•a•qov can be reconciled in the same way as the non-Jewish parent. For all these, there is a remedy through the Nᵊtzâr•im that is healing families and returning many who have strayed from the tents of Ya•a•qov.

Of course, the Haphtâr•âh also includes the prophetic passage of 3.1-4.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5753 (1992.11)

2:7— For the lips of the Ko•hein éÄùÑÀîÀøåÌ-ãÇòÇú, and they shall request úÌåÉøÈä from his lips for he is a îÇìÀàÈêÀ é--ä öÀáÈàåÉú."

3.4— (Ash•kᵊnazi reading goes only through 2.7), deals with the failure to ensure that one's offering is the choicest, a firstling, and not blemished.

There are four other closely related words, one non-related word and an abbreviation which should be reviewed to better understand the meaning of ãÇòÇú.

  1. A more accurate word for the English term "knowledge" in Hebrew is éÆãÇò,

  2. ãÌÅòÈä,

  3. îÅéãÈò,

  4. îÇãÌÈò.

A non-related word which might be confused is the f.n. ãÌÈú, from which is derived the adj. ãÌÈúÄé, which can be either the adjective "religious" or the possessive noun "my opinion / religion."

An acronym that sounds similar (but is not) is îã"à, for îÈâÅï ãÌÈåÄã àÈãÉí, the Israeli emergency ambulance and medical service.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

àîø øéáé éäåùò

(•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua)

îúúéäå áòáøéú

Ma•tit•yâhu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•it; Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhu
NHM

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

5760 (1999.11)

bᵊ-Reish•it 25.27åÀéÇòÂ÷Éá àÄéùÑ úÌÈí

•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua, "Look, I send you forth as sheep among wolves. Therefore, you become as shrewd as serpents, and as úÌÈí (tam; whole / wholesome) as doves" (NHM 10.16, where see note 10.16.4).

Anyone who doubts the presence of wolves—hypocritical slandering impugners—in the world need look no further than the talkbacks on ynet.com or, in the Christian world, the contra-Biblical and immoral stances of myriads of Christians and churches who countenance everything from homosexuality to infanticide.

But what does it mean to be úÌÈí? In Israel, the term is uncomplimentary, connoting naïveté and gullibility. That's because the wheeler-dealer con-man is admired while úÌÈí is an unfashionable embarrassment—except in the more pristine world of the Tei•mân•i Jews.

NHM records a teaching of Ribi Yᵊho•shua concerning úÌÈí:

Then look(!), one approached and said, "Good Ribi, what good shall I do in order that I shall have life throughout the ages?" Yᵊho•shua said to him, "Why do you ask me about 'good?' One is good. If you wish to come into life, keep sho•meir-úÌåÉøÈä." "Which kind?" he said. Yᵊho•shua said (Shᵊm•ot 20:12-16; Dᵊvâr•im 5:16-20): "You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not perjure yourself; have kâ•vod for your father and mother; and you shall love your companion as yourself." The youth said to him, "I have kept all of these. What do I still lack?" Yᵊho•shua reported to him, "If you wish to be úÌÈí, go innocuously and sell your property. Give the proceeds to the humble and you will have treasure in the heavens. Then over here and follow me!" (NHM 19.16-20)

How was the wealthy young man falling short of úÌåÉøÈä? As â•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua: úÌåÉøÈä requires "love your companion as yourself." How was the wealthy young man loving his companion as himself when he was wealthy while his companions remained mired in poverty? The wealthy young man was a selective-observing hypocrite—a wolf disguised as a úÌåÉøÈä-keeper—who transgressed this mi•tzᵊw•âh!

"When he heard that saying, the wealthy youth scratched his head and the saying displeased him. And â•don said to him, "How can you say, 'I have fulfilled úÌåÉøÈä and the nᵊviy•im'? For it stands written in úÌåÉøÈä (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 19:18): 'Love your companion as yourself'; and look, many of your brothers, Bᵊnei (sons of) Av•râ•hâm, are dirty, grimy and starving to death, while your house is full of many good things. Yet, nothing at all comes out of your house to them. [The youth] went away distressed, for he had much property." (NHM 19.22-24)

úÌåÉøÈä expects us to prosper. One of the primary principles of úÌåÉøÈä is how to prosper with integrity, how to avoid being poor, working six days of the week in order that, on Shabat, you've been doing work from which to cease. How does this square with the teaching of Ribi Yᵊho•shua to "go innocuously and sell your property. Give the proceeds to the humble and you will have treasure in the heavens"?

The goal of poverty is strictly Christian, based on a Hellenization of this verse, NOT úÌåÉøÈä. In fact, poverty is a contradiction of what úÌåÉøÈä prescribes for every person. Each person should be so prosperous that he or she is able to help those who suffer a setback. úÌåÉøÈä assumes this prosperity for every person in requiring every person to give tzᵊdâq•âh, according to his or her means, to those in need.

beggar Irwin Corey, NYC lives in $3.5 mil house (former actor-comedian)
Beggar Irwin Corey, NYC, lives in $3.5 mil house (former actor-comedian)

Notice that Ribi Yᵊho•shua balances giving tzᵊdâq•âh with being shrewd. DON'T give tzᵊdâq•âh just because a beggar comes around and you feel embarrassed not to give. Some beggars—wolves—are simply con artists who make more money begging than you do working (and they're smart enough to look destitute and pitiful, not prosperous, while they're "on the job"). Giving to prosperous beggars just because they are persistent and make a convincingly pitiful presentation with a heart-rending story robs from those who are in genuine need, whom you SHOULD be helping. Be shrewd as well as úÌÈí. The best heart-rending stories come from the most practiced and professional con-artists. People in genuine need aren't that good at it. Always check the facts. Honest people have nothing to hide.

First, you should help those who follow úÌåÉøÈä, not those who reject úÌåÉøÈä.

The sure way to know you're helping a needy follower of úÌåÉøÈä is to either know him or her personally, check him or her out with the police, or give through a úÌåÉøÈä group that verifies the authenticity of both—that the person is a follower of úÌåÉøÈä and that his or her need is genuine—before dispensing tzᵊdâq•âh. Additionally, other úÌåÉøÈä considerations, such as helping the person help himself or herself and preserving his or her dignity in the process, should be ensured. You can only accomplish all of these things by giving through a proper úÌåÉøÈä organization.

Note: This is done by Beit-ha-Kᵊnësët Moreshet Avot—Yad Na•ami, the Tei•mân•i Beit ha-Kᵊnësët here in Ra•a•nanâ(h), when you give tzᵊdâq•âh to their gamakh (benevolent fund, for genuinely needy Jews, primarily Teimân•im, here in Israel) through the Nᵊtzâr•im. (Make sure the amount is clearly earmarked for gamakh, to distinguish it from your support of the Nᵊtzâr•im.)

The bottom line is that you should prosper to the best of your ability within the constraints of integrity. But you cannot become wealthy if you are distributing the wealth to those around you who are in need. This is the point that Ribi Yᵊho•shua was making when he said:

"Amein! 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 in through the night door of the Sha•ar than for a wealthy person to come into the Realm of Ël•oh•im." Having heard this, the ta•lᵊmid•im were exceedingly astonished saying, "So who will be able lᵊ-hashiv tᵊshuv•âh in order to be delivered? Looking at them, Yᵊho•shua said, "For persons this is an inability, but for Ël•oh•im all things are an ability." (NHM 19.25-26)

In other words, while it isn't in a person's self-interest, Ël•oh•im can instill a heart of flesh and compassion. That's an integral part of the úÌåÉøÈä definition of tzᵊdâq•âh.

Jews who are unfamiliar with our own úÌåÉøÈä deny this week's pâ•râsh•âh (25.19-33) when they deny the possibility of the unusual birth of Ribi Yᵊho•shua. The commentators to the Artscroll Stone Edition Ta•na"kh acknowledge "The Sages note that the Matriarchs Sârâh, [Rivᵊq•âh] and [Râ•kheil] were barren. The commentators explain that their experiences prove that the emergence of Israel is a miracle, for each new generation was a gift of god to a mother who could not have given birth naturally."

What é--ä can do for Sârâh, Rivᵊq•âh and Rakheil He could also do for Miryam.

Of course, the flip side of that coin is that if, based on that, one irrationally insists that a "miracle birth" implies divinity, then Sarah, Rivᵊq•âh and Rakheil are as divine as Miryam and Yi•tzᵊkhâq, Ya•a•qov and the twelve tribal patriarchs are as divine as Ribi Yᵊho•shua.

If one subscribes to logical / scientific explanations, as we do, then "unusual birth" is accurate while "miracle birth" can only be understood as synonymous with "unusual birth"; not supernatural, and no more "divine" than other births—all of which are by the Hand of the Creator.

The account in NHM reads: "The birth of the Mâ•shiakh was thus: His mother Miryam, who was hishtadkhah to Yo•seiph, before they had set up household together was found to be pregnant by the Spirit of Holiness' Yo•seiph had not known her until the time she gave birth to his firstborn son. He called him éäåùò. (See NHM notes 1.18.3-7 & 1.25.1-3.)

5771 (2010.11)

àÈîÇø øÄáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ


úÌåÉøÈä Translation Mid•râsh Ribi Yᵊho•shua: NHM NHM
bᵊ-Reish•it 25.26

After that, his brother emerged with his hand grasping the heel of Ei•sau; so he named him Ya•a•qov. Yitz•khâq was 60 years old when she gave birth to them.

The scroll 1.1.0 of the generations 1.1.1 of Yᵊho•shua Bën-Dâ•wid 1.1.2 Bën-Av•râ•hâm, the Mâ•shiakh: 1.1.3

Av•râ•hâmfathered
Yitz•khâqand Yitz•khâq fathered
Ya•a•qovand…
1.2-17

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

îÀðåÉøÇú äÇîÌÈàåÉø ô"å

Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

Translated by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu & Yâ•eil Bën-Dâvid.

("The [Seven-Branched] Candelabra of Light"), The Teimân•im Yᵊhud•im' Ancient Halakhic debate, Corrupted into the Zohar & medieval Qa•bâl•âh

At Beit-ha-Kᵊnësët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ•âmi here in Ra•a•nanâ(h), Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, liturgy for a regular ùÑÇáÌÈú concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

© Yirmᵊyahu Bën-David. All rights reserved. Copies, reproductions and/or retransmissions strictly prohibited.

Part 1 (of 5)

For all intents and purposes, a man will love his son only by chastening him. If he will prevent it, he eschews him and [the son] will become an infidel, like we find in eileh [toldot] Shemot Rabah (1.1).

The withholder of the ùÑÅáÆè eschews his son,and the one who loves his son îåÌñÈø him from the dawn of his life (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  13.24).

Note: It was in its capacity of tribe-symbol that this context understands the ùÑÅáÆè—i.e. the exercise of authority, not the exercise of beating or, primarily, other punishment. What this passage teaches is that the father who ignores and neglects his child, exercising no guiding authority in his child's life, eschews the child and contributes to the child's demise. It is also in this context that one may better understand a play on words with bᵊ-Reish•it 49.10, perhaps for the first time: "ìÉà éÈñåÌø ùÑÅáÆè" (nor shall the ùÑÅáÆè deviate) from Yᵊhud•âh until the Mâ•shiakh (Shil•oh) comes'" This could also be translated as "The ùÑÅáÆè from Yᵊhud•âh shall not deviate until the Mâ•shiakh comes'"

Although îåÌñÈø derives from the verb éÈñÇø while éÈñåÌø derives from the root ñåø, nevertheless, the two seem to be related etymologically, in that one applies éÈñÇø to determine éÈñåÌø (Pâ•qid Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu, 2001.11).

In conducting worldly affairs, a man who says to his companion, So-and-so waited for his son, he went down with him for his life. And what does Tal•mud say? "The withholder of the staff / scepter eschews his son'" is to teach that anyone who holds back [from admonishing] his son from his descending, his end is to become an infidel.

Thus we find with Yishmaeil, that he had a yearning for Av•râ•hâm, but [Av•râ•hâm] didn't subjugate him, and he became an infidel and eschewed Av•râ•hâm, going out of his house empty. What did Yishmaeil do? When he was 15 years old he began to bring an image from outside and played [with it], but there's no playing [with it], only a•vod•âh zâr•âh. As much as it says, "And they rose up to play" (Shᵊm•ot 32.6). And its work was like others he saw, immediately, 'And she told Av•râ•hâm, Drive away this mother and her son' (bᵊ-Reish•it 21.10), that what will my son teach his guests, immediately, 'And this thing concerning the cause of his son was very wrong in Av•râ•hâm's eyes' (loc. cit. 11), because [his son] became an infidel.

Part 2 (of 5)

Part 3 (of 5)

Part 4 (of 5)

Part 5 (of 5)

Under Construction

(Translated so far)

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic