|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
Since the beginning of the Judaic year, I've attempted to use video both
to supplement—not replace—the weekly si•dᵊr•âhꞋ (a more accurate term than pâ•râsh•âhꞋ) and
introduce these weekly si•dᵊr•otꞋ to the video audience.
This week, all of the study seems better suited to text than video. Accordingly, I'm not producing a video just for the sake of producing a video. When video seems a good visual aid to illustrate something in a si•dᵊr•âhꞋ, Im yi•rᵊtz•ëhꞋ י--ה , I'll produce a video to supplement that si•dᵊr•âhꞋ.
I've also incorporated the sum of my research findings, to date, about historical events that dictate the dating of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ, scientifically plausible explanations of the plagues (even if the ???-moses and princess turn out to be a generation or two earlier or later), etc. into my book, The Mirrored Sphinxes Live-LinkT 
—a must read for those who wish to relate realistically to Mosh•ëhꞋ leading up to the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ.
For those who wish to harmonize "hardening Par•ohꞋ's heart" with the principle of free will versus predestination, learn how modern magicians manage the identical manipulation – also without contravening free will. The principle of free will is essential (see commentary in Pâ•râsh•atꞋ bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ)
 |
 Egyptian (later Hellenized to "Sphinx") Protecting a Par•ohꞋ between its forelegs. Substitute the face of a Par•ohꞋ instead of the face of the ram and the result is a typical sculpture of a Par•ohꞋ in headdress (alternating gold and blue stripes depicting the rings of a ram's horns). |
The Artscroll Tanakh renders the English of Shᵊm•otꞋ 8.22: "we will offer the deity of Egypt… if we were to slaughter the deity of Egypt in their sight, will they not stone us?"
While the Artscroll editors convey the right idea, Tor•âhꞋ DOESN'T say "deity" here. Rather, the Bible says "תּוֹעֵבָה"!
In the Hebrew, it reads: "[because it is a תּוֹעֵבָה of Egypt that] נִזְבַּח… if נִזְבַּח [what] is a תּוֹעֵבָה of Egypt in their sight, will they not stone us?"
What specifically, about the הָעִבְרִים, did the Egyptians consider תּוֹעֵבָה?
bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 43.32—תּוֹעֵבָה to eat with הָעִבְרִים. Consider, in light of this Egyptian prohibition against eating with הָעִבְרִים, how the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër would have separated the Egyptians from among the הָעִבְרִים – and why it, therefore, continues to represent non-assimilation: havdâl•âhꞋ between QoꞋdësh and khol (Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 42.20).
bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 46.34— אַנְשֵׁי מִקְנֶה… כִּי-תּוֹעֲבַת מִצְרַיִם כָּל-רֹעֵה צֹאן
Consider how Egyptians would have viewed foreigners sacrificing sheep, which they deemed holy. Sacrificing a ram – the symbol of Par•ohꞋ – in Egypt would have been comparable to burning crucifixes and statues of Mary as idols in a Christian country or spray-painting graffiti lampooning Mohammed as Sâ•tânꞋ on buildings in Mecca. In these cases, to•eiv•âhꞋ refers to the anticipated Egyptian view of Hebrew foreigners sacrificing Amun-Ra to their foreign, Hebrews', י--ה.
 Men-kheper-re Tut-Moses III basalt Luxor Museum 0250x375.jpg "Tut-Moses III (Men-kheper-re; basalt, Luxor Museum)") |
 Men-kheper-re Tut-Moses III basalt Luxor Museum 1472x2207.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Par•ohꞋ |
There always seem to be more inaccuracies in English translations; and they are always troublesome and misleading.
This pâ•suqꞋ does NOT say, "I shall make a distinction…" Rather, fulfilling Shᵊm•otꞋ 6.6, it reads: And I will place a פְדֻת between My kindred and your kindred."
Don't trust ANY translation. Learn to read the Hebrew yourself!
How do you place a ransom between one kindred and another? Think of a TV show or movie. What is the meaning of a ransom? Typically, the villain threatens harm to someone unless a ransom is paid to release the victim. Here, the tables are reversed. The villain is Par•ohꞋ and י--ה holds Par•ohꞋ's family and people hostage to plagues until Par•ohꞋ pays the פְדֻת. The פְדֻת demanded by י--ה is the freedom of His kindred from Par•ohꞋ's slavery.
 Men-kheper-re Tut-Moses III cartouche Khat-shepset Temple Deir el-Bahri 250x157.jpg "Tut-Moses III (Men-kheper-re) cartouche (Temple of Khat-shepset, Deir el-Bahri)") |
 Men-kheper-re Tut-Moses III cartouche Khat-shepset Temple Deir el-Bahri 900x454.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Cartouche of |
Today, so-called civilized devotion to "political correctness" would require pontificating sympathy for Par•ohꞋ, while condemning י--ה for His "collective punishment" in inflicting plagues on the entire Egyptian population. But the truth is: evil prevails when "innocent people" do nothing. Tor•âhꞋ requires "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 19.16). Doing nothing against evil is evil! It is constructive complicity in evil. There is no such thing as "good men" or "innocent civilians" who shy from actively fighting evil.
Another misconception deriving from the English is the Hebrew idiom literally translated as "uncircumcised lips."
שְׂפָתַיִם is the dual form (unique to a pair) of the noun שָׂפָה.
שְׂפָתַיִם is consistently figurative, meaning "language," in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 11.1, 6, 7, 9; wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 5.4; bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 30.7, 9, 13; Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 23.24 and Tᵊhil•imꞋ 51.17 and 109.171.
In the Bible, when conjoined to a preceding noun, שְׂפָתַיִם never refers to a physical attribute.
וֶאֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם in Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 10.8, 10, means "stubborn, mule-headedness of lips or language, a stubborn or mule-headed argument." Who would suggest that this is literal, suggesting that the speaker's lips are transplants from a mule, nor that the speaker makes noises like a mule? (On the other hand, some are medieval enough to believe in a talking donkey in the case of Bil•âmꞋ; bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 22.28-30. The consensus is that the donkey spoke in English. Perhaps the fundamentalists "explain" that Kᵊna•an•iꞋ- (Aramaic?) speaking Εd•om•iꞋ, Bil•âmꞋ, probably understood the English through some "gift of the spirit" miracle. 
)
אִישׁ שְׂפָתַיִם in I•yovꞋ 11.2, means "a man of lips or language—an orator." It is NOT literal, evoking the image of someone having lips of vanquished foes dangling from his belt.
דְבַר שְׂפָתַיִם in Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 18.20; Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 36.5 and Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 14.23, means "a matter of lips or language; a linguistic matter, perhaps even pedantic or mere talk"; but definitely NOT literal, suggesting a man with letters or a book sewn to his lips.
טָמֵא שְׂפָתַיִם found twice in Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 6.5, means "contamination of lips"—vulgar language. Speaking in Yᵊrushâlayim, Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu would not have been referring to a language of the goy•imꞋ. Rather, Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu was concerned that what he might say would be influenced—contaminated—by his worldly perspective, unworthy of the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ of י--ה on His Exalted Throne. It is NOT literal, suggesting that that pig lips were transplanted into Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu's face or that he had eaten shrimp, crab or lobster.
וּלְזוּת שְׂפָתַיִם in Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 4.24; speaking deviously, not literal, suggesting that the speaker's lips were hiding behind his teeth when talking.
וּמֶתֶק שְׂפָתַיִם in Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 16.21; speaking sweet words, not a literal, powdered or brown sugar oozing from the speaker's lips.
נובכ נִיבק שְׂפָתַיִם in Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 57.19; Ma•lâkh•iꞋ 1.12; the results of someone's speech, not a literal fruit, suggesting that a pomegranate tree was growing out of his mouth.
בְּפֶשֶׁע שְׂפָתַיִם in Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 12.13, means "[in or by] feloniousness of lips or language"—criminal speech. It is NOT literal, suggesting that the speaker held a knife in his lips to murder someone.
In every instance in the Bible, this usage is figurative referring to language. They are NOT literal, and never suggest a physical attribute of the lips or the result of a physical attribute of the lips.
So, why do scholars suddenly throw out this rule in order to interpret עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם, in Shᵊm•otꞋ 6.12 & 30, literally, as "uncircumcised lips" – as some kind of physical attribute of the lips ("sealed lips," stuttering, stammering, "slow of speech," "speech impediment," lisping or even hare-lipped)?
Except for a newborn baby, when עֲרַל is used of a human being it always implies goy•imꞋ as contrasted against Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ. It's inescapable: עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם means a "goy•imꞋ language"! The goy•imꞋ language in which Mosh•ëhꞋ was raised, and in which he was fluent, was QᵊmiꞋ (Egyptian term meaning "Egyptian")!
 250x307.jpg "Sen-en-mut ostrica (found in chapel Egypt Museum)") |
 425x522.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Sen-en-mut ostricon (found in the vicinity of Sen-en-mut's offering chapel, Egypt Museum). "Sen-en-mut disappeared from view around the end of [Par•ohꞋ Khat-shepset]'s 'reign'" (ancient-egypt.co.uk) Un-Egyptian, distinctly Semitic features. Is this Prince ( |
As a foster son of Par•ohꞋ Tut-Moses I, a prince in the royal household – in which he was known by his Diaspora (Egyptian) name, probably Sen-en-mut Tut-Moses (same practice as Yo•seiphꞋ's Diaspora name centuries earlier, see bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 41.45), Mosh•ëhꞋ was certainly multilingual, and we know he spoke at least rudimentary Ivᵊr•itꞋ. On the other hand, as an Egyptian – an Egyptian Prince of the Pharaonic royal Household – by upbringing, culture and language, he was certainly insecure about presenting a plea on behalf of the I•vᵊr•imꞋ, either in his native Egyptian language – which would have invited the criticism "Why do you, an Egyptian Prince speaking Egyptian, pretend to speak for Hebrews?" – or in flawed Ivᵊr•itꞋ. Worse, as a prince of Egypt, he would likely have been seen by his fellow Egyptians as a traitor to Egypt, as well as to his foster father—Par•ohꞋ Tut-Moses I, and to his own entire royal Pharaonic Household and family.
Another interesting passage discusses שפה with the term lâ•eig, which means "derisive, mocking or scornful"; NOT a "stammering lip"!
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 28.11 reads: "I will speak to you bᵊ-la•agei sâphâh u-vᵊ-lâshon akhërët—with a derisive lip and in another tongue"—not "a stammering lip and another tongue"!!!
Who is to speak to Bᵊnei-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ "with a derisive lip and in non-Hebrew"???
 |
 |
6.6 – וְהִצַּלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם מֵעֲבֹדָתָם; וְגָאַלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם,
All polls in recent years demonstrate that, over the past several decades, between 90-95% of Jews have become estranged from Judaism. The unpreparedness of Jews, especially Jewish youth, to deal with questions raised by rival religions and philosophies is the greatest cause of the massive hemorrhaging of Jewish youth in a great Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ away from Tor•âhꞋ (Judaism) and the Jewish community.
 275x191.jpg "Khareidi riot (2009 Yerushalayim opening parking lot on Shabat)") |
 600x417.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Kha•reid•iꞋ Riot (2009, Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim – opening parking lot on Shab•âtꞋ) |
The cause of this Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ isn't that the rival religions or philosophies are so attractive or convincing. To the contrary, nearly all Jews who become disillusioned with rabbinic Judaism assimilate into the surrounding culture, becoming irreligious or universalist but without switching to Christianity or Islam. Thus, the cause of disillusionment and consequent estrangement is the problem, not the myriad defaults to which the disillusioned gravitate. Yet, to date, all analyses of the reasons for assimilation have consisted of blamestorming: shifting the responsibility from the rabbinic cause to blame, instead, every imaginable aspect of the effect (assimilation). Jews aren't drawn away by external forces such as missionaries, they are driven away by an internal force: unfit rabbis. The Jewish community has been experiencing a Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ from Tor•âhꞋ—caused by the rabbis' lack of answers that are compatible with historical documentation and able to withstand scholarly scrutiny. When the rabbis lack answers to life's most important questions it is unreasonable to expect Jews to attach importance to Judaism or even being a Jew.
 |
 BBC video 2011.10.10 – Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ spit on an eight year old Orthodox elementary schoolgirl, calling her a פְּרוּצָה (whore), a זוֹנָה (slut-prostitute) and a שיקצע or שיקסע" (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 ShëmꞋësh, Israel  |
Since the Jewish community has been led primarily by Orthodox rabbis, Orthodox rabbis—and primarily the Ultra-Orthodox / Kha•reid•imꞋ rabbis—are the ro•iꞋ hâ-ë•lilꞋ responsible for this mass Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ from Tor•âhꞋ.
Of the many questions that the rabbis fail to answer effectively, one of the most troubling to many is the concept of "saved," or "salvation," which poses the greatest Christian challenge to Judaism.
For nearly 2,000 years, the rabbis haven't been able to provide a satisfactory answer that stands up to the scholarly scrutiny of historical documentation and logic. While Jews usually find Christian claims unconvincing, the Christian challenges are strong enough to trigger questions for which, Jews quickly discover, the rabbis have no satisfactory answers. Consequently, Jews abandon rabbinic Judaism, assimilating into the surrounding culture, in search of better answers.
 |
 What Jews looked like (Assyrian soldier left, 2 Jewish captives from Lâ•khishꞋ on right, B.C.E. 701) |
There exists, however, one—and only one—indisputably true answer that stands up to all scholarly scrutiny, historical documentation and logic. Locked into the answer to this question is also the answer to another question Christians don't yet even know to ask: How did Christians become so distanced from historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, to find his language, his tᵊphilot, his people, his community, his customs, his culture and the Tor•âhꞋ he illucidated so alien? Why are Christians celebrating pagan festivals instead?
Christians presume that the concept of "salvation" originated in Christianity, which is a post-135 C.E. gentile (Roman) Hellenist Displacement Theology. After two decades of challenges from the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, still no theologian or seminarian can document a transition to 4th century Christianity from the 1st century Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ—because there was no transition between these two polar opposites (read James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York: Atheneum, 1977)). The change was a forcible deposing, usurping and expulsion (from Yᵊrushâlayim) of the sitting Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ (Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, ha-Tza•diqꞋ) in 135 C.E., who was then displaced by a newly-created gentile Hellenist position of "bishop," appointed by the Hellenist gentile (Roman—war-enemy) occupiers. The overnight paradigm shift from Judaic Jews to polar opposite misojudaic gentile Christians is no mystery; and can be documented no other way. No theologian or seminarian can ever document the non-existent transition. Yet, the entire validity of all of Christianity dangles from that single false premise of a legitimate succession.
Thus, Christians presume that (a) they are "saved," (b) Jews rejected "salvation" in the form of Jesus, (c) therefore, Jews need to be "saved" and (d) therefore, Christians should lead Jews to "salvation."
 |
| Hadrian (117-138 C.E.) |
Yet, Christians never stop to consider that "saved" and "salvation" are English words that no Hebrew and Aramaic-speaking 1st century Pᵊrushi RibꞋi would even have understood. Indeed, even when transliterated into the English alphabet, many readers right now are hard-pressed to click on the links and study the meanings in order to relate to words that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa would routinely have uttered and understood as naturally as English-speakers speak and understand English.
Even this doesn't take into account that the Roman Hellenist gentile Christian Church, born in 135 C.E., didn't speak or understand Hebrew or Aramaic either. They already had a language problem that estranged them from Judaic expression and concepts. Their redactions—in Greek and all subsequent to 135 C.E.—reflect their own Hellenist (pagan) background, syncretizing a few stories they had heard from Hellenist Jews into their own sun-worship and idolatry of Zeus. (Even the birthday of their sun-god, December 25, was eventually adopted—three centuries later!!! Easter = Ishtar remained an idolatrous festival until 325 C.E. when the Roman Hellenist Christians adopted it!!!)
In this post-135 C.E. idolatrous environment, gentile Roman Hellenist Christians morphed a number of originally Hebrew Judaic concepts of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ into the Hellenists' preconceived, Zeus-based, Greek concept of σωζω (sozo), meaning "save" and the related σωτηρια (soteiria), meaning "salvation."
 portrait 129x148.jpg "Graeco-Egyptian Zeus Osiris-Apis ca. 190 CE (Heraklion Archeology Museum)") |
| Guess Who? – Graeco-Egyptian |
The post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Hellenist Church were entirely ignorant of Hebrew and hated the Jews—whom they had just vanquished in war, expelled from Yᵊrushâlayim and displaced with their own first Christian "bishop," Marcus. (Bishop Marcus, in 135 C.E., actually preceded the first pope. The earliest Church historian, Eusebius, documented that only later, a list was compiled that ἐποιησάμην a line of succession—to Rome rather than Yᵊrushâlayim, naturally—ἐποιησάμην Επισκοπος ("Peter"; see "Fabrication of Popes" page in our History Museum). Their knowledge of "Judaism" was limited to stories from Hellenist (apostate) Jews and the context of their own Greek terms, which were saturated with Zeus-based idolatrous concepts. Thus, the original gentile Roman Christian Church was born in 135 C.E., entirely alien to the original—Hebrew—Judaic concepts.
Finally, English-speakers did much the same thing. Being alien to Greek, English-speakers have relied upon "save" and "salvation" rather than σωζω and σωτηρια. Christianity today has grown blissfully unaware of the intrinsic idolatrous nature of σωζω and σωτηρια, just as the original Roman Hellenist Christian Church of 135 C.E. knew nothing of the original Judaic definitions and concepts of ישע (yasha; to save, usually physically and often nationally), נצל (natzal; to rescue, usually physically), and several other terms, all muddled in the Hellenist translations to Greek σωζω and σωτηρια.
 |
 Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ 16The Honorable Pâ•qidꞋ of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ; Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, ha-Tza•diqꞋ at the KoꞋtël, Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, 1995). |
Isn't it time, after nearly 2,000 years of being deceived in ignorant idolatry, that Christians finally take a circumspective look at their estrangement from the authentic—Hebrew and Tor•âhꞋ—teachings of the 1st-century Pᵊrushi RibꞋi they thought they were following?
Israeli Jews speak Hebrew. Though many modern technical terms have been added, modern Hebrew is primarily Biblical Hebrew with Talmudic terms. Certainly, it's the closest to 1st-century Hebrew on the planet and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa would immediately relate to it and be comfortable conversing in it.
In Israel, if someone is drowning they would yell the plural הצילו (hatzilu; rescue!), not, as an English-speaker might assume, the plural עזרו (izru; help!), the plural הושיעו (hoshiyu; save!) or the singular הושע נא (hosha na; save, prithee!). Connotation, usage and intent don't always transfer accurately from one language to another, much less via a third language (Hellenist Greek) steeped in pagan connotations, usage and intent. There is no substitute for relating directly, in Hebrew, to the authentic—Hebrew and Tor•âhꞋ—teachings of the 1st-century Pᵊrushi RibꞋi.
The consequences of this awakening are severe. In the passage cited at the beginning of this article, י--ה promises to נצל (natzal; rescue) the Israel from the goy•imꞋ and then to go•eilꞋ the wrongs done to the Israel by the goy•imꞋ.
This same promise is repeated countless times throughout the Bible. Christians believe their NT is perfect, totally unaware that even Christian scholars and the Christian Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible recognize that there are thousands of documented redactions in the NT. This is indisputable hard evidence that the canard, which asserts that these promises were taken away from Israel and transplanted to goy•imꞋ, dangles solely from the thousands of idolatrous syncretisms redacted into the NT by the post-135 C.E. Roman Hellenist Christian Church. Christians are blissfully unaware that they believe neither in the Bible known by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa nor the authentic teachings of the 1st-century Pᵊrushi RibꞋi. Rather, Christians believe in post-135 C.E. Roman Hellenist idolaters who syncretized a few stories from apostate Hellenist Jews into their paganism and redacted all subsequent mss. of the developing NT to conform to their pagan beliefs.
When trying to distinguish Christians from "Messianics"/Jews, Jews are typically simplistically racist and seriously misled as a result of relying on Jews – who claim to know, but in fact don't know, Christianity. The result is disastrous: defining, inter alia, Khaba"d as Christian while allowing numerous Christians of maternal "Jewish" descent to glibly avoid being detected. However, it's a simple matter for an informed Jew to identify a Christian, by verifying
Belief that the Καινής Διαθήκης is Bible and-or
Belief in the divinity of Jesus of the Καινής Διαθήκης —by WHATEVER name
When Jews "assume" that the 1st-century Tor•âhꞋ-teaching Pharisee RibꞋi is the same as, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, the Roman Hellenist man-god, Jesus of the Christian NT they not only slander a Tor•âhꞋ RibꞋi, they confirm the core Christian deception. Jews who do confirm this core, pivotal, Christian deception, including most "anti-missionaries" and many Orthodox rabbis, are blissfully and unknowingly preaching the most basic and pivotal Christian doctrine!
Jews who don't know these things aren't prepared to deal with Christian polemics. The rabbis still have no answer and—until they adopt the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ approach and methodology—they never will. Rabbis who aren't teaching these things to Jews, preparing Jews to deal with the world, aren't kâ•sheirꞋ.
In order to enable quick updating to incorporate the latest research, this content has been moved to a central יְצִיאָה page: 
Casting scientific light on the 10 Smitings illuminates a naturally-related chain of natural events. When these natural events are considered within their appropriate seasons, they are found to be in their natural order; and to have occurred beginning in spring and culminating the next spring.
 |
 10 Mak•ōtꞋ pinned to the ancient Hebrew calendar |
) |
| "Red Tide" freshwater Euglenophyte algal bloom scum, Univ. of Arkansas, (fig. 8) |
 |
| Red Tide freshwater algal bloom scum, Swannie Ponds, Dundee, Scotland |
Since some "experts" ignorantly claim that red algal blooms occur only in saltwater oceans, and the Nile is freshwater, these well-documented photos document red algal blooms in freshwater.
"Freshwater harmful algal bloom taxa are comprised of algae that either create health hazards for humans and animals, or degrade aesthetic and recreational values through the deterioration of water quality…
"Euglenophytes can be found in fresh, estuarine, and marine waters and are most common in slow moving or still waters with high nutrient concentrations. Blooms are most likely to occur during summer in freshwater ponds and other systems that receive nutrient-rich waste or runoff, and many species of euglenophytes are considered indicators of organic water pollution. Euglenophyte blooms may color the water green, reddish brown, or red and are generally not toxic, but some freshwater euglenophytes have been implicated in fish kills presumably due to the production of an ichthyotoxic compound. The toxins produced by euglenoids are only recently being studied, but have been found to exhibit a range of biology activity, including necrotoxicity and hemolysis."
"Under certain conditions, algae cells float at the surface of water and form a layer, or “scum.” … Scums come in a variety of colors – yellow, green, bluish green or even red. … Red euglenoids are often responsible for red scums on freshwater ponds (Figure 8). Recent research has shown that two Euglena species, Euglena sanguinea and E. granulata, are capable of producing toxins that can kill fish. Apparently, this occurs only rarely. Another type of freshwater red algae (Planktothrix spp.) is known to produce toxins, and it does not form a scum. It is found infrequently at mid-depths in large lakes in early spring. A commonly found genus of freshwater red algae is called “Haematococcus,” and it grows in bird baths (Figure 9)."
"[A] high loading of nutrients into freshwater bodies causes eutrophication. Invariably this is an increase (or bloom) of algae…
"The "red tide" is a phrase that has been applied to a phenomenon when a planktonic organism (often a dinoflagellate) blooms in huge densities such that the water goes red. In most cases the organism is highly poisonous and soon can obliterate the life in the lake. The poison is a liver toxin but it is unclear why teh [sic] dinoflagellate produces this.
"Red tides will occur in lakes but are not as common as the blue-green algal bloom. They are associated more with brackish water"
Little in known how heavily the headwaters of the Nile were subjected to falling ash from perhaps months of preliminary eruptions, preceding the cataclysmic eruption, of the island of Kallista (modern Santorini). Falling ash may have caused extensive eutrophication in the headwaters of the Nile, becoming increasingly concentrated as the debris collected into the main artery of the Nile.
The narrator of Shᵊm•ōtꞋ takes for granted the reader's familiarity with a number of important factors that are lost to modern readers. The Hebrews were located in the Delta, many miles downstream (north, the Nile flows opposite to other rivers) from most Egyptians and particularly from the capital at that time, Wasset (renamed Thebes by the Greeks and, even later, Luxor). Any effects noted in Wasset would reach the Delta only days later, and might simply disappear before traveling that far downstream.
Those who insist on a literal understanding of blood, beside being stuck in a medieval superstitious magic mindset, aren't aware of the relationship of the Hebrew word דָּם to אָדֹם and אֱדוֹם, and how דָּם can be used in the figurative sense of blood-red—which is the case in this pâ•suqꞋ.
 |
| Pfiesteria piscicida algae (Pyrrophyta; dinoflagellate protists), planozygote. Scale bar 10 µm |
In fact, there is a long history of "Red Tide" in the Nile. There is no reason not to assume that the narrator of the ten lashes or strikes (corrupted to the misleading "plagues") referred to a particularly virulent outbreak of Nile "Red Tide."
Still a member of the royal household, and schooled in all Egyptian knowledge (the Nile being the central focus of Egyptian knowledge), Prince Moses would have sought, and received, reports of "Red Tide" fish kills upstream (to the south), allowing him to be the first to announced that י--ה had struck the river. Seven days later, as the red tide was brought north to Wasset, the Nile turned red. The Egyptian necromancers also knew to predict red water further downriver, and to dig near the river to drink.
The waters always contain Pfiesteria (phylum Pyrrophyta; dinoflagellate protists). The conditions that allow Pfiesteria to become a problem, however, occur only in years that have unusually hot, dry and long summers and peaks at the zenith of annual Nile flood. The first symptoms are dead fish in poorly flushed upstream ponds. This period, the Middle Kingdom was characterized by low annual floods, implying Red Tide conditions. The Admonitions of Ipuwer, speaking of Middle Kingdom, describe the Nile: "the river is blood."
Some have speculated that, for some reason, the Nile waters were thick with red silt. However, the annual floods carry Nile Valley black silt, not desert red silt.
Nile "Red Tide," occurring around the first couple of weeks in the ninth month of the modern western calendar, was probably caused by an algae called Pfiesteria piscicida, a dinoflagellate common in freshwater habitats, which causes ulcers on fish. As the algae matures from a flagellate, it turns red, making the water turn red.
 |
| Bufo toad |
The fish kill of the Red Tide eliminated the greatest predator of tadpoles. Without many predators, nearly all of the annual huge numbers of tadpoles matured into Bufo toads.
The Egyptian necromancers duplicated this "miracle." Did the Egyptian necromancers have "supernatural powers" too? Is this a superstitious fairy tale or did the Egyptian necromancers also know how to take a bucket with a few little fish (really carefully selected tadpoles) and, in a few days, produce the "miracle" of toads?
 495x312.jpg "Culicoides (biting midge)") |
| Magnified Culicoides (biting midge, sandfly). Size of adult female is about 1½ mm. |
In modern Hebrew, kin•imꞋ refers to lice. However, the insect that was both indigenous to ancient Egypt and fits the description in Scripture is the Culicoides, biting midge.
Egyptian sorcerers were unable to duplicate this demonstration, probably because when they brought an urn of river water containing, culidoides pupae that turn into midges within 2-3 days; the pupae that had been in river had already matured by the time Egyptian sorcerers collected their water. So, their urns didn't produce any midges.
Culicoides canithorax lay "their eggs are laid in water, and the bright red larvae are usually wholly aquatic' The adults are common in swarms in early spring and in late autumn. The biting midges are often very annoying to humans in sandy regions. These sand flies, or punkies, are the smallest bloodsucking insects known, some being no larger than 1 mm (0.04 in) long." (Encarta)
Some Culicoides species go from animal to animal, and some bite humans too, causing a severe itch (e.g. Australians know about "sandflies"). Many Culicoides thrive around stagnant water with decaying vegetation, fungi (e.g. dead Pfiesteria) and animal matter. The conditions that year were ideal for a record swarm. Unlimited food and a lack of predators would produce plague numbers of adults. Culicoides flight is limited to about 50 metres. The Delta, not a sandy region and well north (downstream) of the 'Red Tide' and its aftermath, wasn't greatly affected. Culicoides are the vector for African horse sickness and Blue-tongue.
 Diptera dot info (Mucha Fero) 350x210.jpg "horsefly Haematopota pluvialis (female)") |
| Horsefly, female (Diptera Tabanidae Haematopota pluvialis) – females (only) are voracious blood-feeders and vector for anthrax bacteria and surra protozoa; infecting humans, sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys, horses, camels, etc. (photo: 2011, Mucha Fero, diptera.info) |
 wiki 210x315.jpg "stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans)") |
| Stable fly (Diptera Muscidae Stomoxys calcitrans, ≈10mm long) – biting blood-feeders; vector for Glanders (Farcy) & Anthrax |
Those reliant on "religious" beliefs (as opposed to the logic of the Creator) probably simplistically assumed that the flies swarmed one house, supernaturally skipped the house of the Hebrews living next door, etc. However, most of the Hebrews lived separately in the north, in the Delta.
These flies are indigenous to areas with cattle and livestock. They lay up to 500 eggs, more than any other fly. A prodigious %age of the eggs would have survived that year in the areas of abundant fish and toad carcasses. While this would have caused local explosions in the size of their swarms, their flying range is limited to ≈1 kilometer. Because the Red Tide, dead fish and resulting carcasses of Bufo toads may not have reached as far north as the Delta, the resulting swarms of these biting flies and the diseases they spread may not have been attracted that far north.
In the Biblical era, contemporary science wasn't aware of protozoa, bacteria, spores or vectors. The mostly-Egyptians were simply vexed by huge swarms of voracious, blood-feeding biting flies that followed large swarms (ghosts) of biting gnats. As gnats and biting flies are both vectors of a number of diseases, epidemics were inevitable.
 |
| Glanders (Farcy) infected horse in India, 2010 (archive.indianexpress.com) |
In Solipeds, viruses for Glanders/Farcy as well as Blue Tongue and African Horse Sickness, are spread by the same insect vector: a midge called Culicoides. Humans are bitten but do not get the diseases—except for Glanders/Farcy, which is transmitted by contact with infected animals.
Anthrax is an "acutely contagious and deadly disease… usually not spread from live animal to live animal, except by flies that bite a sick animal and then bite a healthy one. It is typically transmitted via spores found in carcasses of animals that died of the disease."
Surra, vectored by Diptera Tabanidae Horse Flies, infects humans, sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys, horses, camels, etc.
אֲבַעְבֻּעֹ֖ת) שְׁחִין |
Following the scourges of dead fish on the shores of the Nile resulting from the Red Tide, then dead toads and finally all manner of dead herd and work animals throughout the land, an overabundance Mediterranean black rat (Rattus rattus), with the concomitant Bubonic Plague vector Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopsis), was inevitable.
One of the first predators of rats is cats—and, judging from Egyptian tombs, practically every Egyptian home had a clowder of cats. Thus, cats brought the rat fleas into Egyptian homes, striking the homes with Bubonic Plague.
While Bubonic Plague was called the "Black Death", there are three presentations of Y. pestis. Technically, bubonic plague presents as bubos (probable origins of "boo-boos"), swelling of the lymph nodes, particularly in the groin, armpits and neck. When Y. pestis invades the bloodstream, it becomes Septicemic Plague—which is the "Black Death". When Y. pestis invades the lungs, it is Pneumonic Plague.
 |
| Glanders/Farcy |
Another disease which looked similar was vectored by the recent scourge of midges: Glanders boils vectored by the midge (bacterium Pseudomonas mallei), which infects horses, donkeys, mules, sheep and pigs—from which humans in direct contact with infected animals may become infected.
The Glanders boil in this photo was the result of Japanese biological warfare.
 |
| Hail northern Israel 2014.11 (ayalim.org) |
Typically in the eastern Mediterranean, hail is a winter phenomenon accompanying a lightningstorm with resultant thunder (a more scientifically correct way of describing it). In Egypt, prevailing winds bring thunderstorms down from the Northwestern Mediterranean across the northern Delta—seldom reaching as far south as Inebu-hedj (later Memphis, today's Cairo area). Hail late in winter destroys the early ripe barley as well as flax in stalk and other immature crops.
| |
This is the essence of the excuse given by Mosh•ëhꞋ – "I'm from the same Egyptian background and household of Par•ohꞋ, just like them!" – in Shᵊm•otꞋ 6.12, 30:
וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתַיִם
 temple Beit el-Wali, N Nubia (Oriental Inst, UChicago 0350x209.jpg "Merkavah Archer (Ra-Moses) temple wall of Beit el-Wali, N Nubia (Oriental Inst, UChicago; photo: Roderick Dailey)") |
 temple Beit el-Wali, N Nubia (Oriental Inst, UChicago 1340x800.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Throughout his early life (c BCE 1633-1553), this is what adopted-Egyptian Royal Pharaonic Prince ?-moses looked like in the Royal Pharaonic Palace Household of Par•ohꞋ ?-moses . (photo: Roderick Dailey, 2011). |
"I speak the language of the uncircumcised, the goy•imꞋ Egyptians" – i.e. "How can I represent Hebrews and my Hebrew family to Egyptians when I'm halting and not fluent in Hebrew and I'm speaking Egyptian to my own Egyptian family?"
Theologians of all persuasions have, for millennia, been blind to all but the most simplistic of ramifications of Moses having been adopted into the Royal Pharonic household and Palace at the behest of Par•ohꞋ's Princess-daughter – as a Royal Egyptian Pharaonic Prince. Moses was brought up in the Royal Palace, speaking Egyptian (not Hebrew nor Arabic, much less English), educated in all of the Egyptian religion, with Royal Pharaonic access to all of the secret priestly magical arts, steeped in Egyptian culture, dress and grooming — and an Egyptian surname: □-Moses.
The key here is the -moses surname of the Royal Household of the reigning Par•ohꞋ, from whence the Royal Princess – not his Hebrew parents! – conferred her Egyptian Pharaonic family surname upon him.
Whether this was the Royal Pharaonic Household of Neb-pehti-Ra Yâh-moses, who seems to have described the eruption of Santorini during his lifetime, or his grandson, Tut-moses Sr. (each had a daughter princess who could satisfy Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 2.5), will likely be clarified by 14C datings of the various Egyptian Dynasties.
One of the two Princess daughters of Par•ohꞋ Neb-pehti-Ra Yâh-moses, founder of New Kingdom / 18th Dynasty.
Recent 14C datings of Egyptian dynasties seem to point to one of these two princesses (most likely, the first) as being the Royal Pharaonic princess of Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 2.5. This is further corroborated by the emphasis and preference given by Mōsh•ëhꞋ to the Name י‑ה (in contrast to Tut), the reference, in Di•vᵊr•eiꞋ-ha-Yâm•imꞋ ÂlꞋëph 4.18, to בִּתְיָה בַת-פַּרְעֹה and its amplification by the note in the rabbinic Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ, Shᵊm•ōtꞋ Rab•âhꞋ 1.26. Both of these references to Yah link the princess of Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 2.5 to the name of their Egyptian lunar (-calendar) god Yah.
Combined with the name Moses, these factors point compellingly to Par•ohꞋ Neb-pehti-Ra Yâh-moses as the father of the princess in Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 2.5.
This would imply that the subsequent Par•ohꞋ, Amun-hotep Sr., who is thought to have had one son, Amun-em-hat, who died while still very young due to…???, was the Par•ohꞋ of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ!
These two daughter princesses of Par•ohꞋ Neb-pehti-Ra Yâh-moses were:
Or the Princess daughter of Par•ohꞋ Neb-pehti-Ra Yâh-moses's grandson: Tut-moses Sr. – the Royal Pharaonic Princess Tut-moses Khat-shepset.
Mōsh•ëhꞋ's education included all of the secret knowledge of the Egyptian priests, accessible only to themselves and the royal house. He dressed like an Egyptian (being recognized as such by the daughters of YiꞋtᵊrō), carried Egyptian weapons, walked like an Egyptian as we saw in last week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ—and, now we find, talked like an Egyptian. His first language was an uncircumcised language—Egyptian, not Hebrew.
 Khat-shepset mummy 250x165.jpg "Mummy: Queen Paroh (BCE1504-1483) Khat-shepset (Hatshepsut)") |
 Khat-shepset mummy 461x305.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Mummy of Queen-Pharaoh Khat-shepset (Hatshepsut), identified by matching a lost molar from the wooden canopic box with her name on it to a gap among her teeth plus DNA tests also suggest a close familial relationship between that mummy and the mummy of Khat-shepset's grandmother, Amos Nephreteri. The finding means that Khat-shepset died of bone cancer at a relatively mature age, was overweight and had diabetes (see also x-ray). |
Why, Mosh•ëhꞋ asks twice, would Par•ohꞋ pay any attention to a junior of his own household, who appears to be an Egyptian, as any authority on the religion of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ?
Is this an acceptable excuse?
In the English version, Artscroll translators took careless license in rendering 7.1 as "I have made you a master over Pharaoh'" The Hebrew reads נתתיך אלהים לפרעה (nᵊtatikha Eloh•imꞋ lᵊ-Pharoh; I have given/allowed you to be Ël•oh•imꞋ to/for Par•ohꞋ). The Artscroll editors, apparently, wanted to avoid permitting readers to infer anthropomorphism into the passage. The pᵊshâtꞋ of this passage, however, is that י--ה had appointed Mosh•ëhꞋ His representative to Par•ohꞋ. As far as Par•ohꞋ would be concerned, the spoken words of Mosh•ëhꞋ were to be considered the Oral Law of Ël•oh•imꞋ.
In this context, we should recall also the still-future prophecy, 747 years later, of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ 28.9-10: "and in another tongue will I speak to this kindred."
 Khat-shepset x-ray 250x250.jpg "Queen Paroh (BCE1504-1483) Khat-shepset x-ray") |  Khat-shepset canopic box (CT scan tooth) 250x165.jpg "Queen Paroh (BCE1504-1483) Khat-shepset, canopic box (CT scan tooth)") |
 Khat-shepset x-ray 461x461.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} X-ray of Queen-Par•ohꞋ Khat-shepset, showing gap where molar is missing. The gap matches the molar in her wooden canopic box. While her age was pegged at 50, my wife, Karen, based on 50 years of expertise as a Dental Hygienist, estimated from this x-ray that bone loss around the teeth suggest she may have lived until around 70. |  Khat-shepset canopic box (CT scan tooth) 461x305.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Wooden canopic box bearing the name of Queen-Par•ohꞋ Khat-shepset, in which CT scan showed molar matching gap in x-ray. |
|
|
מקצר רוח—6.9
(mi-qotzer RuꞋakh; from impatience, lit. 'shortness of wind / spirit')
Not "shortness of breath" as rendered in the Stone Ta•na"khꞋ. The highly respected Alcalay Hebrew Dictionary confirms (p. 2334) that קצר-רוח (qotzer RuꞋakh—Israeli pronunciation) means "impatience," while the Hebrew for "dyspnoea, shortness of breath" is (loc. cit.), rather, קצר נשימה (qotzer nᵊshimah). נשימה (nᵊshamah) means 'breath' while רוח means 'wind or spirit.' בני-ישראל (Bᵊnei-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ; sons of Israel) "didn't hearken to Mosh•ëhꞋ because of impatience and hard work." If it sounds a lot like today, that's because the reader is beginning to relate to the real people and real events in the real world of the Creator rather than magical and supernatural—irrational—fictional interpretations of men.
והוצאתי אתכם—6.6-7
(wᵊ-hotzeiti etkhem; And I shall send you forth).
This is the first of four declarations, each related to the respective cup of wine in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër which derive from these declarations.
והצלתי אתכם—6.6-7
(wᵊ-hitzalti etkhem And I shall rescue you).
This is the second of four declarations, related to the second cup of wine in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër which derives from this declaration.
וגאלתי אתכם—6.6-7
(wᵊ-ga•alti etkhem And I shall go•eilꞋ you).
 |
| Nâtzᵊr•atꞋ – 1st century C.E. house |
This is the third of four declarations, related to the third cup of wine in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër which derives from this declaration. It is this cup of wine—go•eilꞋ, the only time in the SeiꞋdër that Qi•dushꞋ over wine precedes the ha-Motzi over bread, to which historical Ribi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ of Nâtzᵊr•atꞋ, the Mashiakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ, referred in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 26.27-28.
 |
| Nâtzᵊr•atꞋ, 1st-century C.E. house |
Archeologists have excavated one house from the early 1st century C.E. village of Nâtzᵊr•atꞋ, from the time when RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was a child. Since there were no more than about 50 houses in the small village, it is certain that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa knew this house.
ולקחתי אתכם לי—6.6-7
(wᵊ-laqakhti etkhem li; And I shall take you for Myself).
This is the fourth of four declarations—the culmination, and entire reason for the go•eilꞋ, with the giving of Tor•âhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ—related to the fourth cup of wine in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër which derives from this declaration.
It is fitting that the 3rd cup of wine is associated with the Mashiakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ, leaving this 4th cup of wine to be associated with Eiliyahu ha-Nâ•viꞋ heralding the coming of the impending Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. The 3rd cup of wine, go•eilꞋ (with the Mashiakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ demonstrating the reality of the Mâ•shiꞋakh—that included the promise of the future Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ), plus the 4th cup of wine (י--ה taking Israel for Himself at the coming of the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ) again signals the dual role of the Mâ•shiꞋakh.
ואני ערל שְׂפָתַיִם—6.12:
(wa-ani aral sphatayim; and I am unpruned, uncircumcised of lips).
This is conventionally understood (along with a variety of alternate speculations), and modern Hebrew has adopted the phrase as an idiom, to mean "stammerer" (e.g., see Alcalay, p. 1971).
|
|
בעשרי—29.1
(ba-asiri; in the tenth [month]), which is טבת (tevet)—this month!
Characteristic of all prophecies concerning Israel are certain recurring themes. Straying from Tor•âhꞋ will result in punishment for Israel. Teshuvah to Tor•âhꞋ triggers י--ה's compassion and forgiveness, etc.
One of these recurring themes is that י--ה always provides, "in that day," a voice like that of Eiliyahu ha-Nâ•viꞋ, calling on Israel to make teshuvah and enjoy once again י--ה's favor. We find this theme in this week's Haphtâr•âhꞋ:
בַּיּוּם הַהוּא, אַצְמִיחַ קֶרֶן לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּלְךְָ אֶתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן-פֶּה בְּתֹוכָם; וְיָדְעוּ כִּי-אֲנִי י--ה
Some commentators have attempted to paint Dâniy•eilꞋ as the קרן לבית ישראל (qeren lᵊ-Veit Yisraeil; horn / beam / halo to/for the House of Israel). However, while there is limited (and disputed) chronological merit to this suggestion, the prophecy that י--ה would cause בית ישראל to sprout / grow hasn't yet been satisfied—though the process began, in accordance with prophecy, with the conclusion of the gathering of בית ישראל from the four corners of the planet in 1948, even now winding down in conclusion.
Moreover, checking back in 28.25-26 we find the context clearly points to the period "בקבצי (bᵊ-qabtziy; At My regathering) of בית ישראל from among the kindreds in which I have dispersed them, then I will be made holy by them'" We have seen this regathering in our generation, and it is nearly concluded. Those Jews who were drawn to come in this regathering have come. Immigration has tapered off and diminished dramatically in the last year as the flow from the Soviet Union reached its apogee and began, just this past year, to wane. The Ethiopian flow, Yemenite flow and other flows of incoming Jews reached their apogee years ago. Those who look for every last Jew in the Gâl•utꞋ to return to Eretz Yisraeil, leaving the rest of the world without any Jews, simply don't understand either history or the Ta•na"khꞋ.
Corroborating this, the only logical and chronological historical match to this prophecy about the קרן לבית ישראל is the Mashiakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ. Opposite to Christian and conventional legend, Ribi Yᵊho•shuꞋa called upon Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ to make teshuvah to non-selective Tor•âhꞋ-observance in accordance with Oral Law (e.g., NHM 5:15-17). So, also, did Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zekharyah ha-Ko•heinꞋ —who, then, clearly satisfied the associated prophecy of refilling the pattern of Eiliyahu ha-Nâ•viꞋ as the "open mouth" in our midst. Ma·lâkh·iꞋ 3.23 and Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 29.21 are clearly parallel.
There is a tendency to telescope events in Ta•na"khꞋ, considering 20 events in a character's life to have happened in a one-month period, failing to consider that years may have elapsed between two consecutive accounts of prophecy in Ta•na"khꞋ. Two events, or even a single event, could conceivably take up the entire lifetime of a Biblical character. Similarly, when pâ•suqꞋ 29.21 concludes "and they shall know that I am י--ה, there's a tendency to assume (always beware of assuming) that the effect will be immediate. That may be' or not. The only certainty is that this conclusion will be the result of the 'open mouth' of the קרן לבית ישראל—at some proximate, or otherwise subsequent and undefined, point in time.
If we understand "on that day" to refer also to this conclusion, then "that day" cannot have yet occurred, as 90% of what are today defined as Am Yisraeil don't know י--ה. In such case, "that day" must refer to the day of the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, in which case the קרן לבית ישראל can only refer to the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. (The "open mouth" of this prophecy would then refer to the non-selectively and halakhically Tor•âhꞋ-observant Jew who refills the pattern of Eiliyahu ha-Nâ•viꞋ in calling Israel to teshuvah.)
To get a more in-depth understanding of eschatology, readers are referred to our book, The 1993 Covenant Live-LinkT ; and for chronology to our paper, Chronology of the Tanakh, from the "Big נָטָה" Live-LinkT
|
|
Things are measured differently in matters of the spiritual realm. We are measured not by what we accomplish nor how big a splash we make on society or politics. Rather, we're measured by the percentage we've produced relative to the potential that י--ה has given us—our "utmost." Just read the Shᵊma: requiring you "to love י--ה your Ël•oh•imꞋ and to serve Him [keeping His Tor•âhꞋ] with all of your heart and with all of your nëphꞋësh"). י--ה requires you to do your utmost; no more, no less and not anyone else's utmost. That's something everyone can do and everyone has an equal shot at excelling.
Don't fret if you aren't a lighthouse, stadium lights, a searchlight or a night sun. Be a candle or a flashlight if that's optimizing the talent that י--ה gave you to your utmost. A candle in the darkness produces a lot of light and a flashlight in a hurricane can save lives. When you act as a malakh י--ה in saving one life then you've helped save the entire world for that person. Be a malakh י--ה.
Each life you help to bring into the eternal realm is an eternal jewel in your crown that will never mildew, rust or corrode; and which no thief can ever take from you. A discerning businessman doesn't pass up a deal to exchange glitter and temporal trinkets he cannot keep for things that hold their value forever and cannot be taken away.
Be a spiritual nerd. Remember the high school football hero, prom king and queen? The TV sitcom about Al and Peg Bundy was based in the realistic irony of 'look where the high school (andor college) hero is now.' And who rules now? Nerds! In high school (and often college) the nerds were laughed at and picked on. Now they're the king of the hill. They saw beyond high school and sacrificed the immediate they couldn't keep to acquire long-term success. Think about it. Is life after high school and college the ultimate state of our life? Or should we be looking beyond the immediate life to something far more enduring and precious? Will we one day look back on today's successful and affluent tycoons and rulers as short-sighted "heros," Al & Peg Bundy redux, who sacrificed eternal success for immediate gratification?
One needs different eyes—perspective—to compare and contrast this temporal experience with the eternal consequences of our personal decisions, our personal practices and our personal commitment. He who has eyes to see, may he see.
The existence of the physical universe implies something before, beyond and after it. No top-notch physics or cosmology scientist teaches that the universe, with its exquisitely intelligent order, just "poofed" from nothing. That's spin added by intellectually challenged atheists and agnostics to try to mislead the masses. Intelligent design—in its literal meaning, not as spun by Christians to corroborate Christianity—implies a purpose for you and me. As Einstein noted, the Creator isn't capricious.
 |
Einstein's rebuke of an atheist is consistently ignored by atheists:
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious." – Albert Einstein
Now look around and discern who will be the successful ones in the eternal, spiritual, realm that lies beyond and after this physical life and universe. Spiritual nerds with the eyes to see beyond this world-order, revealing it as nothing more than a spiritual high school to prepare us for eternity. Will you be one of the successful ones in the eternal realm? Become a spiritual nerd, disciplined against indulging immediate gratifications (materialism and hedonism) and willing to sacrifice the temporal things you cannot keep to acquire the eternal things you cannot lose. Learn how in our khavruta (distance learning).
| Setting: ca. 29 C.E. Location: Northwest shore of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët |
|
•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa to the crowd sitting on the hillside beside Yâm Ki•nërꞋët (NHM 5.13ff): "Let your אור (or; Light, i.e. of Tor•âhꞋ) shine thusly before man so that they may see your good מעשה (ma•aseih; practice, doing—specifically of Tor•âhꞋ), which are praises and כבוד (kâ•vodꞋ; honor, respect) for your Father Who is in the heavens." Why was Dawid ha-mëꞋlëkh—who had a man sacrificed in battle so he could have that man's wife—so beloved to י--ה? (Answer: read Tᵊhil•imꞋ.) Therefore,
your good מעשה should be overt (matter-of-fact—neither concealed nor "show-off"), not covert; and
your good מעשה should be recognized not as how great you are but as "praises and כבוד for your Father Who is in the heavens."
|
|
| Tor•âhꞋ | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
|
|
"Always a man shall try to marry the bat of a fine family, and check into her father and into her mother and into her brother. Concerning this it is written in Tor•âhꞋ "bat- so-and-so" or "sister of so-and-so." The greatest [Biblical personalities] recounted their praise, like 'bat-Aminadav, sister of Nakhshon' [who married A•har•onꞋ], 'from the bân•otꞋ of Putniyeil,' 'the name of his mother was bat-Avi-shalom,' and 'the name of his mother was Azuvah bat-Shilkhi.'
Come learn with us, that it's a great assistance to sons that worthy ones go forth; and so it is said in Ma•sëkꞋët Bâv•âꞋ Bat•râꞋ, there's a chapter on Inheritance (109.2): •marꞋ RabꞋi Ëlâzâr, Forever a man shall check into good [prospective wives]. For, look, Mosh•ëhꞋ who sired by bat-YiꞋtro—Yᵊhonâtân went forth from him. A•har•onꞋ who sired by bat-Aminâdâv—Pinkhâs went forth from him.
But Pinkhâs doesn't come from YiꞋtro. What is written? "And Ëlâzâr Bën-A•har•onꞋ took for him from the bân•otꞋ of Putniyeil, etc." (Shᵊm•otꞋ 6.25). Doesn't he come from YiꞋtro, who crammed wagons with A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ? No, he came from Yo•seiphꞋ, who overcame his desires.
Didn't the tribes scorn him, saying, "Do you see this Bën-Puti, the bën that crammed the wagons of my father and his mother with A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ? Shall a Nâ•siꞋ murder a tribe from Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ? Rather, if the father of the mother is from Yo•seiphꞋ, the mother of the mother is from YiꞋtro; and if the father of the mother is from YiꞋtro, the mother of the mother is from Yo•seiphꞋ. The wording is precise, stating 'from the bân•otꞋ of Putniyeil.'
Both deduce [Shᵊm•aꞋ] from it. •marꞋ Râbâ, He who carries a woman must check into her brother. As it is written, ([Shᵊm•otꞋ 6] 23), from which we deduce, as it is written, ''bat-Aminadav,' don't I know that she is the sister of Nakhshon?
What does Tal•mudꞋ say, 'sister of Nakhshon'? This implies that he who carries a woman must check into her brother. It taught: most [of a woman's] sons are like the brothers of the[ir] mother.
And if she is modest and tza•dëqꞋët, her bânim will be males and kâ•sheirꞋ. As we have memorized at the end of Ma•sëkꞋët Nid•âhꞋ (60.2), among twelve things that the men of Alexandria asked Rabi Yᵊhoshua Bën-Khananyâh, the last was, What does a man do that he shall make male Bânim?
•marꞋ to them, he shall marry a woman who is his social-equal and sanctify himself in the hour of תַּשְׁמִישׁ. They said to him, Many do so and don't raise up [sons]. He said to them, He shall request ra•kham•imꞋ from Whom his bânim are. As it is said, "Behold, the heritage of י--ה is bânim" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 127.3).
What [means] "שָׂכָר is the fruit of the belly" (ibid.)? •marꞋ Rabi Khâmâ, By שָׂכָר is [meant] pausing oneself upon the belly at the hour of תַּשְׁמִישׁ until beginning insemination of their women. ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, bâ•rukhꞋ hu gives him a שָׂכָר of male fruit of the belly. What does it teach us? That this [first] without this [latter] isn't enough.
(Translated so far)
|
|
|
