|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
24.22 – îÄùÑÀôÌÇè àÆçÈã éÄäÀéÆä ìÈëÆí, ëÌÇâÌÅø ëÌÇàÆæÀøÈç éÄäÀéÆä;
Regularly, khav•ra•yâꞋ in our Khav•rutꞋâ ask how he or she should observe this or that mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ. The answer is explicated by the passage above.
There are differences in which mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ apply to Kohan•imꞋ, which to Lewiy•imꞋ, which to Yisra•eil•imꞋ and which to geir•imꞋ. The only difference between Yisra•eil•imꞋ and geir•imꞋ is that the latter don't eat meat in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër and, when praying in public, don't wear outward signs that would likely be mistaken for a Jew: tzitz•itꞋ showing or tᵊphil•inꞋ.
The latter is only to prevent geir•imꞋ from being mistaken for Yᵊhud•imꞋ, which could promote an improper relationship leading to intermarriage. When praying in private, however, there is no difference between Yᵊhud•imꞋ and geir•imꞋ: male geir•imꞋ wear tzitz•itꞋ and tᵊphil•inꞋ.
Unless I'm forgetting something, in all other respects geir•imꞋ practice úÌåÉøÈä identically to Orthodox Teimân•imꞋ Yᵊhud•imꞋ. Therefore, you usually shouldn't need to ask. Unless the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit Din has published differently, don't be different in any other respects from Orthodox Yᵊhud•imꞋ Tei•mân•imꞋ! In all other respects, practice úÌåÉøÈä identically to Orthodox Tei•mân•imꞋ.
 |
 |
Reliance upon misojudaic Christian-redacted distortions of Ta•na"khꞋ causes extensive aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä, of the gravest kind, in this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ.
In the KJ/V, and its Christian relatives, "Leviticus" 24.11, 15 & 16 seems only to condemn one who "blasphemes" the Name: "And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." Of course, Christians hold that "the Lord" is their Jesus.
The original—from which the Christian corruption was grossly mistranslated, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ, reads dramatically differently:
 |
| "Burn Auger - The burn auger produces a hole in wood by burning the wood and reaming out the char with the auger itself. This style of auger is thousands of years old and even the crudest bog iron can burn a smooth hole. Usually square iron tapered to a point with the handle bent at 90? to provide leverage and a grip for this hot tool. It is heated in a fire and the point is thrust into the wood and twisted, burning and reaming the wood to the desired size. The taper allows for different size holes to be made with one tool." (fullchisel.com, 2013.04.21) |
24.11 – åÇéÌÄ÷ÌÉá áÌÆï-äÈàÄùÑÌÈä äÇéÌÄùÒÀøÀàÅìÄéú àÆú-äÇùÑÅÌí åÇéÀ÷ÇìÌÅì, … 15 … àÄéùÑ àÄéùÑ, ëÌÄé-éÀ÷ÇìÌÅì àÁìÉäÈéå, åÀðÈùÒÈà çÆèÀàåÉ: 16 åÀðÉ÷Åá ùÑÅí é--ä îåÉú éåÌîÈú, … áÌÀðÈ÷ÀáåÉ ùÑÅí éåÌîÈú:
My paper, Profaning the Holy Name Unawares, details how even the Hellenized LXX was far more faithful to the original Hebrew for these two verses, reading 24.11: "επονομασας… το2 ονομα3 κατηρασατο1 " and 24.15: "προς1 αυτους2 ανθρωπος3 ος4 εαν5 καταρασηται6 θεον7, let him take [i.e., bear] his transgression." Notice, too, that 24.16 doesn't stipulate cursing along with naming the Name either in Masoretic Text or LXX (which reads "ονομαζων2 δε1 το3 ονομα4 κυριου5 … εν1 τω2 ονομασαι4 αυτον3 το5 ονομα6 κυριου7 τελευτατω8 "). Simply uttering the Name in ordinary (less than ÷ÈãåÉùÑ) circumstances constituted "augering-out" the required proper awe, reverence and ÷ÈãåÉùÑ for the Name – a capital aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä. For further information see the cited paper.
Only when understood as originally set down in the Hebrew, and in the original ancient perspective, are these passages, which prohibit "swearing by" (and even uttering) the Name, logically consistent with other passages in Ta•na"khꞋ that require swearing by the Name.
Two kinds of swearing by the Name are prohibited:
false or unauthorized (misapplied) swearing, which ðÄ÷ÌÅá the Name and
normal or casual (i.e., vain) swearing, which profanes (makes common) the Name like any other name.
|
|
22.2 – åÀéÄðÌÈæÀøåÌ îÄ÷ÌÈãÀùÑÅé áÀðÅé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì
 Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk hair beard dress 0120x64.jpg "BCE 841 Israelis-Hebrews showing hair, beard & dress. Yeihu (Jehu; Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk)") |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk hair beard dress 2547x1362.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} c BCE 841 Israelis-Hebrews; hair, beard & kaftan.YeiꞋhu |
 c BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khishꞋ; carts, women's dress & children. |
 c BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khishꞋ; hair, beard, kaftan, harps & war turbans. |
 c BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khishꞋ; hair, beard & kaftan. |
 c BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khishꞋ; Syrian soldier herding 2 Israelis-Hebrews; hair, beard & kaftan. |
 460x287.jpg "Khareidim European Hassidim") |
| Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ: Modern Hassidim of Medieval & Dark Ages European origin (UK) |
 |
| Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ: Modern "Litvak" (Lithuanian) Mit•na•gᵊd•imꞋ of Medieval & Dark Ages European origin. (Note fur hat on rabbi at left) |
 |
| Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach: What an Orthodox Jew and rabbi of today looks like – normal, same beard and hair; current dress, but no Medieval European costume! |
The Babylonian assimilated rabbis of Tal•mudꞋ, having been "separated" from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ (previously destroyed by the Romans), distorted ðÄæÌÇø to mean "withdraw" or "separate from." Consequently, subsequent rabbis of Dark Ages and Medieval Europe, long alienated from their ancient Middle East origins, felt compelled to render this passage in a way that was more compatible with their situation of a permanent "separation" from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ .
Yet, their "reinterpretation" contradicts the text. This passage is explicitly addressed "to A •ha•ronꞋ and his sons," not to "the contaminated among A •ha•ronꞋ and his sons."
This difficulty is simply resolved, and reconciles with the context – without the need to contradict the text by peremptorily changing the addressee – by our rendering. Note that ðÄæÌÇø is the shorꞋësh (root) of ðÈæÄéø—Nâ•zirꞋ. The original meaning was simply that the Kohan•imꞋ, because they served in the (now defunct) Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ, were to consecrate themselves to even more stringent state of ÷ÈãåÉùÑ than the rest of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ.
22:18 – ìÀëÈì-ðÄãÀøÅéäÆí åÌìÀëÈì-ðÄãÀáåÉúÈí
 |
 Goat (Nubian buck kid) |
The difference isn't what an English speaker would expect.
"A ðÆãÆø is a personal obligation: "I obligate myself to bring an [òåÉìÈä]." The nature of the undertaking means that if the animal is selected and then becomes lost or blemished [or dies, etc.], the person has not discharged his ðÆãÆø and must bring another animal.
A [ðÄãÀáÈä] is a contribution: "I consecrate this animal for use as an [òåÉìÈä]. The owner's obligation is to offer the specific animal, not to see to it that an animal be offered. Therefore, he has no further responsibility if it cannot be brought." (RashꞋ"i on Ma•sëkꞋët Kin•imꞋ 1a; from Artscroll Vayikra [sic] IIIb.386).
ðÀãÈøÄéí are discouraged, yet ðÀãÈáåÉú are entirely appropriate.
These ðÀãÈáåÉú relate to today's ðÀãÈáåÉú in the Teimân•imꞋ (& other òÂãåÉú äÇîÌÄæÀøÈç) Bat•eiꞋ ha-KᵊnësꞋët: the auctioning of the honors of opening the •ronꞋ ha-QoꞋdësh, carrying the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ to the bim•âhꞋ, displaying the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ, a•liy•otꞋ, replacing the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ in the •ronꞋ ha-QoꞋdësh, closing the •ronꞋ ha-QoꞋdësh, leading different parts of the tᵊphilot, etc. on Shab•âtꞋ. Unlike an ordinary auction, no money is even present on Shab•âtꞋ (much less exchanged). Rather, the opportunity is given for Jews in the congregation to make a ðÄãÀáÈä.
Congregants vying for the honor bid to offer the ðÄãÀáÈä. Paralleling the time of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, the opportunity for the congregant to make a (non-sacrificial) ðÄãÀáÈä is awarded to the best (highest) ðÄãÀáÈä offer. Only the ðÄãÀáÈä (and a•liy•otꞋ to úÌåÉøÈä, of course) is made on Shab•âtꞋ. The actual transaction and payment of the volunteered ðÄãÀáÈä is handled during one of the subsequent weekdays.
The decisive finality of the verbal commitment of a ðÄãÀáÈä is illustrated by the following: "Verbal sanctification is considered to be tantamount to an act because it changes the halachic status of the animal from secular to sacred (LëkhꞋëm MiꞋshᵊn•ëh)" (Artscroll Vayikra lIlb.3867).
22:21— ìÀôÇìÅÌà-ðÆãÆø
Artscroll renders ìÀôÇìÅÌà-ðÆãÆø as "because of an articulated vow." While this fails to accurately convey the meaning of the verb ôÌÄìÌÅà, it, nevertheless, forcefully conveys the impact of the verbal distinguishing—articulation—of the ðÆãÆø as transforming it to something wonderful. From this, the Sages derived that "In order to be valid, a [ðÆãÆø] must be formulated clearly. If it is worded vaguely, it is not binding. (See Ma•sëkꞋët Nᵊdâr•imꞋ 5b.)" (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.387).
 |
| Beit |
During the time of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, the Roman-vassal Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa"—as they were called by the Qum•rânꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ (Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Tzâ•doqꞋ) Kha•sid•imꞋ—perverted this teaching to line their own pockets. (Artscroll editors describe these priests, exemplified in the Boethusian family (documented in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ and Josephus), as: "most of them venal and unworthy of their office" Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.289).
Using some pretext concerning the offerer's verbal sanctification of his or her vow or contribution, the greedy priest often declared the offering invalid, unfit for the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and Miz•beiꞋakh—therein becoming the priest's own. It was this perversion by the "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa" that the Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ condemned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, greed mixed with meticulous religiosity (Yiddish: "frum")—the more meticulous and minutiae-oriented, the more profitable, the more profitable the more powerful and prestigious, the more powerful and prestigious the more influential and revered in religious circles—a spiral into minutiae that's still powered by the same motivations today.
22.24— " åÌáÀàÇøÀöÀëÆí ìÉà úÇòÂùÒåÌ ". In the wake of the "Heaven's Gate" mass suicides – all of whose males were required to be castrated, it's appropriate to note that "The blemishes listed in this verse are all forms of castration, and it is forbidden to do such a thing to any animal, whether it is in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ or elsewhere. The phrase "in your land" means only that the prohibition applies to every conceivable species of animal in the country, whether or not they are acceptable for offerings or kâ•sheirꞋ as food (RashꞋ"i on Ma•sëkꞋët Kha•gig•âhꞋ 14b)" (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.388).
 250x250.jpg "Arab Muslim Shia flaggelate themselves and their children on the Day of Ashura (death of grandson of Muhamad)") |
 460x460.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Arab Muslim Shia – and their children! – flagellate themselves on the Day of Ashura (commiserating the murder of the grandson of Muhamad) |
Recall in pâ•râsh•atꞋ Qᵊdosh•imꞋ (19.28) the prohibition that " ùÒÆøÆè ìÈðÆôÆùÑ " (laceration to the psyche, i.e., to lacerate oneself for the dead—an ancient pagan form of mourning) "ìÉà úÄúÌÅðåÌ ". This verse intimates that one is prohibited from inflicting wounds on the body except as specifically stipulated in úÌåÉøÈä (e.g., circumcision).
Another exception, perhaps surprisingly, is a nose (engagement) ring—ðÌÆæÆí-àÇó, cf. bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 24.47; Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 3.21 & Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 11.22). However, these exceptions were not for free men. In this connection, it is essential to recall that women and slaves, the only ones wearing ear or nose rings, were chattel. Free men did not wear either a nose ring or ear ring, both of which exclusively, and indelibly, marked chattel – even women of high station were apparently decorated for the pleasure, and ownership branding and marking as chattel, of free men. This does not seem appropriate for free women of the modern era.
 |
As one is not allowed to lacerate oneself even in mourning, nor castrate even a non-kâ•sheirꞋ animal, only in extenuating circumstances recognized by the Orthodox rabbis, is surgical sterilization of animals, much less persons, permitted.
Concerning such things as pierced ears, I don't allow it for my (minor) daughter based on my understanding of the intention of these pᵊsuq•imꞋ, but may defer to Orthodox rabbis, if they present compelling logic, for other Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in this matter.
22:27 åÌîÄéÌåÉí äÇùÑÌÀîÄéðÄé — "Before an animal can be used for a sacred purpose, it must live through a [Shab•âtꞋ], just as a [Shab•âtꞋ] must go by before a boy is circumcised. Because it bears testimony to [Ël•oh•imꞋ's] creation of everything, [Shab•âtꞋ] gives spiritual validity to the entire universe (Tzror Ha Mor, Zohar)." (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.389).
While this explanation is a syrupy sentiment most swallow thoughtlessly, it proves illogical. If the purpose was to ensure the boy and animal lived through a Shab•âtꞋ there was no need for an ambiguous and circuitous requirement of eight days. Further, deferring circumcision of boys born on a sixthday beyond the following firstday constitutes a baseless and illogical law (self-contradiction of a Perfect Creator). Since úÌåÉøÈä is never deliberately obtuse (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 30.11-14), the requirement would have been expressed stating explicitly that the boy must be circumcised, and the animal used, only after living through one Shab•âtꞋ.
Rather, the number eight is defined in its following of seven / Shab•âtꞋ, which symbolizes closure.
Eight, then, symbolizes renewal, revivification. Only on the eighth day is a boy's renewal, and the renewal of his future offspring. Only on the eighth day does he become qualified to become initially ÷ÈãåÉùÑ (in contrast to the later, and mutually exclusive, Christian notion of "born in sin") via circumcision. Similarly, only on the eighth day was an animal regarded as a qualified qor•bânꞋ capable of symbolizing spiritual revivification relative to hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ.
23:36— In this light, one may reflect on ùÑÀîÄéðÄé òÂöÆøÆú, which is the eighth day that concludes Suk•otꞋ, "the only festival that, in the [Shᵊmon•ëhꞋ Ësᵊr•eihꞋ], is called æÀîÇï ùÒÄîÀçÈúÅðåÌ." (Artscroll Vayiykra IIIb.406) — and I would liken it to Hi•lul•âꞋ!!!
This eighth day, following seven days in the temporal world of Suk•otꞋ, similarly symbolizes the revivification, to hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ, of úÌåÉøÈä-observant Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
|
|
This ôøùä begins
21.1 – åÇéÌÉàîÆø é--ä àÆì-îÉùÑÆä, àÁîÉø
|
| Goat (Nubian buck kid) |
wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 22.2 instructs concerning "the safeguarding of the sanctity" of the Musâph•imꞋ and tᵊrum•otꞋ. The kindred "are enjoined to avoid the disqualification of sacrificial meat and tᵊrum•âhꞋ through contamination." (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.379). Qor•bânꞋ offerings are often compared to the offering of tᵊphil•âhꞋ – and we will see that this instruction applies to tᵊphil•âhꞋ as well.
The pâ•suqꞋ says of a Ko•heinꞋ who has become èÈîÅà, beyond the requirements for a Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, åÀéÄðÌÈæÀøåÌ. The Nâ•zirꞋ was one who was consecrated, or consecrated himself, apart.
At the other end of the spectrum, this verb means for Kohan•imꞋ to consecrate themselves apart from the other Kohan•imꞋ, from the , whenever they become èÈîÅà—so that they don't disqualify the offerings? Not just the offerings. The pâ•suqꞋ continues:
åÀìÉà éÀçÇìÌÀìåÌ àÆú-ùÑÅí ÷ÈãÀùÑÄé; àÂùÑÆø äÅí îÇ÷ÀãÌÄùÑÄéí, ìÄé …
In other words, a Ko•heinꞋ who was èÈîÅà desecrated not only the offering of the Israeli, but the Name that the Israeli had sanctified in that offering as well. "One who desecrates the offerings that bear Ël•oh•imꞋ's Name has desecrated the Name (Sheim olam)" (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.379). Since prayer is the modern parallel of sacrifice, every Christian will find his or her own repeated desecration of the Name exposed in Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ ShᵊlomꞋoh 28.9!!!
Thus, desecrating the offering equates to desecrating the Name. Compare this with how the offering of tᵊphil•âhꞋ can be an abomination (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 28.9) that, in the same way, profanes the Name. Remember, too, that Israel is to be a Realm of Kohan•imꞋ with holy goy•imꞋ (Shᵊm•otꞋ 19.5-6).
The lesson is that the instructions regarding èÈîÅà are still valid. Ignoring them—from eating pork and shellfish to family purity—turn one's prayer into an abomination and a desecration of the Name, just as the Ko•heinꞋ who was èÈîÅà desecrated both the offering and the Name. úÌåÉøÈä instructs that Israel (which includes geir•imꞋ) is to be a holy kindred. Moreover, 22.31-32 "refers to everyone, Kohan•imꞋ and Israelis alike. The next verse's [32] mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ regarding sanctification of the Name exhorts the kindred not to desecrate Ël•oh•imꞋ's Name by bringing such invalid offerings." (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.390).
Though ignored by Christians in favor of more distorted but convenient passages (e.g., Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh's "Vision of the Sheet"—about how to regard goy•imꞋ, observance of the laws concerning physical èÈîÅà is also noted in the NT. "The works of the flesh are apparent, which are promiscuity, èËîÀàÈä, …" III Paul (Προς Γαλατας) 5.19, conjectured to have been originally composed ca. 51 CE). Many NT passages reiterate this same theme (see, for example, the many references in a Greek concordance under σαρκικος and σαρχ.
But úÌåÉøÈä becomes even more emphatic about anyone èÈîÅà nearing these Qâdâsh•imꞋ that Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ treats QoꞋdësh for é‑‑ä — which includes anyone èÈîÅà nearing in tᵊphil•âhꞋ:
22.3 – åÀðÄëÀøÀúÈä äÇðÌÆôÆùÑ äÇäÄåà, îÄìÌÀôÈðÇé…
(then this psyche shall be excised from before Me)
The expression "from before Me" is a hapax legomenon (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.380). How grave is the responsibility to halakhically shed all èÈîÅà before we approach the Qâdâsh•imꞋ in the heavens in tᵊphil•âhꞋ. In this context, Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 28.9 becomes conspicuous. Tᵊphil•âhꞋ from one who is èÈîÅà is a blemished tᵊphil•âhꞋ—a blemished qor•bânꞋ—and attempting to near ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, bâ•rukhꞋ hu, while in a state of èÈîÅà.
22:25— is the basis for tᵊphil•otꞋ being offered from the bim•âhꞋ on behalf of a áÌÆï-ðÅëÈø. "The stranger of this verse is a non- Jew, who is permitted to bring animals to be offered in the Temple, but not if they are blemished." (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.388). If even a áÌÆï-ðÅëÈø may do so, much more so a geir can—as úÌåÉøÈä explicitly stipulates ëÌÇâÌÅø ëÌÈàÆæÀøÈç—like geir like "born Jew" (24.16).
|
|
 250x238.jpg "Omer (''sheaf,'' of barley or wheat)") |
 403x383.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} òÉîÆø |
One of the most ambiguous, and fractious, teachings in úÌåÉøÈä revolves around the counting of the òÉîÆø that determines the date of Shâv•u•otꞋ, found in wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 23.9-11 & 15-16.
The Shomron•imꞋ (pop. Samaritans, of primarily Syrian origin), as well as the Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ, and later the Christians, too, all calculated Shâv•u•otꞋ (or, in the latter case, originally Ishtar = Easter) from the Firstday of the week, based on the statement in this passage that the counting of 50 days begins îÄîÌÈçÈøÇú
äÇùÑÌÇáÌÈú.
First, we must examine a popular, but mistaken, convention. PësꞋakh is limited to late afternoon and evening of the 14th of Firstmonth, which is ërꞋëv 15th of Firstmonth and, before the SeiꞋdër is over, becomes the 15th of Firstmonth. Though PësꞋakh introduces the week of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, PësꞋakh ends with the SeiꞋdër. The 15th of Firstmonth is the First day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, not the First day of PësꞋakh as popularly, and sloppily, corrupted. Similarly, the Seventh day of this week is the Seventh day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, not the Seventh day of PësꞋakh.
Now, if the 1st and 7th days of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ (despite being defined as special Shabât•otꞋ, regardless of the day of the week, by the Bible) aren't considered Shabât•otꞋ, then îÄîÌÈçÈøÇú
äÇùÑÌÇáÌÈú would necessarily mean counting of the òÉîÆø must begin on the day following the weekly Shab•âtꞋ, i.e. the Firstday of the week, and Shâv•u•otꞋ, 50 days later, would, therefore, also always fall on a Firstday of the week. This is the evolving tradition of the Hellenist (who syncretized sun-worship) Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, the Hellenist (Syrian) Shomron•imꞋ and emerging Hellenist proto-Christian tradition. The only major Judaic sect that rejected sun-god-day was the Pᵊrush•imꞋ.
However, this contradicts the Bible and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. The Pᵊrush•imꞋ have always begun counting the òÉîÆø from the 1st day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, the 15th of Firstmonth—confirming it is a special Shab•âtꞋ—irrespective of the day of the week on which it happens to fall.
Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ can only begin the counting of the òÉîÆø from the 1st day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ because Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ has always recognized the 1st and 7th days of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ as special Shab•âtꞋ, regardless of the day of the week in which they fall. This is indisputably self-evident.
Since the 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, as well as the 1st and 8th days of Suk•otꞋ, are described virtually identically, these, too, are halakhically recognized as special Shabât•otꞋ.
|
|
22:17-18— "Speak to A•har•onꞋ and his sons and all of the House of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, and tell them, 'Man by man, from Beit Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and from the geir who is in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ…' "
This pâ•suqꞋ acknowledges that the geir is, indeed, included in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
|
|
The definition of îÀìÈàëÈä, the type of work prohibited on Shab•âtꞋ, is essential to the one who would be "sho•meirꞋ ùÑÇáÌÈú" in compliance with Shᵊm•otꞋ 31.14.
The rabbinic tradition is derived from the proximity in úÌåÉøÈä between the prohibition against îÀìÈàëÈä in Shᵊm•otꞋ 35.1-2 followed by the instructions to build the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ (Tabernacle). It seems clear from this that the workers building the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ didn't work on Shab•âtꞋ—even though this was obviously (in Christian parlance) "the Lord's work"!
The rabbis reason from this that the kinds of labor expended in building the Mi•shᵊkânꞋ, not the physical exertion expended, determined the types of labor prohibited on Shab•âtꞋ. Therefore, the rabbinic definition of îÀìÈàëÈä (Shab•âtꞋ 49b). This is topic is addressed in pâ•râsh•atꞋ wa-Ya•qᵊheilꞋ.
The first phrase of this passage, however, "six days you shall do îÀìÈàëÈä," is regarded as a separate command—also to be obeyed!!!
Significantly, we also find that the seventh day of the week is described here (Shᵊm•otꞋ 31.15) as " ùÑÇáÌÇú ùÑÇáÌÈúåÉï ".
Many readers wrongly assume that ùÑÇáÌÈúåÉï refers only to Yom Tᵊru•âhꞋ (inaccurately Rosh ha-Shân•âhꞋ—cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 23.24), Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ (cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 16.31 & 23.32) and the 1st and 8th day of Suk•otꞋ (cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 23.39). These are special Shabât•otꞋ, regardless of the day of the week in which they occur, and which are also "ùÑÇáÌÈúåÉï." Based on a rabbinically perceived distinction, ùÑÇáÌÈúåÉï the rabbis have come to observe them differently from the seventh day of the week Shab•âtꞋ.
The 1st and 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ and Khag ha-Shâvu•otꞋ are similarly regarded. But here (and in Shᵊm•otꞋ 16:23; 31:15 and 35:2), we are told that the seventh day of the week Shab•âtꞋ is also a ùÑÇáÌÈúåÉï!!! Thus, the earliest extant historical documentation shows that all of these "ùÑÇáÌÈúåÉï" were, in the time of the Beit Din hâ-Jâ•dolꞋ, kept according to the same criteria as the weekly Shab•âtꞋ.
Note also that observing a îÄ÷ÀøÈà ÷ÉãÆùÑ is commanded. Attendance at beit kᵊnësꞋët (i.e., in a mi•nᵊyânꞋ) is more than simply communal responsibility for one another and to pray for and support one another in the Jewish community. Attendance in a îÄ÷ÀøÈà ÷ÉãÆùÑ is a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ.
|
òÉîÆø |
23.10 – åÇäÂáÅàúÆí àÆú-òÉîÆø, øÅàùÑÄéú ÷ÀöÄéøÀëÆí àÆì-äÇëÌÉäÅï
(when you brought an òÉîÆø of the first of your harvest to the Ko•heinꞋ)
The òÉîÆø yielded about 2.2 liters of grain. Harvest here refers to the barley harvest.
23.15— The counting of the òÉîÆø derives from this passage. There has been much confusion regarding counting "from the day following the Sabbath." Sun-worshiping gentile Roman Hellenists (who became the first Christians between the time of St. Paul the Apostate and 135 C.E.), not realizing that the first day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ is also a special Shab•âtꞋ reasoned that the count always began on the next "sun(god)day." This was primarily argued by Samaritans (of Syrian origin) and Christians, asserting that "Pentecost" should always fall on a Sun(god)day.
|
|
44.15 – åÀäÇëÌÉäÂðÄéí äÇìÀåÄéÌÄí áÌÀðÅé öÈãåÉ÷
(who watchguarded the watch-shift of my Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ)
This is one of the early references to the pre-split predecessors of the Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ—Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ—and the apostate Hellenist group that displaced them: the faux-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa" under Yᵊho•shuꞋa ("Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ II Bën-Tza•doqꞋ and his successors. (See the beginning of the KhaꞋnukh•âh story – the most important part that even yᵊshiv•âhꞋ-educated Orthodox Jews and their rabbis are typically ignorant.)
|
|
The Haphtâr•âhꞋ includes the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ that the ko•han•imꞋ be further limited genealogically, not just to Bᵊn•eiꞋ-A•har•onꞋ, but to Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Tzâ•doqꞋ (Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ 44.15).
What are the Kohan•imꞋ to do? Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ 44.23: åÀàÆú-òÇîÄÌé éåÉøåÌ. They shall make them know the hav•dâl•âhꞋ – áÌÅéï ÷ÉãÆùÑ ìÀçÉì, åÌáÅéï èÈîÅà ìÀèÈäåÉø
Like úÌåÉøÈä and îåÉøÆä, the term éåÉøåÌ derives from äåÉøÈä.
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
One of the most misojudaic Christian teachings warns "gentiles" to "Take heed and beware of the leaven," meaning teachings, "of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." (KJ/V "Mt." 16.6). Christians are blissfully ignorant that this misojudaic slant is a Christian-redacted perversion of an original teaching that was based on a pâ•suqꞋ from this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ:
The pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ were notoriously documented in the Qum•rânꞋ literature as being regarded by both other Judaic sects (Pᵊrush•imꞋ and the Essene-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ) as "Wicked Priests"—i.e., Hellenist collaboraters with the Hellenist Roman-occupiers. (For example, it was the staunchly Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ who collaborated with the Roman Hellenists to crucify RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.)
Even few scholars have shown awareness, however, of the "Herodians" faction—Hellenist by definition—of "Pᵊrush•imꞋ" (1st-century version of "Reformed" Pharisees). It makes no sense to suggest that, being a RibꞋi, Yᵊho•shuꞋa was a Pᵊrush•iꞋ himself, he rejected the teachings of the "Pᵊrush•imꞋ." By contrast, it is well documented that he often rebuked hypocrisy and corruption among the rabbis and, especially, among the "Herodians"—a Hellenist "Reformed" faction claiming to be Pᵊrush•imꞋ but allied with Herod, the Hellenist Ë•dom•iꞋ who ruled over the Jews by authority of the Roman Hellenist occupiers. Later, 2nd-3rd-century Christians, redacting the accounts to conform to their native gentile-Hellenist Christian doctrines, saw a perfect opportunity to displace Jews—simply by leaving out the qualifier, "Herodian," changing the implication from "Jews beware of hypocrisy and Hellenism" to "Hellenist gentiles beware of Jews"!!!
Here is how the passage reads from the earliest extant source documents (NHM 16.5-6):
Discovered in Yâm Ki•nërꞋët, this Gâ•lilꞋ-boat's length is 8.2 m., its width 2.3 m. and its depth 1.2 m. Apparently a fishing boat, the vessel was large enough to carry 15 people, including a crew of five. Carbon-14 tests confirmed that the boat was constructed and used between B.C.E. 100 and 70 C.E. (mfa.gov.il). "When [RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa was on the bank of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët, he told the tal•mid•imꞋ that they should prepare ìçí. Then he boarded a boat with his tal•mid•imꞋ, and his tal•mid•imꞋ forgot and didn't bring aboard any ìçí. [RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa said to them, “See that you hold-off the khâ•meitzꞋ of the ['Herodian' Hellenist] rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ sect of Judaism and the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ”
"They deliberated among themselves saying, “He is saying this because we did not take loaves of ìçí, and we will have to eat their ìçí.”
[RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa said to them, “You sophomores think you have no ìçí. Do you still not understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets of leftovers you took! Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets of leftovers you took! Therefore, you should understand that I was not speaking of natural ìçí [loaves]. Rather, I am telling you that you should watchguard the leading of the ['Herodian' Hellenist] rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ sect of Judaism and the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ sect of Judaism.” "
"Then they related to the mâ•shâlꞋ that he was not saying to hold-off the khâ•meitzꞋ of their [physical] loaves of ìçí, but rather hold-off the teachings of the ['Herodian' Hellenist] rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ sect of Judaism and the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman sect of pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Judaism."
 of Idu, Giza 200x256.jpg "<s>god</s> emerging through false door in rock") Egyptian |
The goy•imꞋ believed that their ël•oh•imꞋ lived in holy mountains (in which their god-kings had often been buried to give them better perceived access to the stars), from which they emerged through rock portals into holy temple-tombs and ate food sacrificed to them.
By contrast, Mosh•ëhꞋ taught that, instead of ël•oh•imꞋ emerging from rock portals ("false doors") into a temple-tomb, the A•ronꞋ hâ-Eid•utꞋ (instead of an idol) stood above the rock (instead of trying to merge with the mountain) containing hard evidence (instead of an expected presence of a mythological spirit), creating a sanctified holy place linked by the bᵊrit between é‑‑ä and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, and rites that centered on obtaining a bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ from é‑‑ä for the food, which was then eaten by the congregation rather than é‑‑ä.
ìçí has always been associated with religious teaching, the food of the spirit. Similarly, food "from the hand of a áï-ðëø" refers not merely to "sacrifices by gentiles," but, rather, the religious teachings of goy•imꞋ—first that of Babylon, then that of Rome: Hellenism (which was syncretized into Christianity). Hypocrisy, corruption and Hellenist doctrines, even when offered from the hand of Hellenist Jews, were regarded as ìçí from the hand of a áï-ðëø.
åîéã
áï-ðëø,
ìà
ú÷øéáå
àú-ìçí
àìäéëí
îëì-àìä;
ëé
îùçúí
áäí
îåí
áí
wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 22.25
|
|
Recall the teachings concerning swearing from the úÌåÉøÈä section (5760). When understood in their pristine Judaic and Hebrew context, these passages are all consistent with the teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in NHM 23.16-22: "Oy for you, blind leaders who say 'Whoever shall swear by the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ it is non-binding; but whoever swears by the gold of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ is obligated.' You are stupid and blind, for which is greater—the gold, or the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ by which the gold was made QoꞋdësh?"
Recall, too, the teachings concerning vows from the úÌåÉøÈä section (5757). Using some pretext concerning the offerer's verbal sanctification of his or her vow or contribution, the greedy priest often declared the offering invalid, unfit for the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and Mizbei•akh—therein becoming the priest's own. These "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa," condemned by the Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ in the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the "blind leaders" RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa condemned in NHM 23:16-22. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is, as always, found in the middle of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ Jewish community, NOT the community of gentile Hellenist Romans or their "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa" pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ quislings.
What did RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa mean by "blind leaders"? "Blind Jews"?—like the Christians maintained from the inception of Christianity? In that case, he—being a Ribi (← a Pᵊrush•imꞋ, h-e-l-l-o-o-o) would have, himself, been a "blind leader"!!! Christian interpretation of "blind Jews" is self-contradictory.
To a Pᵊrush•imꞋ Ribi, a "blind leader" was one who perverted úÌåÉøÈä—the Hellenist Boethusian-Herodian "Perushim" (see NHM note 22.16.1), the pseudo- Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa," and their gentile, sun-worshipping, Roman-Hellenist, proto-Christian occupiers who empowered them and, subsequent to 135 C.E., founded Christianity and the Church. Christians cannot abandon their "blind Jews" interpretation without invalidating their own Displacement Theology. By "blind leaders" did RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa refer to "blind Jews" or úÌåÉøÈä-blind proto-Christians in the infancy of conceiving Christianity and the Church? This is one of the more subtle engines driving misojudaism among Christians. When Christian misojudaism ceases, Christian Displacement Theology self-destructs, Christian claims to religious validity evaporate and Christian claimed religious authority, including the pope, is revealed to be nothing more than a forcible usurpation of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ pᵊqid•imꞋ.
Unfortunately, as in the case of "Duh" (!! of "Heaven's gate") and his victims, instead of following logical and scientific úÌåÉøÈä teachers, Christians—and many Jews—today follow charismatic humans instead of the Ta•na"khꞋ (implying the original Hebrew). This has been the case since before Jim Jones and David Koresh, and it remains the underlying cause of the popularity of religious leaders, nearly all of whom base their appeals on non-logical persuasion—demagoguery. Their message is often "vanilla"; traditional or "political correctness" designed to offend as few as possible (at least in their own camp) while cashing in on their target audience's current beliefs and superstitions. Their appeal is not in logic of content, but in their personal charisma and, in the case of "faith healers," in their magic. As RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught (NHM 7:15-23), beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. A good book exposing the kinds of magic practiced by the "Charismatics" is The Faith Healers, by James Randi (magician "The Amazing Randi"), with foreward by the late physicist Carl Sagan (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1987).
Recall from the úÌåÉøÈä section (5755) that the Pᵊrush•imꞋ have always begun counting the òÉîÆø from the 1st day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, the 15th of Firstmonth, irrespective of the day of the week on which it happens to fall.
RibꞋi (H-e-l-l-o-o-o) Yᵊho•shuꞋa was a Pᵊrush•imꞋ.
Thus, this is yet another case in which Christians reject the authentic teaching of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in order to follow, instead, the Displacement Theology of post-135 C.E. gentile—sun-worshipping (worshipping on the Roman sun-god-day)—Roman Hellenists, namely Christianity.
Recall also from the úÌåÉøÈä section (5755) that since the 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, as well as the 1st and 8th days of Suk•otꞋ, are described virtually identically, these, too, are halakhically recognized as Shabatot.
This is also corroborated by 1st-century Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. Ma•tit•yâhꞋu ha-Leivi had no difficulties harmonizing the prophecy of Yon•âhꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ being in the great fish (Nineveh) 3 days with RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa being swallowed up in the sepulchre 3 days and 3 nights (NHM 12:40).
This contrasts starkly with Christian theologians who, teaching a Sixthday evening burial and a Firstday dawn resurrection, have always been at least one night short of an intelligent interpretation and valid fulfillment of prophecy.
Ma•tit•yâhꞋu ha-Leivi, on the other hand, knew that all of his readers—being Jews and geir•imꞋ, not gentiles—were intimately familiar with, and keepers of, Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. They were aware that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was buried as the Shab•âtꞋ of the 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ approached—which by Judaic reckoning (unlike gentile reckoning) occurred at dusk that, in the year 3790, ended Thirdday of the week (full details in NHM 28 notes)!
Marked from dusk, spending 3 full days and 3 full nights in the earth brings us to dusk ending Sixthday of the week—and beginning Shab•âtꞋ, so that the women (who eventually discovered the empty sepulchre) had to wait until Motzâ•ei Shab•âtꞋ to make their discovery.
NHM corroborates this, recording (NHM 28.1) that the women found the tomb of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa empty
οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων
According to the account of Ma•tit•yâhꞋu ha-Leivi, the body of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa remained in the sepulcher 3 full days and 3 full nights, from dusk of Thirdday of the week at least until dusk of ërëv (regular) Shab•âtꞋ. On Motzâ•ei Shab•âtꞋ (regular, 7th day of the week) the women discovered his tomb was empty. This means that é‑‑ä revived RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa sometime during Shab•âtꞋ (7th day of the week), not sun-god-day as
originally sun-worship oriented Christianity maintains.
This week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ stipulates (23.6) "And on the 15th day of this month is çâ äîöåú (Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ; the pilgrimage of Matz•otꞋ).
NHM 28.1 corroborates the rabbinic Pᵊrush•imꞋ interpretation of the phrase in wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 23.11 îÄîÌÈçÈøÇú
äÇùÑÌÇáÌÈú (mi-mâkhârat ha-Shab•âtꞋ; from the morrow of the Shab•âtꞋ). The Greco-Roman Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ and Boethusians, sympathizers with the sun-worshipping Roman pagans, argued that this referred to the day following the weekly Shab•âtꞋ, i.e., Sun-god-day.
NHM 28:1, however, speaks of "twilight waning in one of the Shabâton." This phrase is non-sensical unless the first and seventh days of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ were regarded as special (additional) Shabâtot—as originally argued by the Pᵊrush•imꞋ. As RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was well documented to be a Pᵊrushi and he is nowhere criticized on this issue we are thereby assured that the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ followed rabbinic Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ as usual (cf. NHM 23.1-3)—not the conflicting practice of the Boethusians, Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Roman-Hellenist (subsequently Christian) practice honoring the first—sun-god—day.
Recall also from the úÌåÉøÈä section (5752) that the counting of the òÉîÆø derives from this pâ•râsh•âhꞋ (23.15). There has been much confusion regarding counting "from the day following the Sabbath." Sun-worshipping gentile Roman Hellenists (who became the first Christians around 135 C.E.), not realizing that the first day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ is also a Shab•âtꞋ reasoned that the count always began on the next "sun(god)day." This was primarily argued by Samaritans and Christians asserting that "Pentecost" should always fall on a Sun(god)day.
This is also the key to how RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was buried as the special additional Shab•âtꞋ (of the seventh day of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ) approached and his tomb was empty on the morning of the first day of the week—three full days later! (cf. NHM notes for chapter 28.)
"No Ko•heinꞋ shall drink wine when they enter the inner courtyard." Some Christians have noticed that the words of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, in his last PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër, signaled the assumption of the royal service of Ko•heinꞋ by the Davidic king, based on Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 44.21 and related passages, in NHM 26.29: "I tell you, I won't drink of the fruit of the vine at all from now until that day when I drink new wine with you in the Realm of my Father" (The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhꞋu).
They must then be logically consistent in acknowledging the further verses defining Kohan•imꞋ in Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 44.23-24: "They shall instruct My kindred concerning [differentiating] between QoꞋdësh and khol, and they shall inform them concerning [differentiating] between tamei and tâ•horꞋ. Concerning a disagreement, they shall stand for the mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ and shall adjudicate mi•shᵊpâtꞋ according to My mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ, and My úÌåÉøÈäs and My khuq•imꞋ concerning all appointed times shall they watchguard, and they shall make my Shab•âtꞋs ÷ÈãåÉùÑ"
Note how starkly this contrasts with "changing the times and seasons," which was prophesied about the "antichrist" in Danieil (7.25), along with eradicating the "holy ones"—exactly as, even the earliest Christian historians documented, Christianity did to the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ under Hadrian in 135 C.E. and, finally, under Constantine in 333 C.E. (documented in Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN).
Discerning and educated students will also notice that mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ and khuq•imꞋ, documented in this Haphtâr•âhꞋ, were the Biblical terms for Oral Law, which has come down to us today in an uninterrupted tradition of Beit-Din (Jewish courts) known today as Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
Also in the Haphtâr•âhꞋ (44.23, see 5754), Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ defines the Ko•heinꞋ as an intrinsic part of úÌåÉøÈä: the moreh yoreh Torah ("instructor instructing the Instruction"). Legitimate genealogical Bᵊn-Tzâ•doqꞋ Kohan•imꞋ became impossible when the Romans destroyed all of the genealogies except those of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Yet, úÌåÉøÈä prophesies (Shᵊm•otꞋ 19.6) that the Jews will become
îîìëú ëäðéí åâåé ÷ãåù;
(mamlëkhët Kohan•imꞋ wᵊ-goy qâ•doshꞋ; a realm of Kohan•imꞋ and a goy qâ•doshꞋ).
Taken together, the Jewish people are to become a realm of moreh yoreh Torah as Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ sees the Kohan•imꞋ. The added phrase, åâåé ÷ãåù (wᵊ-goy qâ•doshꞋ; and a holy goy) implies geir•imꞋ.
This realm of Kohan•imꞋ are the ones Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ describes in 44.24, who are to stand and ùôè (shâphat; adjudicate-mi•shᵊpâtꞋ [= modern Hebrew Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, in the Beit-Din, pop. "judge," cf. Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-LinkT (ABNC)]).
Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ writes (44.24): they shall stand ìùôè áîùôèé åùôèäå, which is read ìîùôè áîùôèé éùôèäå of My úÌåÉøÈä and My khuqot in all My appointed [holy days] and they shall watchguard My Shabatot." This is another clear reference to the Beit-Din system, and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (though without rabbinic fences), that had already long been in effect in Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ's day.
|
|
The father is obligated to his son to bear up a wife [for him], in order to prevent the kheit, to educate him in a Judaic settlement and to enter him into the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ, perpetuating the kind.
Our rabbis bring support to this from the pâ•suqꞋ, as it is memorized in Pirqa Qama of Sanctifications (29.1): The Tana•imꞋ taught, The father is obligated by his son to circumcise him, to be Pâ•qidꞋ to him, to teach him úÌåÉøÈä and to bear up him a wife, etc., as it is above, in the first chapter of The General Raising of a Son (section 94.4). And we say above (ibid., 30.2), "To bear up a wife," what is the source? As it is written in Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu (29.6), Take women and give birth to sons and daughters; take women for your sons and give your daughters to men.' It's appropriate. His son is in his hand. But [husbands for] his daughters? Who were in his hand [for his daughters]? So he says [this means], To be good to whomever's hand knocks on her door and comes around.
A time worthy for pairing is the best so long as he can make it early, before his urge gets over him. As Hatam memorized (29b): Rav Khisdâ is full of praise for Rav Hamnunâ in front of Rav Huna that he is a great person. He said to him: when he comes to your house bring him to me. When he came, he saw he didn't spread a scarf [over his head]. He said to him: 'Why did you not spread a scarf over your head?' He told him, 'For not taking a wife.' He said to him: 'You shall not see my face until I am married.' Rav Huna is in that opinion, as Rav Huna said: 'Twenty years old and he did not marry a woman—all his life in aveir•âhꞋ. In aveir•âhꞋ would it arise in your mind? But rather, all his days pondering aveir•âhꞋ.
Rav Yoseiph said and so did [one of the Sages] from the house of RabꞋi Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ: Up to twenty years ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu sits and looks forward to when a man will marry a woman, [and] since he came to twenty years and did not marry, He said: 'May his bones decay.'
Rav Khisdâh said: 'The reason why I am superior to my colleagues is that I married at sixteen. And if I would have married at fourteen I would have told the Sâ•tânꞋ: "An arrow in your eye" ' [i.e. provoke him, since the evil urge does not control him]. Concerning this they said, 'The chapter about one who comes on his yᵊvâm•âhꞋ (Ma•sëkꞋët Yᵊvâm•otꞋ 63b): Rabi Khamâ Bar Khaninâ said: 'Since a man married a woman, his â•won•otꞋ became plugged up. As it is said: "Found a woman, found good" etc. (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 18.22).
And even though learning úÌåÉøÈä is greater than all the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ, and even moreso educating the youth [in úÌåÉøÈä], you have a time that marrying a woman comes before, as Hatam memorized (Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ 29b): To learn úÌåÉøÈä and to marry a woman—he shall learn úÌåÉøÈä and afterwards he shall marry a woman. If it is impossible without a woman—he shall marry a woman and then learn úÌåÉøÈä. Rav Yᵊhud•âhꞋ said Shᵊmueil said: 'Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, he marries a woman and then learns úÌåÉøÈä. Rabi Yo•khân•ânꞋ said: 'Grinding stones around his neck and he shall deal with úÌåÉøÈä and there is no disagreement [on this matter]. This to us and this to them.
And we memorized also in Ma•sëkꞋët Yom•âꞋ, chapter 'A Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ' (72b): "The awe of é‑‑ä is tᵊhor•âhꞋ and stands forever" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 19.10), said Rabi Yo•khân•ânꞋ: The one who learns úÌåÉøÈä in tᵊhor•âhꞋ. What is it? He marries a woman and then learns úÌåÉøÈä.
The average time for the man who is not flooded by his urge is eighteen. Close to it "åäåà, a woman in her virginity, shall take" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 21.13). The number [in gi•mat•riy•âhꞋ of] åäåà [is 18]. So they said in Ma•sëkꞋët Âv•otꞋ (5.21): Eighteen years old to the khupah. As he is a lad, before his urge overtakes him, his first drop should be his firstborn son, in QoꞋdësh. If he will be later than that time, he should conquer his urge and wait until his seed begins, as we have already found in [the case of] Ya•a•qovꞋ, our father, who was eighty-four when he married a woman and that which is written [in úÌåÉøÈä] testifies about him, that Ruvein, his son, was the 'first of his might,' since it was his first drop. Also, they said about him that he never saw capriciousness in his days. Therefore, his seed was QoꞋdësh.
It is good for a man not to stall between engagment and the khupah so that he should not come to a situation of pondering in between. As memorized in Pᵊsiqtâ dᵊ-Rav Kâhanâ 5.44): Rabi Khiyah Bar Aba said: "Prolonged yearning is a heartache" (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 13.12). This [man who marries] engages to a woman and takes her after a while. "And a tree of life, lust comes" (ibid)—this is one who engages a woman and takes her immediately.
|
|
|
