|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
Over the ages, the commentators have disagreed concerning what kind of man áÌÄìÀòÈí was. "Some rabbis inflated [his] importance" while "Some rabbis saw in him an immoral figure" (EJ, 4.123).
When Ta•na"khꞋ is read with a logical eye, however, áÌÄìÀòÈí becomes self-evident. It is the words of áÌÄìÀòÈí which self-proclaim (24.3-4, 15-16) "the words of the man with the open eye' who sees the vision of Shadai with uncovered eyes." This is an explicit contrast to Mosh•ëhꞋ, who was required to cover his eyes from seeing the Face of
But the text says (24.2) "and the Spirit of God was upon him." Well, no, the original—the Hebrew—doesn't exactly say that. First, there are no capital letters in Hebrew. What the Hebrew says is that øåÌçÇ àÁìÉäÄéí was upon him—"a spirit of [the] gods was upon him". The Spirit of Ël•oh•imꞋ, which is often taken to refer to the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ, was, more accurately, øåÌçÇ äÇàÁìÉäÄéí; ergo, áÌÄìÀòÈí was a sorcerer (Yᵊho•shuꞋa 13.22) of a øåÌçÇ àÁìÉäÄéí.
What did this self-proclaimed 'prophet greater than Mosh•ëhꞋ' who (24.16) "knows the knowledge of òìéåï" (Ëlyon; high, elevated), the paradigm for Dâniyeil 7.25, advise? The results of his strategy of enticement are found in 25.1-3—assimilation and intermarriage (cf. also in the Tal•mudꞋ Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 16a).
Thus, the strategy of áÌÄìÀòÈí is the paradigm of destruction of Israel by enticement to corruption from within through social entanglements, assimilation and intermarriage.
 250x181.jpg "Alexandria Library (Bibliotheca Alexandria)") |
 716x518.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Modern Alexandria Library, in Alexandria Harbor, on site of ancient Great Library of Alexandria—the Greatest University in all of World History, where RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was undoubtedly educated during his upbringing in Egypt, ca. 13 C.E. – ca. 26 C.E. |
It is illuminating that, in the LXX (translated ca. B.C.E. 2nd century in Alexandria by Hellenists) of bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 24.23, we find áÌÄìÀòÈí prophesying about Ογ: 24.22 till where can Assyria take you captive? 23 [speaking of áÌÄìÀòÈí] And he looked upon Ογ, and declaimed his parable and said…
As we found in last week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ , there has been confusion surrounding the correct first letter of òåÉâ vs âÌåÉâ. Last week, the â was confused with an ò. It may also be noted that other words beginning with the Hebrew ò have also been Hellenized or Anglicized to begin with "g"; e.g., òÇæÌÈä to "Gaza."
 Library 250x188.jpg "Alexandria Library") |
 Alexandria Harbor – Modern Library of Alexandria (white disc, indicated by white arrow; NASA Earth Observatory) |
"The text has hitherto been misunderstood because the introductory colon of the verse is missing in Hebrew and is preserved only in Greek, where we must probably read "Gog" instead of "Og," especially in view of the fact that the strange Hebrew [àÂâÇâ] in [bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ] 24.7 appears as [Γωγ] in the Greek text" (EJ 4.123). This was certainly an error in the later Greek, added for explanation. The Tar•gumꞋ supports àÂâÇâ (úàâ' ëúø úéîï, 2.257).
From the original writing, ca. BCE 1440, 
could have become confused in a worn scroll with 
. Either a faint circular irregularity at the lower left of the could have become misread as , or the reverse. Still, the second letter would also have to be confused (
for ) in order to confuse
 250x364.jpg "Bâshân") |
 980x1427.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} thenäÇîÈâåÉâ = äÇáÌÈùÑÈï Today's Râm•atꞋ ha-Go•lânꞋ! |
By the time of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ , (ca. BCE 583), the confusion would have been between 
and could easily have been confused, the first letters, and , aren't as easily confused. To confuse both seems too far a stretch.
Confusing àÂâÇâ with îÈâåÉâ (though it could also be spelled îÈâÉâ) seems even more remote – from ca. BCE 1440 in the Proto-Sinaitic alephbeit: 
It would not be unlikely that they may have been confused ca. BCE 2nd century, however: 
Perhaps the greatest confusion may have been generated during the transition from the Middle Semitic alephbeit to the Dead Sea Scroll alephbeit due to the likeness of the Middle Semitic â () to the Dead Sea Scroll å (
) when copying âåâ! And then prefixing that with î (; or, the scribe may have been asking, Is that an à ()? Then, the scribe may have been perplexed which had been prefixed with î and which still needed the prefix, producing a hybrid double-prefix îÅàÂâÇâ.
If the reader thinks any of this confusion is far-fetched, then (s)he has never looked at many of the disputes between paleography scholars over some of the ghost letters and words that some scholars see in old manuscripts that other scholars insist at least elements of which are not there or, conversely, are there. For example, if the bottom arm of a DSS had worn away in an old scroll, it could then easily be mistaken for, and miscopied into a new manuscript as, a DSS , or vice-versa.
The Hebrew term in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 24.7 is îÅàÂâÇâ." Since LXX Γωγ equates to àÂâÇâ in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 24.7, îÅàÂâÇâ, also found in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 24.7, equates "from Γωγ" with "îÅàÂâÇâ." Thus, îÅàÂâÇâ in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 24.7 is equivalent to îÈâåÉâ in
Christian identifications of "Gog and Magog," change to suit every historical event. Hence, Christian identifications of "Gog and Magog," less than unreliable, are to be envied by the chameleon. "From the biblical sources and the tradition of the rabbis, the stories about Gog and Magog passed to the Church Fathers. At the time of the Gothic migrations it was customary to identify the Goths with Gog and Magog. An ancient Christian tradition also identified Gog and Magog with the barbarian peoples whom Alexander the Great locked away behind iron gates next to the Caspian Sea but who are destined to break forth in the end of days. During the Islamic conquests, Christians identified the Muslim armies with Gog and Magog." (EJ 7.693).
 |
Based on complete misconceptions, popular evangelists have identified Gog as the leader of the USSR and Magog with the USSR. Perhaps so, perhaps not – but their reasoning is pure ignorance and wrong. One enterprising, but ignorant, radio evangelist "translated" the phrase in
"Since, in the list of the sons of
"'There is no longer any doubt that [âÌåÉâ] is the same word for 'barbarian' which appears as Gagaya in Amarna and as Ggy in Ugaritic" (EJ 4, loc. cit.). âÌåÉâ, in Biblical usage, is thus synonymous with heathen, goy•imꞋ and gentile, i.e. everyone outside of the people of Israel. For those gentiles who falsely claim that they are 'spiritual Israel'—or Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh—and insist that they, therefore, aren't goy•imꞋ / gentiles (e.g. Mormons and others) I must spell out here that "âÌåÉâ" / barbarian refers to everyone outside of the historical genealogical people of Israel, including geir•imꞋ whom the historical genealogical people of Israel, alone, have recognized as having joined them.
In the Tar•gum•imꞋ of the Holy Land, "the Mâ•shiꞋakh plays an active role in this war, the whole of Tᵊhil•imꞋ 2 is interpreted as referring to it (Ma•sëkꞋët A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ 3b')" (loc. cit.). All of these indicate "the antiquity of the connection between the war of [âÌåÉâ] and the advent of the Mâ•shiꞋakh." (EJ 7, loc. cit.).
So the bottom line turns out to be that the prophecy of Apotheon of Goyland – which Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ identifies as the archenemy of the Mâ•shiꞋakh – viz., the "Antichrist"!!!
Here, it is critical to note that addiction to European culture and the 18th century CE is no less assimilation from the culture of the Middle East and from ca. BCE 1450, than addiction to American culture or the 20th century CE!!! Technical advances and civilizational progress are desirable only so long as they do not contravene the pristine, original, principles of úÌåÉøÈä.
To what, then, might
When we look up úËáÈì we find that it's the pu•alꞋ (úÌËáÌÇì) of úÌÄáÌÅì. The major noun form of this verb is úÌÆáÆì. However, the identical word takes on another connotation by extension. Something which is 'spiced up' is mingled with something outside of its natural order. Accordingly, we find that úÌÆáÆì also means a violation of the natural order, an abomination, a perversion, and confusion. Klein's has suggested that this verb derives from the root áÌÈìÇì! Not incidentally, úÌÅáÅì is a cognate!
Recall, too, that áÌÄìÀòÈí's strategy of enticement to assimilation and intermarriage is in direct conflict with the admonition of úÌåÉøÈä:
 |
 |
 |
 View from äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ ENE across the Plain of îÀâÄãÌåÉ, aka òÅîÆ÷ éÄæÀøÀòÆàì – Afula and âÌÄáÀòÇú îÌåÉøÆä beyond in the background |
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa described this as the greatest category of those who don't make it into 
13.8). RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa explained (NHM 13.22) that "The briar patch into which the seeds fell, this is the one who hears the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ but the worries of this world-age and the deception of wealth press in upon the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, and he becomes unproductive." The "worries of this world-age" radiate from the central desire to be accepted by the world, peer pressure, social entanglements—PC—and, when PC is outside the úÌåÉøÈä community, the enticement toward assimilation and intermarriage. That RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa contrasted this specifically with the 13.23).
 |
| Topographical map: äÇø îÀâÄãÌåÉ |
Thus, îÆùÑÆêÀ and úËáÈì refer to the attraction, the pull, to 'blend in' and mingle with the world! This is the strategy of áÌÄìÀòÈí about which god worship, the observance of pagan festivals for Esotera and Mithra, et al., and a superstitious and pagan belief in a magical—poof!—"rapture." Such willful idolaters lack even the ears to hear the message of Mikh•âhꞋ 6.8 without perverting it into a contra-mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ antithesis of the original.
 |
 |
 |
| Mean Ole Donkey? |
Pâ•suqꞋ 22.29: "áÌÄìÀòÈí said to the mare-donkey, 'Because äÄúÀòÇìÌÇìÀúÌÀ to me, if I had a sword I'd kill you.' "
We've all seen hotheads who, when their car dies on them, get out and kick the car and curse it. Seeing with our own eyes how violent people can become over an inanimate object (or animal, in the case of áÌÄìÀòÈí) that seems obdurate, how much more so we ought to be intelligent enough to expect violence from such people when we respond to their desperation by inflaming the situation, throwing gasoline on their fire, answering their desperation with verbal abuse, slandering them, falsely accusing them, or assassinating their character—i.e., lᵊshonꞋ hâ-râꞋ.
Violent reaction to mean and obdurate behavior, as the world saw at Columbine High School in Colorado, is as old as time. Until this message is digested and understood the clock will continue to tick on the next violent outburst. The clock is still ticking—in Israel as well as in the US.
Here in Israel the carnage has been increasing for a couple of years now from a trickle to a steady stream, mostly among Russian teens, with deaths resulting from knife fights. Last week in Upper Nazareth, "one youth's insult to another left him dying on the sidewalk" (Jerusalem Post, 1999.06.11, p. B5, full page). Another teen had stabbed the 15-yr. old Russian teen in the throat, severing his carotid artery. The attacker's fellow gang members then beat the dying teen's brains out with a baseball bat.
As a side note, the victim was a devotee of Israel "Krav Maga" ('Contact Combat') an inferior form of martial art. [Note 2002, having apparently persuaded a black belt in Krav Maga several years ago that competitions, then being held, and a competitive sport are incompatible with effective Close-Quarter Combat, I recently read that Krav Maga is no longer a competitive sport. It now seems closer to Close Quarter Combat and my own style—Street-Oriented Survival—CQC/SOS.] As a black belt in CQC/SOS, which has become popular under the title of "Mixed Martial Arts," and trained in America as a cop, I very much oppose the indiscriminate teaching of gang members, bullies and self-styled 'caped crusaders' in martial arts. As far I'm aware, the only school which I respect here in Israel (the Dennis Hanover school of self-defense), seems to share a more responsible approach. [Note 2002, the Dennis Hanover method seems to be converging and overlapping, in many respects, with Krav Maga, improving the latter. I feel I can now recommend either.] This unfortunate teen placed too much reliance—a careless overconfidence due to negligent moral preparation or discipline which proved fatal—in a martial art which got him killed.
Gangs have become more visible in Israel. 1999.06.11 Jerusalem Post, City Lights Tel Aviv magazine reported on a racist gang in Hod ha-Sh•ronꞋ, next-door to Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), called "Freaks Hate Arsiy•imꞋ' (poisons) [viz., Sᵊphâ•râd•imꞋ, whom they regard as malignant 'riff-raff'].
On 1999.06.10 in
This morning, IBA radio reported that the father of one 10 yr. old shot the father of another 10 yr. old as a result of äúòììåú (hit•alᵊlut; obduracy, mean treatment). IBA radio also reported this morning that the Israeli Minister of Education declared that today all schools in Israel would discuss violence and respect.
TV violence is, like many other superficial suggestions, a cosmetic scapegoat. However, there is a cultural theme present in the pre-violence common to all forms of entertainment media which provides an important clue: Hero-speak. (or, if you prefer, macho-speak) — running one's mouth when prudence dictates silence.
The villain holds a gun to the hero's head, or a knife to his—or her—throat, and tells him to shut up or he will kill him. In what stories does the hero ever shut up like he's told? That wouldn't be heroic or make for a good movie or TV story. Showing no fear and total disregard for any danger, the James Bond-like hero—knowing he's invincible because he's the star making the big bucks and has read the script—must make some remark which cuts the villain to the quick. Sure enough, the villain doesn't kill him. So, gullible teen-age boys, assume, they should talk like heroes too. In real life, however, the insulted, desperate and abused 'villain'—already obviously teetering on the brink of violence (and, perhaps, sanity), due to exactly this kind of obduracy—as evidenced by the weapon in his hands, the smart-mouthed, self-styled 'caped crusader' macho hero dies and his family grieves. If the 'entertainment' industry insists on profiting from idolizing violence, they could at least disseminate realistic information that would keep teens from inviting death through fool-hardy macho-speak of the kind which got the 15 yr. old Russian boy killed.
And what is such macho-speak if not an arrogant and complete disregard for the dignity of one's fellow, i.e., lack of respect?
But verbally abusing one another here in Israel doesn't originate primarily with the 'entertainment' industry. We all see it every day in forums like ynet (the English-language forum of the most popular Israeli newspaper) and every night on Israeli talk shows. With no concern for checking facts or truth, virtually all of our politicians and, most repugnant of all, a disproportionate number of Ultra-Orthodox khareid•imꞋ sanctimonious hypocrites habitually practice slander, character assassination and irresponsible accusations—lᵊshonꞋ hâ-râꞋ; not only as an essential tool of their trade, but the tool of first choice. Examples, for good or bad, are set by all Israeli leaders—from Israeli TV and radio talk shows to the Israeli ha-KᵊnësꞋët to Israeli journalists, entertainment and style trendsetters and rabbis. And the solution to the lack of respect in Israel, which breeds violence, must begin with these Israeli leaders.
The problem in the US is less straightforward. Unlike Israel, the U.S. Congress seems a bastion of role models for respect, dignity and parliamentary procedures (though it has recently slid to lower levels). But look what the public flocks after in 'professional wrestling' and TV "reality" shows. Beside the widely-discussed talk show which prompted a murder, watch the Jerry Springer show sometime—if you can stomach it. (I can't even stomach the promos I see.)
In the US, John Wayne-type macho-speak—conspicuous in virtually any conversation with a gang-banger—appears to be the primary cause. When someone is most desperate for dignity, that's exactly when the hero slashes out with verbal character assassination. Unlike the TV and movie heroes, who must survive to finish the story and reappear next week, the real-life outcome is predictably tragic. The solution will lie in changing the role model of the heroes our culture adulates from Dirty Harry (and his ethnic counterparts from Eddie Murphy to fictional Mossad agents) to heroes who pay genuine obeisance to the principle of respect for the dignity of others—all others, especially those who most lack dignity and are most in need of it. Making fun, teasing, harassing and bullying those who are different must be exposed for the disrespectful abuse, and robbing of another's dignity to which every human has a right, that it has always been. Victims, especially (but not limited to) school children, must be able to find effective remedy without being driven to desperation and violence.
 |
| Bling |
But in the US, something even more difficult will also have to happen. Look around in the more desperate neighborhoods and see who is prospering, who is influential, who is respected, who has the money and who has the power. The ugly answer is that it's the predator. American culture and the American 'system' combine to reward the predator, the macho-speaking obdurate with weapons and gangs and power. Until that problem is overcome, the politicians, religious leaders, parents and media cannot fool teens with an empty "healthy" role model.
Most worrisome, Israel's wholesale importing of American hedonistic glitter-culture (bling) increasingly inspires predator-worship here in Israel as well.
A secret from the masses through all ages, the rich and powerful have always realized what, until Milosevic crumbled, was an ironclad principle: the law and the system rewards the predator; from Bill Gates to the corner drug-peddling extortionist. The predator learns he cannot take from the rich, because the rich can use the law and the system to get it back and teach them a lesson. But the predator also learns that he can get rich taking from the poor and the defenseless who cannot avail themselves of the system or the law. Thus, our cultures inspire, adulate and breed macho-speaking predators. Sometimes the trampled victim dies and sometimes the trampled victim kills his tormentor.
Besides urgent changes in our way of doing business both in talk shows and in the K'nesset, we must find ways to provide recourse to victims of disrespect before they become desperate.
|
|
 |
| Mo•âvꞋ hills (in haze on the far side of Yâm ha- |
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins åÇéÌÇøÀà áÌÈìÈ÷
22.5, 11— The îÇìàÈëÄéí of áÌÈìÈ÷ reported that the Israelis "covered òéï äàøõ" (ein hâ-âꞋrëtz; the eye of the land). Contrary to what one might think in English, this Hebrew phrase is not synonymous with ôðé äàøõ (pᵊnei hâ-âꞋrëtz; the face of the land). Rather, this refers to the most desirable part of the land, upon which the eye would fix, i.e., the desire of the eye. Again, the eye is used as shorthand for the desire of the eye.
22.31— Nowhere is there any suggestion that áÌÄìÀòÈí was blind. Yet, we read:
åÇéÀâÇì é--ä àÆú-òÅéðÅé áÌÄìÀòÈí
(Then
22.34 — àÄí-øÇò áÌÀòÅéðÆéêÈ (lit. "if [it is] wrong/bad in your eyes) – the basis for the term "evil eye," though today the idiom has evolved to mean covetousness or jealousy. This is the antonym of …îÈöÈà çÅï áÌÀòÅéðÆé ("it struck [whomever] as favorable / right") and …ðÈùÒÈà çÅï áÌÀòÅéðÆé ("it looked good / right to [whomever]). Yet again, eyes refers to what is, or in this case is not, appealing or desirable to the eye. What "looks" good, desirable, right… or, in this case, wrong / bad.
23.27 —
àåÌìÇé
éÄéùÑÇø
áÌÀòÅéðÆé
äÈàÁìÉäÄéí
(perhaps it will be straight in the eyes of hâ-ël•oh•imꞋ ). There is no capitalization in Hebrew. Capitalization, and non-capitalization, must be ignored in English. Only from the context can one discern whether the final term should be understood as "the ël•oh•imꞋ," (our ël•oh•imꞋ is é--ä, i.e., Ël•oh•imꞋ ) or "the gods." This is the positive counterpart of the previous phrase, what is "straight" as viewed by the eye. Yet, there is no intention of implying an anthropomorphic literalness that
24.1 — The same metaphor continues to be confirmed consistently. In this pâ•suqꞋ we read:
èåÉá
áÌÀòÅéðÆé
é--ä
ìÀáÈøÅêÀ
éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì ([it is] good in the Eyes of
24.2 — åÇéÄÌùÒÈÌà áÄìÀòÈí àÆú-òÅéðÈéå (and bore up áÄìÀòÈí his eyes). Now everyone knows he didn't take out his eyes and carry them or lift them up to display them. But the consistency with which eyes are identified with what they're focusing upon may be less obvious. Here, they're "carried," or "borne aloft" (and linked) to that upon which they were focused.
This same theme can be found in pᵊsuq•imꞋ 3, 4, 15 and 16.
25.6 — In this pâ•suqꞋ, the errant Israeli brought into the camp Arab women from the tribes who bordered on the southeast, between Yâm ha-MëlꞋakh and the gulf known today as the Gulf of Eilat (the
ìÀòÅéðÆé îÉùÑÆä åÌìÀòÅéðÆé ëÌÈì-òÂãÇú áÌÀðÅé-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì
(to/for the eyes of Mosh•ëhꞋ and to/for the eyes of all of the Witness [i.e., convocation] of
The eyes in the vision of Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ are no different from the "eyes" understood by his audience.
|
|
|
| Mo•âvꞋ hills (in haze), photographed from top of Mᵊtzâd•âhꞋ (anglicized to "Masada") looking east across Yâm ha-MëlꞋakh; © 1983 Yirmeyahu Bën-David. |
22.3 —
When preceding the preposition î (mᵊ- or mi-; from'), this suggests that the subject lives like a geir in comparison to (î, from) whatever î modifies. In this case,
22.13-14 (also 20.21)— In English, we can express the idea of refuse or reject by hyperbole: "no way Jose," "when hell freezes over," "when donkeys fly ," and the like. In Western culture, a flat rejection is deemed an acceptable response. In some cultures, however, a flat rejection is always avoided, substituting phrases like "I'll look into it," "I'll think about it" or "I'll take it under advisement." Hebrew îÅàÅï (mei•einꞋ) seems to balk or refuse in a way that reflects this more Middle-Eastern and Asian respect for honor, the idea of perhaps reconsidering with no intention of ever agreeing, rather than a culturally-offensive outright refusal; i.e., "I'll think about it," or the like. This evading and deferring an answer avoids an absolutely rejection or refusal, which could cause loss of face or honor to the other party. This was, and to a great extent remains, middle eastern (and Asian) cultural protocol. Perhaps there was no word for reject or refuse as modern English speakers understand it. In any case, it becomes easier to understand why, given only an "I'll think about it" and not an absolute refusal, áÌÈìÈ÷ (or áÌÄìÀòÈí) would persist.
22.18 — "To go beyond" is a correct, but narrow, rendering of òÈáÇø, which implies more than merely going beyond. It is the same verb also rendered as transgress and cross over. When English speakers think of "transgressing" úÌåÉøÈä, we should keep in mind that this means to go beyond úÌåÉøÈä as much as it means to "cross the line" (i.e., transgress, contradict) úÌåÉøÈä.
23.7 —
23.8 — The term rendered "curse" in this pâ•suqꞋ is not àøø (ârar; he damned) as found in most of the rest of the pᵊsuq•imꞋ in this story . In some of these pᵊsuq•imꞋ, including this pâ•suqꞋ, the term is ÷áá (qâvav; auger [not augur], drill, bore or—to connote faithfully the indelicacy sometimes conveyed in the original Hebrew—screw).
áÌÈìÈ÷ was pressing áÌÄìÀòÈí to ÷áá (qâvav; screw, auger) Israel. "Screwing" Israel is a connotation that shouldn't be overlooked considering that the end result was the sexual assimilation culminating in 25.1-9. This is further corroborated with the use of ÷áä (qub•âhꞋ; screwing-tent or tent of prostitution), no mere çãø (kheidër; room, chamber) as the English has been cleansed to suggest, and, in 25:8, ÷áúä (qâvât•âhꞋ; female pudenda), from ÷áä (qâv•âhꞋ; womb, female pudenda), not áèï (bëtën; belly) as the cleansed English suggests. See also ÷áá in 22.11, 17; 23.11, 13, 25, 27 & 24.10.
23.19 —
"That He should lie" is an inadequate rendering for this verb ëæá (kâzav), which means to fabricate, i.e. compose or formulate a false story or explanation. The simple verb "to lie or prevaricate" is ù÷ø (shâqar). A lie, in Hebrew, is a ù÷ø (shëqër). The meaning here is more than just "
"Repent," when modifying
Also, áï-àãí (Bën-âdâm; lit. "son of man") means "person" (see NHM). This part of the pâ•suqꞋ means "nor a person that he should rue [an error or bad decision]." (Of course, that doesn't preclude
24.5-6 — Here is a play on words in Hebrew that is lost in English. àÉäÈìÆéêÈ plays onto ëÌÇàÂäÈìÄéí.
24.17 — ãÈÌøÇêÀ ëÌåÉëÈá îÄéÌÇòÂ÷Éá (on the way was a star from Ya•a•qovꞋ).
The pâ•suqꞋ continues åÀ÷Èí ùÑÅáÆè îÄéÄùÒÀøÈàÅì.
While these phrases are both correctly regarded as prophetic, there is no conversive vav before the verb dârakh and I see no basis of a prolepsis converting this past tense form into future, in contrast with the second phrase (å÷í) with the conversive vav and, therefore, where the future tense is justified. The two phrases are rightly applied to prophecies of the Mâ•shiꞋakh. Yet again, we find corroborating distinction between two messianic missions: 1) a star from Ya•a•qovꞋ that "has been enroute" and 2) a staff from Israel that "shall rise, be fixed, established or confirmed."
Concerning the yet-future mission, 24.19 elaborates, again using the conversive vav: åÀéÅøÀãÌÀ îÄéÌÇòÂ÷Éá. "He," understood from the 3rd pers. masc. sing. verb, modifies Israel in pâ•suqꞋ 18, referring to the Mâ•shiꞋakh as the representative of Ya•a•qovꞋ-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
25.1-2 — Sexual assimilation through deliberate seduction by the women of
25.3 — åÇéÌÄöÌÈîÆã éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì ìÀáÇòÇì ôÌÀòåÉø (and Israel was coupled to BaꞋ•al PᵊorꞋ).
öÈîÇã – the idea of being ðÄöÀîÇã is conveyed in the earliest Greek source texts from which the NT was Christianized by the verb ετεροζυγεω in the 5th letter of Paul the Apostate 6.14-16. Both the Hebrew and Greek terms connote sexual coupling—assimilation and intermarriage.
While sexual coupling is explicit in this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, more than just sexual coupling is intended. This included feasts with meat that had been presented before the ël•oh•imꞋ of the
It's not what gentile Christians have ever wanted to know, but, in the original language of the NT — Hellenist Greek, ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗΣ, which hard archeological evidence of the warning signs around the Beit ha-
What constitutes "sacrificing to the ël•oh•imꞋ"? Eating meat over which a blessing has been made to ël•oh•imꞋ other than
 |
| Athens Acropolis Parthenon |
The NT 4th letter of Paul the Apostate (coauthored by Sosthenes, a Hellenist Jew, ca. 56 C.E., to Hellenist Jews in southern Greece, near Athens; Christianized to "I Cor.") 8.1 speaks of food over which a blessing may have been, or is alleged to have been, recited to an image-entity, but remains uncertain; and what a Hellenist (Reformed) Jew should do when he becomes aware of this uncertainty. The NT 4th letter of Paul the Apostate 8.4, 7, 10 follows up by admonishing the Hellenist (Reformed) Jew to avoid foods where there is doubt concerning whether or not a blessing has been recited to a strange ël•oh•imꞋ.
To explore ειδωλοθυτον in the NT 4th letter of Paul the Apostate 10.19-21 we must first understand three additional Greek terms:
θυω refers to any food, especially meat, over which a blessing has been recited to some ël•oh•imꞋ. This may occur at slaughter, on an altar, or at the meal table. In Hellenized areas, to eat with a gentile incurred the risk of consuming food, especially meat, over which the blessing to an ël•oh•imꞋ image had been recited. (Given the pervasiveness of Christianity , this is no less so today.) If we render this verb unambiguously by translating θυω as "offer-with-the-recitation-of-a-blessing," the meaning of these NT verses suddenly jump out from their Christianized gloss.
We can further enhance this emerging picture by clarifying the meaning of κοινωνος. This derives from the verb meaning "share in common." Thus, κοινωνος means "shareholders-in-common."
δαιμονιον were unknown dark forces. Though they were often named, we shouldn't lose track of the awareness that they were uncomprehended forces, i.e. demonic-forces.
Now we can interpret the NT 4th letter of Paul the Apostate 10.19-21 with great clarity not seen for millennia: "19 Then what do I report? That food-over-which-a-blessing-has-been-recited-unto-an-image-entity is anything? 20 Rather, that that which the goy•imꞋ offer-with-the-recitation-of-a-blessing they offer-with-the-recitation-of-a-blessing to demonic-forces, and not to Ël•oh•imꞋ; and I do not wish you to become shareholders-in-common with demonic-forces." (reconstructed from the earliest extant mss. of the NT 4th letter of Paul the Apostate).
Before analyzing the NT 4th letter of Paul the Apostate 10.28, we should note that, in 10.25, the direction to "Dine on everything being sold in the meat-market," to religious Jews implies a kâ•sheirꞋ meat market. úÌåÉøÈä Jews (then Pᵊrush•imꞋ) purchase no meat anywhere else!
If someone alleged, for example, that a Hellenist (Jew)—paralleling today's Reformed, secular, atheist, etc., non-úÌåÉøÈä, "Jew"—obtained some otherwise kâ•sheirꞋ meat over which it is uncertain whether someone may have recited a blessing to an ël•oh•imꞋ other than
Even though this was written by Paul the Apostate, contrary to Christian assumptions, this verse doesn't give permission to dine on
In one sentence: when eating with a Jew who was non-úÌåÉøÈä, Paul the Apostate taught to assume the food was kâ•sheirꞋ unless they had good reason to think otherwise.
This is confirmed in 10:28: "28 But if anyone says to you, 'This is blest,' then don't dine—on account of him who disclosed [this to you] and [his] conscience. 29 And I don't say your conscience, but rather, the other's."
The contrast is that Paul the Hellenizer (Turkish-Jew) instructed to assume kâ•sheirꞋ unless otherwise advised while RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught úÌåÉøÈä according to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ: one can only make such an assumption when eating with a fellow úÌåÉøÈä Jew. Otherwise, it is almost certainly not kâ•sheirꞋ and one may not assume it is kâ•sheirꞋ.
ειδωλοθυτον in The Unveiling (Ἀποκάλυψις – before it became "Revelation") Live-LinkT Technology 2.14 relates ειδωλοθυτον directly to our pᵊsuq•imꞋ in
The Unveiling (Ἀποκάλυψις – before it became "Revelation") Live-LinkT Technology 2.20 speaks also of ειδωλοθυτον "But I have many things against you: that you let the woman àÄéæÆáÆì go [on]; she who says she is a prophetess, and teaches, and leads my servants astray, to be promiscuous, and to eat that-over-which-a-blessing-has-been-recited-unto-an-image-entity."
25.5 — What is the evidence for sho•pheitꞋ of the Beit-Din in the time of MoshꞋëh? For one, this pâ•suqꞋ expressly notes the ùÑÉôÀèÅé éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì—these were ùÑåÉôÀèÄéí of the original Beit-Din!
|
|
|
| Mo•âvꞋ hills (in haze), photographed from top of Mᵊtzâd•âhꞋ (anglicized to "Masada") looking east across Yâm ha-MëlꞋakh; © 1983 Yirmeyahu Bën-David. |
The episode of áÌÈìÈ÷ and áÌÄìÀòÈí provides the paradigm for acculturation and assimilation. This was covered in last year's issue of this pâ•râsh•âhꞋ (e.g., cf. 25.1).
25.2 – åÇúÌÄ÷ÀøÆàïÈ ìÈòÈí, ìÀæÄáÀçÅé àÁìÉäÅéäÆï; åÇéÌÉàëÇì äÈòÈí, åÇéÌÄùÑÀúÌÇçÂååÌ ìÅàÁìÉäÅéäÆï;
(and the-women called the kindred to sacrifice to their gods, and the kindred ate, and prostrated themselves to the-women's ëloh•imꞋ).
Calling the kindred ìÀæÄáÀçÅé àÁìÉäÅéäÆï means they invited the kindred to have dinner with them in which meat was served. The tradition still persists to day in which a blessing is pronounced particularly over meat. This blessing, especially over meat, is a continuation of the ancient sacrifice tradition, constructively constituting sacrifice to the ëloh•imꞋ in whose name the blessing is pronounced.
Eating meat so blessed by gentiles is participating in worship of the ëloh•imꞋ in whose name the blessing was pronounced over that meat. This is exactly what is prohibited in The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Ma•a•vârꞋ 15.29, in which the Greek term ειδωλοθυτον, food (especially meat) over which a blessing has been pronounced to an image-entity." The same prohibition is repeated in Ma•avar 21.25 and is also found in the NT 4th letter of Paul the Apostate 8.1, 4, 7, 10; 10.19, 28 and The Unveiling (Ἀποκάλυψις – before it became "Revelation") Live-LinkT Technology 2.14, 20.
As we have demonstrated in Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN), the Christian Jesus is an image-entity, a counterfeit, and polar antithesis, of the Judaic Mâ•shiꞋakh. The most usual way to be caught in the form of idol-worship described in this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, is through the acculturation and assimilation (cf. bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 25.1 )—eating with a Christian. The only way to be sure to avoid this form of idol-worship is to eat kâ•sheirꞋ and allow only an halakhically úÌåÉøÈä-observant Jew or geir (recognized by a
25.6-9 — describes an act of violence by Pi•nᵊkhâsꞋ Bën-Ëlᵊâ•zârꞋ, ha-Ko•heinꞋ.
In the wake of Bâ•rukhꞋ Goldstein's massacre in
Though it was a false report, the alleged attack on Shulamit Aloni—the story—provides the best example to consider. As the most outspoken anti-religious and left-wing element in Israeli politics, she now finally has publicly admitted that she advocates splitting
Long-time readers will realize that the Hebrew term for adversary is ùÒÈèÈï. To úÌåÉøÈä Judaism, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, and me, Shulamit Aloni [joining this growing group of traitors more recently, Labor Party Leader and Defense Minister Benjamin Bën-Eliezer offered to concede Israei sovereignty of Har ha-BaꞋyit in a speech to the Labor Party 2002.05.15] is a ùÒÈèÈï. Is she, then, fair game for a violent attack?
For her position, an influential and staunchly right-wing úÌåÉøÈä Jew from New York, Jack Avital, was reported to have shouted her down as she was speaking in NYC for advocating the forsaking of
In fact, however, eyewitnesses to the Aloni incident contradicted earlier press reports: "Mr. J. Kassin, one of the sponsors of the event, took the microphone from Mrs. Aloni at the behest of his father, the noted Rabbi Saul Kassin, to urge the audience to be more polite. He then returned the microphone to Mrs. Aloni, but the heckling continued. "While she was trying to speak, Mr. J. Avital, who was the chairman of the event, ascended the stage. (His intentions were unknown, he may have wanted to take the microphone himself.) Before he reached the lectern, he was stopped by several men who pulled him off the stage to the left. At the same time, Mrs. Aloni was pulled by others to the right, away from the podium. At no time was Mr. Avital even close to Mrs. Aloni. The charges that he punched her in the stomach and kicked her are trumped-up charges and have no merit. "The following people were also present and will attest to the accuracy of my observations: Mr. Sam Domb, Judge Jerome Hornblass, Mrs. Tamar Kanovsky, Dr. Manfred Lehmann, Dr. Isaac Madeb and Prof. Walid Phares. E.S. Barrekette, New York" (Letters to the Editor, Jerusalem Post,1995.06.07, p. 6).
The falseness of the allegation aside, the question of justified violence is equally important on the global front. Racists and militias justify violent attacks by painting them as defense. Is there a line between patriotic freedom-fighters and exploitative anarchists? If so, where must it be drawn?
 |
 |
Pi•nᵊkhâsꞋ saw one of the leaders of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ Bën-Sâ•luꞋ, contemptuously flout his disregard for úÌåÉøÈä openly, right in front of MoshꞋëh and brazenly and blatantly in front of the entire kindred of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ [like the annual parade of homosexuals in Teil Av•ivꞋ that spread to
Seeing them go into the tent to have sex, Pi•nᵊkhâsꞋ went to get his spear and ran into their tent. Finding Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ on top of Kâ•zᵊbiꞋ, having sex, Pi•nᵊkhâsꞋ speared the both of them, pinning them both to the ground, one on top of the other.
For this violent killing, 25.10-13 records that
In few areas can it more truly be said that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
Did Pi•nᵊkhâsꞋ simply take it upon himself to act as a vigilante, a militiaman, to carry out vengeance? [2002: Was this a terrorist act?]
Reviewing 25.3-5 reveals that capital punishment had been decreed by the proper authority—MoshꞋëh as the properly designated representative of god—specifically implying through sexual union with a
Zi•mᵊr•iꞋ was flagrantly and brazenly defying the authority of MoshꞋëh and the Bat•eiꞋ-Din of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Every man of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ had been authorized by MoshꞋëh and the Bat•eiꞋ-Din to carry out the execution of any and all violators of this particular law against intermarriage. Pi•nᵊkhâsꞋ happened to be in the right place and had the initiative to obey the proclamation of (
Why did I include the parenthesized
Because too many loonies are running around self-proclaiming (= falsely claiming) to represent Him, and to be wreaking His vengeance and justice. The paradigm of Pi•nᵊkhâsꞋ demonstrates that this is only true in the context of the proper adherence to the law through the legal system and úÌåÉøÈä courts (Bat•eiꞋ-Din) of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, not anarchists wreaking havoc on the basis of self-proclaimed authority.
In this context, we may then ask 'What Beit-Din authorized the (falsely-alleged) attack of Jack Avital on Shulamit Aloni? None. This (wrongly) reported violence was not lawful, i.e. it was not in accordance with úÌåÉøÈä and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. The same is true of Bâ•rukhꞋ Goldstein, the young soldier who burned and shot up the two churches, and the other instances cited earlier.
 |
| Israelite bronze double-edged sword |
The position of the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ concerning Shulamit Aloni is that she, and those like her, must be attacked vigorously—intellectually, not physically—with the double-edged sword of logic that proceeds from our mouths (and from our fingertips onto the computer keyboard). It is only with logic that we can slay such satanic dragons, from whose mouths spew anti-úÌåÉøÈä abominations.
Like other non-úÌåÉøÈä Jews, Shulamit Aloni is a racist. Ethnic "Jewishness" has proven indefinable (in no small measure because Christian-Jew pseudo-messianics would be far more "Jewish" by such a cosmetic cultural "Jewish style" criterion). Finding no other difference between herself and the goy•imꞋ, her only claim to being a Jewess reduces to racism. But racism is contrary to all notions of Judaism and Jewishness. By her own standards (as well as ours), her attempts to define an alternate "Jewishness" are self-contradicting, defining her as not a Jewess. It's little wonder to me that she has no appreciation of what's important to Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ as a Judaic state, belonging to
What Beit-Din (or commander) authorized the young TzaꞋhal soldier to vandalize the churches? Again, none. This was not in accordance with úÌåÉøÈä and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
Should we, then, fight idolatry? If so, how? The answer is the same: Yes, using the double-edged sword of the logic that proceeds from our mouths. The tip of the sword to which idolaters, and acculturated Jews, can relate is RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa the Mâ•shiꞋakh and WAN Live-LinkT Technology, and you are being raised up to be world-class swordsmen and swordswomen. The handle and shaft of your sword is úÌåÉøÈä; the finger-guard is NHM.
This, not self-authorized (anarchical) violence, is the weapon authorized by the Beit Din ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ to wage war against idolaters and misojudaics among the goy•imꞋ, and against acculturation and intermarriage today. The waging of physical war on declared enemies remains in the hands of those elected to the government of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. In this connection, it must also be acknowledged that the Labor-Meretz coalition is doing precisely the opposite of the platform upon which they were elected, and strident voices are beginning to be heard from the opposition MKs in the KᵊnësꞋët. Li•kudꞋ MK UzꞋi LanꞋdau yesterday (1995.05.28) declared that if he were still a TzaꞋhal soldier and the government ordered him to evacuate a Golan settlement he would refuse to carry out that order. So would I. Note the difference between refusing to carry out an order (to evacuate a settlement) and self-initiating a violent action not based in a legitimate system of justice.
Another point concerning the use of violence is important here. For example, as the Israeli government continues to compromise
Finally, what should we do if all of this fails? Should we then pick up a firearm or build a bomb and carry out a "righteous act"? Not if we genuinely believe that
If the government doesn't listen to
Our job is to implore Israeli citizens, and supporters of Israel of all stripes, to insist that our government carry out the citizens' will or remove them from office in a legal manner. At the other end of the spectrum, our job is to implore
Certainly it is true that Israel's responsibility was to establish the rule of úÌåÉøÈä in contrast with the rule of bᵊal•imꞋ then worshipped by the surrounding (proto-Islamic) Arabs. Yet, championing one's religion is the motivation for every religious war. If it's axiomatic that one man's terrorist is another's patriotic freedom fighter, then how can one make an objective judgment? In every case, there is an authority (government) committed to maintaining the current way of life pitted against a rebel-revolutionary entity that feels wronged by that government. Which stands for tolerance of all individuals among and around them and which desires to eliminate their perceived foes from their part of the world? Whether in power or in rebellion, it is the latter who are the anarchists and oppressors, and, whether in power or in rebellion, the former cannot be expected to be suicidally tolerant of attempts by the latter to eliminate them. [2002: a clearer definition of terror is any and all cases of the deliberate targetting of non-combatants.]
At first glance, this would seem to be contradicted by úÌåÉøÈä. When Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ first conquered eretz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ,
In this light, the formula works regarding Israel and the neighboring Arabs as well as for the U.S. and militias. Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ wants a Jewish state that is tolerant toward non-Jews. Despite the publicized progress towards peace, area Arabs rejoiced when Jews were blown up at Beit Lid the same way that they danced on their roofs when SCUD missiles were falling in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
Nor has their desire to eliminate Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ from the Middle East subsided. Despite serious shortcomings in practice, the objective of the U.S. is to provide equal rights for all. Militias, on the other hand, see the well-being of their own kind as justification for violating the rights of "them." That's the same way a Serbian, an Islamic ayatollah, a Hitler and an Islamic terrorist thinks. Probably, every conflict on the face of the planet can be understood in these terms.
Especially, we must win the battle for the hearts and minds, particularly of children, high schoolers and the college-aged. However, this can only be accomplished through education, not by means of savagery. Terrorism and savagery are the telltale hallmarks of a bankrupt philosophy' and the most central and fundamentalist cores of Islam and, historically, Christianity.
úÌåÉøÈä Jews are the kindred of úÌåÉøÈä and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ—due process of law through the Bat•eiꞋ-Din.
|
|
Though it usually goes unnoticed, áÌÄìÀòÈí was from A•râmꞋ, in the area of modern Ar Raqqah in northern Syria near the Turkish border.
 |
 Khâ•rânꞋ, A•râmꞋ (in modern southern Turkey, near their Syrian border) – mud-brick houses with unique, iconic, conic roofs |
A•râmꞋ is also 70 km south of Khâ•rânꞋ, Turkey, near its southern border, both in the area that Av•râ•hâmꞋ lived. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that we read (pâ•suqꞋ 18) that áÌÄìÀòÈí refers to "My Ëloh•âhꞋ."
It isn't necessary, as often proposed, to regard áÌÄìÀòÈí as a convert to Judaism, who went bad.
The area of A•râmꞋ and Har•ranꞋ had been influenced by Av•râ•hâmꞋ (as well as the reverse). We also know from the story of Ma•lᵊk•i-TzëdꞋëq of
It seems more likely that áÌÄìÀòÈí was a selectively úÌåÉøÈä-observant gentile in the tradition of Ma•lᵊk•i-TzëdꞋëq, before the status of geir had been well defined. Perhaps the definition of geir was refined in response to the encounter with áÌÄìÀòÈí. In any event, áÌÄìÀòÈí had obtained a reputation for his relationship with
Unfortunately, áÌÄìÀòÈí is also the prototypical selectively úÌåÉøÈä-observant gentile who, enticed by the financial inducements of the king of
For a discussion of the talking ass, see 1992.07 section.
|
|
 |
| The northern (usually intended in Biblical references) Arâv•âhꞋ of EiꞋmëq ha-Yar•deinꞋ, north of Yᵊrikh•oꞋ. NᵊharꞋ ha-Yar•deinꞋ runs from left to right (north to south) through the middle of the photograph. The lush green meadow in the foreground is on the west bank. The trees mark the east bank, where the Israelis were encamped, on the far (east) side of NᵊharꞋ ha-Yar•deinꞋ, and the mountains, in today's Yar•deinꞋ. The Arâv•âhꞋ continues south to Yâm ha-MëlꞋakh. Photographed © 1983 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ.) |
This story is well known in both Jewish and Christian circles. áÌÈìÈ÷, king of
Too many talking asses dwell on the phenomenon of the talking ass without relating to the more pertinent matters. In order to put the matter to a quick rest, note that it is often asserted of a certain look from an animal that that animal was "saying" something to its master. The story is probably derived from the account of the îÇìÀàÈêÀ he encountered. It isn't difficult, then, to understand the îÇìÀàÈêÀ describing the mare-ass's behavior as "trying to tell áÌÄìÀòÈí something". The term îÇìÀàÈêÀ is found in the previous pâ•râsh•âhꞋ in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 20.14, 16 & 21.21 where it is clearly speaking of humans. (In fact, apart from superstitious extra-Ta•na"khꞋ sources, there is a compelling case that îÇìÀàÈêÀ in Ta•na"khꞋ always refers to a human being.)
That this was a îÇìÀàÈêÀ, a "îÇìÀàÈêÀ of
|
| Israelite bronze double-edged sword |
The text says only that the mare-ass saw the ùÒÈèÈï, not that the mare-ass saw the drawn sword (though, according to the text, it was indeed drawn). Nor does the text say that this îÇìÀàÈêÀ was in the middle of the road and invisible to áÌÄìÀòÈí as popularly assumed by the simplistic and superstitious mythologists.
As any experienced soldier can attest (and as this author has personally done here in Israel), an adversary can camouflage himself within 2 meters of a roadside in ambush and not be seen—by humans. But animals are perceptive to other clues, such as smell, hearing andor minute movements which escape human notice. The same is true for hiding in the brush (andor grapevines) described in the text—near the base of a vineyard fence beside a handpath having a âãø (gâdeir; fence) made of stacked rocks along each side. (÷éø [qir; wall] in pâ•suqꞋ 25 refers to a fence from pâ•suqꞋ.24) This holds even for a path in which there is insufficient room to avoid the lunging range of a man with a sword (allowing 2-3 steps and a lunge this gives a range of at least 3-4 meters, more than needed to conceal oneself in the brush; pâ•suqꞋ 20).
Thus, it should no longer surprise the reader that the mare-ass saw and balked while áÌÄìÀòÈí remained unaware of the adversary.
EJ notes that áÌÄìÀòÈí is thought to have been a student of, or perhaps convert to, Judaism during the time that MoshꞋëh spent in Kᵊna•anꞋ in years past (EJ 4.122). We shouldn't find it far-fetched, then, to think that áÌÄìÀòÈí may have had connections with the Israelis.
This further suggests that the îÇìÀàÈêÀ of
Note especially that the îÇìÀàÈêÀ of
Similarly, áòì (baꞋ•al) cannot be automatically rendered in an absolute sense. The term adversary is relative to the opponent just as the master is master of something (of the spirit world, of the house, of the shophâr or simply of the woman, i.e. a husband).
Some readers stumble on the phrase that "
|
| Donkey |
When áÌÄìÀòÈí considered that this was not typical behavior for his mare-ass he began to look for reasons for her behavior (pâ•suqꞋ 31). Since the îÇìÀàÈêÀ apparently now revealed himself it is also proper to attribute his decision (to make his presence known) to
This interpretation corroborates áÌÄìÀòÈí's statement that he had not previously realized that his "initiative" precipitated the (probably Israeli) îÇìÀàÈêÀ intercepting him to kill him. Upon realizing the gravity of his situation, áÌÄìÀòÈí agreed to return if the îÇìÀàÈêÀ desired, but convinces the îÇìÀàÈêÀ (with one eye on the îÇìÀàÈêÀ's sword) that he will speak only the words the îÇìÀàÈêÀ gives him and continues his journey.
Upon meeting with áÌÈìÈ÷, áÌÄìÀòÈí three times blesses the Israelis in direct contravention of áÌÈìÈ÷'s express commands that he curse them. Superficially, it appears that for this áÌÈìÈ÷ is—mystifyingly—judged a false prophet and killed by the Israelis. Closer inspection of the text reveals, however, that, upon áÌÄìÀòÈí's departure from áÌÈìÈ÷ after blessing Israel (24.25) the Israelis are seduced (25.1) into interdining, intermarriage and intercourse (through the women) with the gods of the
One can see retrospectively that áÌÄìÀòÈí, seeing the might of Israel (as suggested below), understood the futility of trying to curse Israel and departed from áÌÈìÈ÷ leaving the king with the only remaining option—which áÌÄìÀòÈí had suggested from the beginning: to seduce the Israelis into being assimilated peacefully into the
Based on áÌÈìÈ÷'s actions it can also be seen retrospectively that king áÌÈìÈ÷ was convinced that áÌÄìÀòÈí, seeing the entire Israeli people from a great height was persuaded that cursing them was futile—so he moved the site to a place where only a fringe of the Israelis were in view. Finally, he moved the site to where áÌÄìÀòÈí could focus upon the
In Christian circles áÌÄìÀòÈí has sometimes been presented as a prototype gentile prophet of Jesus (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 24.17).
Perhaps auguring the plethora of modern defrocked evangelists, Scofield observed in a note to "II Peter" 2.15 of the NT that the sin of áÌÄìÀòÈí was in being "the hireling" seer, "anxious only to make a market of his gift". This is supported from other early Jewish writings. Also in the earliest source texts from which the NT was Christianized, Yᵊhud•âhꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, the brother of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, is alleged to describe the straying of áÌÄìÀòÈí (pâ•suqꞋ 11) "for wages."
Often ignored is the obvious counsel that áÌÄìÀòÈí advised to king áÌÈìÈ÷ that, since he couldn't curse the Israelis he could, instead, assimilate them into intermarrying and co-existing with them. This, too, is supported in the earliest source texts from which the NT was Christianized, where Yo•khân•ânꞋ 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ writes, "' the teaching of áÌÄìÀòÈí, who taught áÌÈìÈ÷ to set a snare before the Israelis, so that they would eat things over which a blessing had been said unto image-entities, and be promiscuous" (The Unveiling (Ἀποκάλυψις – before it became "Revelation") Live-LinkT Technology 2.14).
This is derived directly from úÌåÉøÈä. In bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 31.15-16 MoshꞋëh asks, "Have you left all the women alive? Behold, these women, äðä (heinâh 'they,' fem. pl.] were the instrument of áÌÄìÀòÈí in the Pᵊortown matter, to lead Israelis astray from
This is further clarified in bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 25.1-3: "And Israel settled in Shit•imꞋ and the kindred began to whore after the daughters of the gods and for the kindred to eat and to bow to their (fem. pl.) gods. And the Israelis coupled themselves with baꞋ•al of pᵊor." It is for this that the Israelis killed áÌÄìÀòÈí (31.8).
 |
Two very Jewish teachings derived from this are taught in the earliest source texts from which the NT was Christianized—teachings ignored by Christians themselves as well as many modern Jews. Contrasting some proselytes to Judaism against some non-observant Jews Paul the Apostate wrote in his 4th letter 10.18: "Behold physical Israel, Aren't those dining on the qor•bân•otꞋ shareholders-in-common with the altar? (cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 7.6, 15) Then what" continues Paul the Apostate, "is my point? Is [otherwise kâ•sheirꞋ meat] over which a blessing has been said to an ειδωλοθυτον anything in itself? Rather, that which the gentiles offer with the recitation of blessings (cf. Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 32.17 & Tᵊhil•imꞋ 106.37) is offered with the recitation of blessings to demonic-forces and not to Ël•oh•imꞋ (cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.7). And I do not wish you to become share-holders in common with demonic-forces. You cannot drink of the cup of hâ-Âdon and the cup of demonic-forces. You cannot be partner to the table [note: the altar has always been equated to the table among Jews] of hâ-Âdon and the table of demonic-forces."
For the sake of clarity, this passage is followed by the admonition not to "cross-examine" meat sold in the [kâ•sheirꞋ] markets or insist on "glatt kosher"—the same passage Christians often pervert as a basis for contradicting the above passage.
That this is a Jewish question of "how kosher?," and not a Christian contradiction of úÌåÉøÈä, is corroborated by an extremely similar discussion in Tal•mudꞋ: "•marꞋ R. Nakhman in the name of Rab, If [a man] saw another slaughtering, and he watched him from beginning to end, he may eat of the slaughtering; otherwise he may not eat of the slaughtering. What are the circumstances of the case? If he knows that the slaughterer is conversant [with the rules of shᵊkhit•âhꞋ], then why is it necessary to watch over him? If he knows that the slaughterer is not conversant [with the rules at all], then the case is obvious! Again, if he does not know whether the slaughterer is conversant [with the rules] or not, then should not the principle that 'the majority of those who slaughter are qualified' apply? For has it not been taught: If [a man] found a slaughtered chicken in the market, or if he said to his agent, 'Go and slaughter [an animal]', and subsequently found it slaughtered, it is presumed to have been ritually slaughtered?" (Ma•sëkꞋët Khul•inꞋ 12a, Soncino English edition).
A second passage in the earliest source texts from which the NT was Christianized, the 5th letter of Paul the Apostate (coauthored by Timothy, a Hellenist Jew, ca. 57, to Hellenist Jews in southern Greece, near Athens; Christianized to "II Cor.") 6.14ff, emphasizes this point: "Do not become heterogeneously yoked with non-trusters. For what partnership has justness with úÌåÉøÈä-lessness? Or what does light share in common with darkness? And what harmony has the Mâ•shiꞋakh with Bᵊliy•alꞋ? (cf. Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.14) Or what is distributed to both one who trusts and one who is untrusting? And what yes-vote has a temple (servant) of Ël•oh•imꞋ with image-entities? For we are the living temple of Ël•oh•imꞋ, just as
Thus, the insidious workings of áÌÄìÀòÈí's strategy was to seduce and "absorb" the Jews in "peaceful coexistence"—to tempt the Jews to stray from úÌåÉøÈä and god, coupling the Jews at their tables in spiritual fornication with the gentile gods—adultery against
This more insidious strategy is hinted in a slight change áÌÄìÀòÈí introduces. The ma•lâkh•imꞋ of áÌÈìÈ÷ had told him: "àÈøÈä" gods into Israel by enticement and seduction rather than incitement (cursing) and confrontation.
Yet, ël•oh•imꞋ replies to áÌÄìÀòÈí that, in addition to not accompanying áÌÈìÈ÷'s ma•lâkh•imꞋ, he is not to úàø (curse, 2nd pers. masc. sing. fu. of àøø) them for they are blessed."
Thus, the difference between áÌÄìÀòÈí's own idea and ël•oh•imꞋ's instructions already emerge as distinctly, and intractably, divergent.
In refusing to accompany the ma•lâkh•imꞋ back to see king áÌÈìÈ÷, áÌÄìÀòÈí obviously indicated to them that "cursing" wasn't viable (though, perhaps, "augering" might still be viable). This is evident from pâ•suqꞋ 17 where king áÌÈìÈ÷ has also changed his approach to ÷áá (auger) rather than his first approach, which had been "curse."
Thus, while
Pâ•suqꞋ 17 also shows that king áÌÈìÈ÷ agrees to this suggestion but still insists upon áÌÄìÀòÈí coming personally to him (which would violate
That Christianity has become the central culprit in attempting the implementation of áÌÄìÀòÈí's insidious strategy of "absorption", forcibly as well as peacefully, is documented in the persecutions of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews by the Roman Christians under Constantine when, in 333 CE, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ were ordered under penalty of death to forego the Jewish rituals of PësꞋakh and, instead, attend church on Easter (itself derived from the festival for the goddess Esotera) and eat pork on the way out (B. Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, Franciscan Press, 1971, p. 13-14). This heinous annihilation / absorption marked the disappearance of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ from historical records, a hiatus that continued until their re-emergence in the 1970's. Such "absorption," of course, continued in numerous pogroms as the Inquisition and the Holocaust.
24.17 — "a star is enroute by way of Ya•a•qovꞋ, and a staff (scepter) shall be established in Israel."
 |
| Fragments of CD |
YᵊkhonᵊyâhꞋ Bën-Shim•onꞋ (II) Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ, the MorꞋi ha-TzëdꞋëq, who authored the Dead Sea Scroll 'Damascus Covenant' scroll (a 10th-century C.E. copy was also found in the Cairo gᵊniz•âhꞋ) understood this verse "to mean 'The star is the Searcher of the [úÌåÉøÈä] who came to Damascus 'the scepter is the Nâ•siꞋ of the whole convocation."' (Yigael Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, p. 125).
35 years before the newly published messianic fragments were released, Yadin noted that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls expected that "the MorꞋi ha-TzëdꞋëq will arise anew, at the end of days" (ibid.). Newly published fragments don't provide new insight so much as they make it more difficult to deny the obvious, which the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ have maintained since the 1970's, namely that the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ opposition to the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ (in contrast to the
One interesting observation, however, comes from Michael Wise, Assistant Professor in Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations at the University of Chicago. Interviewing him, William Harms writes (Univ. of Chicago Chronicle, 1992.04.16), "Scholars who first worked with them contended they were produced by a small sect, the Essenes, who lived in a monastery near the area in which the scrolls were found. Other scholars, including Norman Golb, the Ludwig Rosenberger Professor in Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations, argued that the scrolls represented a much broader gathering of writings from the time.' Wise says the work of the research team tends to support Golb's view. 'There appear to be at least 500 different people writing the scrolls,' he says. 'What this suggests is not that a few scribes in a monastery were producing material, but that the material was gathered from many sources and placed in hiding in the caves. These writings were part of the intellectual life of the times."'
|
|
Referring to Israel by the term òÇí, Mikh•âhꞋ cautioned (6.5) "Remember, prithee, what áÌÈìÈ÷, king of
The question of how one may approach
Practically no Christian is aware that one of their favorite quotations (among scores of others equally concealed from them by gentile translations) requires them to keep the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ! For Southern Baptists, for example, to mount a campaign to attract, entice and pull Jews to assimilate (and eventually intermarry) into their pagan rejection of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ demonstrates that they, like Christian-Jew pseudo-messianics and Reform Jews, are among the leading representatives of áÌÄìÀòÈí—'Gog of the Magog.' In the end, both Christian Jews and Reform Jews alike will one day find themselves in the shoes of the "man of Bᵊnei-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ" of bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 25.6-9, while followers of Jesus—by whatever name—will wake up to find themselves saying "We have identified 'Gog of Magog' and he is us."
Instead of a—poof!—"rapture," îÆùÑÆêÀ and úËáÈì are in for quite a nasty surprise—even the Christianized "Proverbs" 28.9 doesn't conceal who will be "Left Behind"!
|
|
To be inconsistent is self-contradicting–an imperfection.
In the Ha•ph□târ•âhꞋ,
"Shall I give áÌÀëåÉøÄé [to be] ôÌÄùÑÀòÄé, the fruit of my belly, [to be] the çÇèÌÇàú of my ðÇôÀùÑÄé?"
Here, Mikh•âhꞋ recalls what was considered by ancient goy•imꞋ of his era to be the ultimate sacrifice to appease the ël•oh•imꞋ. The sacrifice of the Bᵊkhor almost certainly accounts for the death of the bᵊkhor•imꞋ of par•ohꞋ and the other Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim at the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ.
However, the answer given its (6.8):
äÄâÌÄéã ìÀêÈ, àÈãÈí îÇä-èÌåÉá; ÌåîÇä-é--ä ãÌåÉøÅùÑ îÄîÌÀêÈ, ëÌÄé àÄí-òÂùÒåÉú îÄùÑÀôÌÈè åÀàÇäÂáÇú çÆñÆã, åÀäÇöÀðÅòÇ ìÆëÆú òÄí- àÁìÉäÆéêÈ:
Gentile readers who've never read Ta•na"khꞋ in the Hebrew may be surprised to learn that one of the most popularly quoted passages requires the observance of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (Biblical mish•pâtꞋ)—not the deliberately misleading cover-up phrase, "do justly."
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bᵊ-Mid•barꞋ 24.17 | I shall see him, but not now; I shall look at him, but it is not near. Enroute is a star from Ya•a•qovꞋ, and a staff has risen from Yis•râ•eilꞋ, and he shall gravely-impale the edges of Mo•âvꞋ and raze all of B□n•eiꞋ Seit. | When RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa 1.21.1 was born in Beit LëkhꞋëm,2.1.1 Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, Yis•râ•eilꞋ in the days of mëlꞋëkh 14.9.1 Herod the Great,2.1.2 look… astrologers 2.1.3 came 3.1.1 to Yᵊrushâ•laꞋyim from the east 2.1.4 saying, "Where is the one who has been born mëlꞋëkh 14.9.1 of the Yᵊhud•imꞋ? 1.0.2 For we saw his celestial-phenomenon 2.2.1 in the east 2.1.4 and have come to pay obeisance 2.2.2 to him." | 2.2 | ||||||||||||||
| bᵊ-Mid•barꞋ 23.22 | It is Eil Who implemented the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ from Mitz•raꞋyim… | Having arisen, Yo•seiphꞋ took the little boy and his mother by night, and retired into Mitz•raꞋyim (and remained there until the end of Herod the Great) 2.1.2 in order that it would be fulfilled 5.17.3 that which was spoken 2.15.0 by 'ä through Ho•sheiꞋa ha-Nâ•viꞋ 11.9.1 (11:1) saying, " Out of Mitz•raꞋyim I called My son." 2.15.1 A double meaning: 1st Yis•râ•eilꞋ and 2nd–similarly–the Mâ•shi•′Ꞌakh. |
2.14-15 | ||||||||||||||
| bᵊ-Mid•barꞋ 24.8 | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
This week's Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Abuhav emphasizes that the man who works in úÌåÉøÈä shouldn't work for a wage. As Mᵊnorat ha-Maor clarifies, this is not because the man who works in úÌåÉøÈä shouldn't prosper. That's a misconception deriving from Christian vows of poverty, which, in turn, is based on misunderstandings of Scripture. úÌåÉøÈä is a recipe for prospering, not failing and poverty. Mᵊnorat ha-Maor declares that the man who works in úÌåÉøÈä deserves the entire world (see Mᵊnorat ha-Maor section). But the man who works in úÌåÉøÈä is a servant of
Both the Christian misunderstanding of 1st century Judaism and reinforcement of this teaching by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa are demonstrated in NHM 10.9-10:
Don't receive a payment; you received gratis, give gratis. Don't acquire gold nor silver nor copper for your money belts, nor a suitcase for the way, nor [a change of] garments nor sandals, nor a staff in your hand —for the worker is worthy of his food.
What is invariably overlooked is the type of services for which the worker in úÌåÉøÈä is proscribed from receiving payment—the context (10.8): "Care for the weak, raise the dead, make those who are mᵊtzor•âꞋ tâ•horꞋ and throw out the demonic-forces."
These are all works of khësꞋëd and tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ (see the Haphtâr•âhꞋ section). Receiving money for works of khësꞋëd or tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ is self-contradicting. This has nothing to do with any Christian advocacy of poverty (enabling the Vatican to become the wealthiest organization in the world at the expense of impoverished Christians). Further, those who claim to be servants of úÌåÉøÈä—or followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa—but who aren't raising of the dead, caring for the weak, making the mᵊtzor•âꞋ tâ•horꞋ and exorcizing demonic-forces—are false teachers!!! False teachers and those who impugn a worker in úÌåÉøÈä are servants of the Impugner (ùÒÈèÈï).
|
|
When a man is busy in úÌåÉøÈä, let it be for the Name of the heavens and not because of the wage. As we have memorized in Ma•sëkꞋët Khal•âhꞋ, the RabꞋi Mei•ir chapter, •marꞋ Rabi Mei•ir, "All who are busy in úÌåÉøÈä for [heaven's] Name merit many things; and not only these things, but he deserves that the entire world be his. He is called 'friend' and 'beloved' [by
And it is also memorized in a chapter part (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 99b): •marꞋ Rabi Alaksandrai: All who are busy in úÌåÉøÈä for [heaven's] Name it is as if he makes peace in the heavenly family and in the family below. As it is said, "' or, let [Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ] grasp My Strength [namely úÌåÉøÈä] and make peace with Me" (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 27.5).
And Rav •marꞋ, It is as if he built a Royal Palace of the heavens and a Royal Palace below. As it is said, "And I have set My Dᵊvâr•imꞋ in your mouth and in the Shade of My Hand I have covered you," etc. (ibid. 51.16).
And RabꞋi Yo•khân•ânꞋ •marꞋ, It is as if he causes the entire world to be shielded; as it is said, "and in the Shade of My Hand I have covered you.'
And RabꞋi Yᵊhoshu Bën-Leiwi •marꞋ, It is as if he advances jᵊulah, as it is said, "and to say to Tziy•onꞋ, 'You are My am" (loc. cit.).
(Translated so far)
|
|
|
