שַׁבַּת שׁוּבָה

Shab•ât′ between Yom T^әru•âh′ and Yom ha-Ki•pur•im′.

This Haph•târ•âh′ takes precedence over the weekly Haph•târ•âh′ .

Tor•âh′:

See the regularly scheduled pâ•râsh•âh′.

After the sixth a•liy•âh′, which is read by a pre-Bar-Mitz•wâh′ boy, all of the youngest boys who can read take turns, some for the first time, reading a couple (probably the first 2-3) of p^әsuq•im′ of the sixth a•liy•âh′.

Ha•ph^Ətâr•âh′ Teimân•im′ No•sakh′ Ba•lad•i′:

'הושע י"ד ב'-י', מיכה ז' י"ח כ

Ho•shei′a 14.2-10 and Mikh•âh′ 7.18-20 (not Yo•eil′ 2.11-27)

The Ha•ph^Ətâr•âh′ selection for this special Shab•ât′ שׁוּבָה begins with the words שׁוּבָה יִשׂרָאֵל and takes precedence over the regular Ha•ph^Ətâr•âh′ selection of the Pâ•râsh•at′ Shâ•vu′a.

5765 (2005.10)

Ho•shei′a 14.3 is often cited trying to justify replacing blood sacrifice with t^әphil•âh′—wrongly and without logical basis as demonstrated in 5756 (below).

However, that doesn't imply that t^әphil•âh′ cannot replace blood sacrifice; only that 14.3 isn't a proper basis for the argument.

In fact, T^әhil•im′ 141.2 provides the solid basis for substituting t^әphil•âh′ for all of the sacrifices:

תִּכּוֹן תְּפִלָּתִי קְטֹרֶת לְפָנֶיךָ מַשְׂאַת כַּפַּי מִנְחַת-עָרֶב

This progression is intrinsic to t^әphil•âh′. "The stem, [פִּלֵל (pi•leil′), has been explained to mean 'to cut oneself' and to refer to the primitive pagan custom of slashing oneself in a frenzy during worship" (Prayer, Ency. Jud., 13.978)—like the Muslims. While many scholars attempt to deny and discredit this well-documented etymology, the truth is that this meaning corroborates rather than conflicts with the religious progression of Av•râ•hâm′ and his descendants out of paganism where such cuttings were part of their religion. The same is true, for example, of the term Ël•oh•im′, which means gods—in the plural.

The chief significance of the Sh^әm•a′ is that it explains that the Creator-Singularity has, for Av•râ•hâm′ and his descendants, replaced all of the ël•oh•im′ worshiped by the pagans—who slash themselves. Similarly, step-by-step in stages, the connotation of t^әphil•âh′ has replaced cutting oneself for פִּלֵל; and, later, replaced the related—and next step in the thematic evolution—connotation of blood sacrifice (above).

In the ancient Bât•ei′- ha-k^әnës′ët, which had its origin in the Babylonian Exile (Prayer, Ency. Jud., 13.980), t^әphil•âh′, accompanied by Scripture reading and exposition, entirely took the place of altar offerings (ibid., 979). The transition in the Bât•ei′- ha-k^әnës′ët away from the sacrifices that were performed in the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′ was, no doubt, due in large measure to the corruption of the K^Əhun•âh′ into the rabid-Hellenist pseudo-Tz^әdoq•im′, which rendered the sacrifices invalid (see Khanukh•âh′).

5759 (1999.09)

pâ•suq′ 10: No mention is made requiring intermediary teachers. "Whoever is wise shall understand these things, and whoever understands will know them, for straightforward are the Ways of י--ה, and the tzadiq•im′ shall hâ•lakh′ in them; but posh•im′ will stumble-and-fall over them."

5756 (1996.09)

Many English translations of Ho•shei′a 14:3 pervert the original Hebrew and are misleading.

קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם דְּבָרִים, וְשׁוּבוּ אֶל-ה'; אִמְרוּ אֵלָיו, כָּל-תִּשָּׂא עָוֹן וְקַח-טוֹב, וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים שְׂפָתֵינוּ‮:

There is no basis for the English addition "instead"! Rather, knowing that animal sacrifices continued, that they didn't cease from Tor•âh′ practice at that time, demonstrates that it wasn't understood to have referred to any discontinuance of animal sacrifices. Therefore, it clearly refers to young bulls that had been vowed by the lip. The young bulls "of the lip" were those young bulls that had been consecrated by vow of the lip to be offered as a sacrifice. Thereafter, the young bulls were consecrated and not permitted for any other use.

As a result, the correct understanding of this pâ•suq′ must be: "Take with you d^әvâr•im′, and make t^әshuv•âh′ to י--ה; say to him 'May you be all-forbearing of â•won′, and accept [what is] good; then we will pay the young bulls of our lip [i.e., vows ]."

5754 (1994.09)

Ho•shei′a 14.10 is a passage imperative for Christians to comprehend: "Whoever is wise will understand these things, whoever is comprehending shall know them, for the דַּרְכֵי 'ה are יְשָׁרִים and the צַדִּקִים shall hâ•lakh′ in them; but posh•im′ will stumble-and-fall over them."

And what are the 'דרכי ה that constitute the Halâkh•âh′ in which the tzadiq•im′ shall hâ•lakh′? Mosh•ëh′ continues to clarify exactly what this means—but, depending on the year, that may be in next week's pârâsh•âh′.

5753 (1993.09)

‫ 14.2: שׁובָה יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ;

14.3 — In English, the first mish•pât′ of this pâ•suq′ may sound nonsensical to some: "Take with you words, and turn to 'ה." However, it makes more sense when you understand the Hebrew: "Take with you D^әvâr•im′, and make t^әshuv•âh′ to 'ה."

The English translation of pasuq 3 is often twisted to justify replacing sacrifices with prayer for atonement. However, "כָּל-תִּשָּׂא עָוֹן" means "may You bear every â•won′"—not "תִּסְלַח (ti•s^Əlakh; {may you, you shall/will—2^nd pers. m.s.} forgive) all our iniquity"!

The next phrase is וְקַח-טוֹב, not "and receive—all of us, the bad with the good—graciously."

The next phrase that some might find enigmatic is: וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים שְׂפָתֵינוּ. The grammar of this phrase seems self-contradicting, making understanding difficult. (The rendering in The Prophets, by The Jewish Publication Society, acknowledges this uncertainty.)

The Aleppo Codex corroborates the reading in Masoretic Text.

To explain the phrase requires first explaining, in very broad strokes, some basic grammar. "Lip" or "language" in Hebrew, is the feminine singular (f.s. n.), שָׂפָה, having five connotations. The combinative (comb.) s. is ▯-שְׂפָת. However, some of these connotations are distinguished in the plural (pl.).

English	singular	s. combinative	dual=pair	pl.	pl. combinative
1. lip	שָׂפָה	▯-שְׂפָת	שְׂפָתַיִם	שְׂפָתוֹת	▯-שִׂפְתֵי or ▯-שִׂפְתוֹת
2. language (expressed by the lip)	שָׂפָה	▯-שְׂפָת		שָׂפוֹת	▯-שְׂפוֹת
3. rim (lip) of utensil	שָׂפָה	▯-שְׂפָת		שָׂפוֹת	▯-שְׂפוֹת
4. shore, beach, river bank	שָׂפָה	▯-שְׂפָת		שָׂפוֹת	▯-שְׂפוֹת
5. "lip" meaning mustache (שָׂפָם)	שָׂפָה	-		שְׂפָיוֹת
6. edge (lip) of uterus	שָׂפָה	▯-שְׂפָת		שָׂפוֹת	▯-שְׂפוֹת

We find, in the table above, that the concluding word in 14.3 builds on the sing. comb. ▯-שְׂפָת as its root, adding the pronominal pl. suffix ֵינוּ ▯ (▯ei′nu; our). The context demonstrates that one of the first two connotations is implied: lip or language, either referring to that which is produced by the lip, in this case the vow of a פַּר.

Finally, we can resolve שְׂפָתֵינוּ as a f.s. comb. noun meaning "our lip, our language, our utterance" and used as a metaphor for "our vow."

Thus, the phrase פָּרִים שְׂפָתֵינוּ translates as "[the] young-bull of our vow."

The verb נְשַׁלְּמָה is prefixed with the conjunctive וּ, "and, or, but, then, so."

At this point, the contradiction of many modern interpretations begins to assert itself. The shor′ësh of this verb is שלם "to be ended, be finished, be complete; to be whole, be safe; to be peaceful, be at ease… The base שלם prob. developed from base שלה¹ (= to be at ease) through the medium of שָׁלוֹם (= peace)." (Klein's Etymological Dictionary).

The initial letter נ requires that this verb can only be either

1. the pa•al′ fu. 1^st pers. pl. נִשְׁלַם (ni•sh^Əlam′: 1. we will {complete, end, finish}; 2. we will be {safe, sound, at peace}),

2. the niph•al′ pres. masc. sing. נִשְׁלָם (ni•sh^Əlâm′: 1. {I,^m. you,^m.s. he, it,^m.} is {completed, ended, finished}; 2. (post-Biblical Hebrew connotation, not applicable),

3. the niph•al′ fu. 3^rd pers. pl. נִשָּׁלֵם (ni•shâ•leim′: 1. {we} will {complete, end, finish}; 2. (post-Biblical Hebrew connotation, not applicable), or

4. the pi•eil′ fu. 1^st pers. pl. נְשַׁלֵּם (n^Əsha•leim′: 1. we will {complete, finish}; 2. we will {make whole, make good, restore, make compensation, recompence}; 3. we will {pay}; 4. we will {requite, recompense, reward}).

This is where confusion has been deliberately injected, defying grammar to promote a theology.

The vowelization in the pâ•suq′, נְשַׁלְּמָה, isn't compatible with either the pa•al′ or the niph•al′. A priori, the construct in pâ•suq′ 14.3 is the pi•eil′: we will {complete, make good, recompence, pay} "[the] young-bull of our vow."

None of these possibilities include a ה ending. הּ can be used as a suffix meaning "her, of her"—when it contains the dâ•geish′ (the dot inside the letter). However, the ה ending in this pâ•suq′ lacks the dâ•geish′. Nor is there a fem. noun in the context to either "she" or "her" that can "be completed." A priori, this is a variant spelling of one of the examples above.

Therefore, this is the pi•eil′ construct. To convey the meaning of the text faithfully and unambiguously, it can only be translated "we will {complete, make good, recompence, pay}…"

Furthermore, this is even confirmed in the Hellenist LXX Greek: και ανταποδωσομεν καρπον χειλεων ημων (kai antapodosomen karpon kheileon eimon, and we will recompense / reciprocate with the fruit from our lip).

Everything in LXX mirrors Masoretic Text except "fruit" vs. "bulls." Interestingly, ▯פְּרִי מ could easily have been confused, by scribes who copied the mss., with פָּרִים.

Instead of the above, the original reading could even have been פָּרָה! The ה▯ is easily mistaken for ים▯ in ancient Hebrew. Moreover, the ה▯ ending of פָּרָה (a fem. noun) is the only solution that provides an otherwise absent fem. noun, that could be implied by the ה▯ ending of the verb, נְשַׁלְּמָה—if there were a dâ•geish′ in the ה (however, note an exception in the final word of b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 29.31, וּנְסָכֶיהָ). Also in its favor, פָּרָה has ample scriptural basis: b^Ə-Mi•d^Əbar′ 19.2, 5, 6, 9-10.

Nevertheless, the popular, modern, wished-for interpretation, "heifer of our lips," would require not only the fem. combinative ending ת (to yield פָּרַת- שְׂפָתֵינוּ ([the] heifer of our lip-vow) but an explanation of why sacrifices were not discontinued at that time and, instead, continued from the time of the prophecy until the destruction of the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh′ in 70 C.E.!!! There is no possibility that the popular modern interpretation is correct. The popular modern tradition is a perversion of Ta•na"kh′ that must be corrected.

This yields the following reading:

Say to Him, 'May You bear every â•won′ and take [only what is] good: we will recompence with the young bulls [vowed by] our lip.'

This solution satisfies, and is the only solution that satisfies, all of the grammatical considerations of all of the earliest extant source documents as well as all maintaining consistency with all of the principles of Tor•âh′. It is a simple t^әphil•âh′ for י--ה to put up with (bear) our â•won′ and accept (take) our utmost efforts to satisfy the mitz•wâh′ of Tor•âh′ (which, during the era in which the prophecy was written, included a vow to sacrifice a young bull for the specified transgression—and then required performance of the vow of one's lip).

Nowhere in any of this is there justification for the phrase "instead of'!