|
[Updated: 2021.07.21]
– Proto-Sinaitic Hebrew 
or 
Kᵊna•an•imꞋ ר glyphsBoth Hebrew headdress and lack thereof are documented symbolically from the earliest Kᵊna•an•imꞋ Aramaic-Hebrew ר glyphs meaning "head": Proto-Sinaitic Hebrew phonetic "r" — or — glyphs were adapted from the Egyptian hieroglyphs c. B.C.E. 1800, ≈2 centuries before Mōsh•ëhꞋ was born. These two Kᵊna•an•imꞋ Hebrew glyphs spotlight a contrast between a head with headdress (facing left) versus a bare head. These Kᵊna•an•imꞋ Hebrew glyphs evolved, through the Middle Semitic letter 
, into the modern Hebrew ר.
Only those inventing faux-justifications for their uninformed and fixed agenda cite the following:
The mention of חֲבָליִם "by (not 'on') our heads," by this braided binding-cord (or measuring-cord) more likely refers to captives roped to each other in a chain gang-like line.
The cases of mourning likely imply a change of head covering, from the everyday mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët, held in place by the tō•tëphꞋët, to burlap (sackcloth).
Nothing in Scripture alters the universal Middle-East headdress, in which the kip•âhꞋ was an undercap worn underneath the mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët (either loose and hanging over the shoulders or wound atop the head in a turban), which was held in place by a tō•tëphꞋët.
 350x271.jpg "ccc") |
 600x464.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} c BCE 900 – Babylonian king Nabu-pal-iddina wearing royal tiara-crown tō•tëphꞋët (r) + 3 types of Babylonian headdress |
The Babylonian "Sun-god Tablet" depicts 3 types of Babylonian headdress c. B.C.E. 900 that, aside from king Nabu-pal-iddina (rightmost, wearing a mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët, twisted rope-like and wound atop the head in a turban with the end rolled-up in the back, all held in place by a tō•tëphꞋët), appear to represent three strata of ancient Middle Eastern society and headwear. These three major classes likely were dominant throughout Middle Eastern societies: (l-to-r):
Similarly, the dress of the three classes of BCE 10th century Babylonian society reveals the pattern of dress dominant throughout the Middle East – apparently little changed from the basic pattern from which Mōsh•ëhꞋ adapted the unique new dress code of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ.
While the ancient Egyptian and Middle-Eastern tō•tëphꞋët emanated in-your-face religious significance, before the advent of a/c in cars and buildings the mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët seems to have been merely utilitarian protection from the sun, dust and (drawn over the face) blowing sand.
The earliest extant witness of Biblical-era Middle Eastern attire worn by Israelis and Jews are two sets of reliefs displaying ancient depictions of Israelis and Jews (supplemented by reliefs showing similar factions among other Middle-Eastern peoples):
 Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk hair beard dress 0250x134.jpg "cBCE841 Yeihu (Jehu) Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk") |
 Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk hair beard dress 2547x1362.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Obelisk relief c BCE 841 – YeiꞋhu Bën-Yᵊhō•shâ•phâtꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, offers tribute to Assyrian King Shalmaneser III. Earliest extant witness of ancient Israeli attire (with fringes), grooming (hair and beard length/style) – and royal mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët or mi•gᵊba•atꞋ. |
In 20 register scenes of the c BCE 840 black obelisk from the palace of Shalmaneser III in Nimrud, Iraq (then capital of Assyria), YeiꞋhu Bën-Yᵊhō•shâ•phâtꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, and his delegation are depicted bringing a tribute to form an alliance with Assyria.
In the register shown, YeiꞋhu Bën-Yᵊhō•shâ•phâtꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, is wearing the royal Hebrew version of the Middle Eastern mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët and tō•tëphꞋët.
The mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët (or mi•gᵊba•atꞋ) scarf headdress was held in place by a Tō•tëphꞋët – fons et origo of today's tᵊphil•inꞋ – which evolved from the East African (Egyptian/Kushim) & Middle Eastern seshed tiara-headband crown. The emissary behind him wears similar headdress. The Tō•tëphꞋët of the emissary on the right is clearly defined.
Judea In Nineveh, Iraq |
 Relief c BCE 700 – Relief from palace of Assyrian Sanᵊkhei•rivꞋ, In Nineveh, Iraq |
Wall reliefs a century and a half later in the palace of Assyrian King Sanᵊkhei•rivꞋ in Nineveh, Iraq (then capital of Assyria), depict his conquest of Lâ•khishꞋ, a major city of southern YᵊhudꞋâh between Khë•vᵊr•onꞋ and the Mediterranean Sea. The captive male Jews, having been stripped of fringed outer-robes and sandals, walk handcuffed and barefoot, humiliatingly in their kaftan underrobes. (Stripped of their fringed outer-robes was the ancient definition of "naked".) Guarding the captives are armed Assyrian soldier guards, each of whom wears what may be a mi•gᵊba•atꞋ. While it's unclear from these wall reliefs whether the Jews were bareheaded before capture, Tor•âhꞋ commands wearing a tō•tëphꞋët, which implies the standard mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët (and kip•âhꞋ) beneath. Today's ta•litꞋ likely inherited and merged several central motifs, including the fringes of the outer-robes. This suggests that the (commanded tō•tëphꞋët with) head scarf, one of our required daily garments, was likely white with several tᵊkheilꞋët stripes. Today's tzitz•itꞋ are more likely descended from the fringe seen on their outer robes in these wall reliefs.
While lacking any corroboration of Israeli or Jews' men's attire in this scene beyond their underrobes, the depiction nevertheless documents Jews' continued faithful adherence to Biblical hair and beard lengths. These consistently short-trimmed hair lengths comport with 30-day growth between trims by non-nâ•zir•imꞋ; compelling evidence that the relief depictions of Israeli-Jews regularly identified by various scholars as having long hair, or wigs, with a headband and no head-covering, could not have been depictions of uncovered long hair. Rather, such reliefs depict the standard, and universal Middle-Eastern mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët (or mi•gᵊba•atꞋ) held in place by a tō•tëphꞋët.
Conquered By Assyria Iraq Assyrian king Ashurbanipal Ninevah palace defeats Elam (W Iran)-1 0250x202.jpg "ccc") |  Assyrian king Ashurbanipal Ninevah palace defeats Elam (W Iran)-2 250x220.jpg "ccc") |  Assyrian king Ashurbanipal Ninevah palace defeats Elam (W Iran)-3 250x239.jpg "ccc") |
 Assyrian king Ashurbanipal Ninevah palace defeats Elam (W Iran)-1 1024x829.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |  Assyrian king Ashurbanipal Ninevah palace defeats Elam (W Iran)-2 600x529.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |  Assyrian king Ashurbanipal Ninevah palace defeats Elam (W Iran)-3 624x597.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |
| c BCE 658 – Wall reliefs from Assyrian king Ashur-banipal in Ninevah, Iraq: memorialized conquest of Ël•âmꞋ (W Iran). Elamite captives going into exile wear the typical Middle-Eastern mi•gᵊba•atꞋ scarf headdress held in place by a tō•tëphꞋët. The prominent tie at the back of the head suggests the tō•tëphꞋët was made either of cloth, braided goat hair cord or leather. | ||
The Yᵊhud•imꞋ returning to YᵊhudꞋâh c BCE 538) from Bâ•vëlꞋ, where they had assimilated, because they had the imprimatur of Babylonian (Persian/Iranian) King Koresh Jr., had authority over the native Judean and Galilean Jews. Thus, prior to the finalization of Scripture, they imposed Babylonian assimilations they had internalized in the Gâl•utꞋ: like switching from Biblical month names to Babylonian month names, celebrating the Babylonian New Year of Ma•rᵊdukhꞋ in 7thmonth instead of Biblical 1st month, and preferring the assimilations in the Babylonian Ta•lᵊmudꞋ over the native Israeli (Yᵊru•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ) Ta•lᵊmudꞋ.
Perhaps it was at this time, as depicted and documented in (i.e. no later than) Hellenist times (see below), the Babylonian Exiles may also have brought back, and imposed (separately from the original Biblical mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët, prescribed exclusively for the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ, and mi•gᵊba•atꞋ, prescribed exclusively for regular ko•han•imꞋ, to reform other Jews to assimilate to an undercap of subjugation that may have been imposed on them by the Babylonians during their captivity. These remnants, of the Babylonian Exile (and, perhaps partially of subsequent Hellenism), were rationalized and internalized by reform, assimilated during their subjugation to Babylonian (and perhaps partially Hellenist Assyrian) rule, to King Koresh Jr. and, idolatrously, subjugation to the Babylonian "Creator and Lord of the Gods of Heaven and Earth" Ma•rᵊdukhꞋ (and perhaps partially the Hellenist Assyrian king Antiochus and Ζεύς)!
 |
 c 244 CE – Israelis-Jews of Assyria, assimilated (Hellenized, Romanized) in Roman attire and grooming, bareheaded; earliest depiction of anthropomorphic Hand from above (Dura Europos) |
The wall paintings from the συναγωγή in Dura Europos, Syria, dated to 244 CE, vividly demonstrate that, already by that time, mainstream Middle Eastern Jews had been widely, and thoroughly, Hellenized into Roman culture – about 80 years before the Hellenization of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, which kick-started the KhaꞋnukh•âh story. This is seen not only in their Roman dress and grooming, but in the Hellenist-Roman anthropomorphic hand extending downward from the top of the painting, clearly depicting their assimilated understanding of a visible and physical god handing down the Tor•âhꞋ at Mt. Sinai.
This Hellenization, assimilated and reformed by the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ collaborators with the Roman-occupiers of YᵊhudꞋâh, is evident not only in the early use of of the term συναγωγή. Even the term Συνέδριον (controlled by the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ – with the support of Beit Sha•maiꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ – until c 30 CE) is Hellenist-Roman! We also know, for example, that the Romans introduced the ët•rogꞋ in the Middle East about a century earlier, displacing the original, Biblically-specified, fruit.
Priests officiated with head uncovered through the Hellenist period. Head covering (along with leaning / reclining while eating, et al.) was assimilated from Roman custom.
As the painting on the wall of the BCE 3rd century συναγωγή in Dura Europos, Syria show, by the time the two main Pᵊrush•imꞋ traditions – Israeli v Diaspora – were codified, nearly a millennium later in the 5th century CE Diaspora Jews show extreme assimilation into their Assyrian, then Babylonian, then Hellenist environments. When we read the resulting Ta•lᵊmudꞋ in the 5th century CE, we suddenly notice these accretions of a•vōd•âhꞋ zâr•âhꞋ, accumulated over centuries, everywhere. Just as the Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ Ra•bân•utꞋ of today were ordained by Turks, the Babylonian Ta•lᵊmudꞋ was assimilated, reformed and imposed over the Yᵊru•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ Ta•lᵊmudꞋ by Jewish underlings by authority not of Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ but by Babylonian King Koresh Jr!
"The covering of the head, as an expression of the "fear of God" (yirat shamayim), and as a continuation of the practice of the Babylonian scholars (Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ 31a), was gradually endorsed by the Ashkenazi rabbis. Even they stated, however, that it was merely a worthy custom, and that there was no injunction against praying without a head cover (Maharshal, Resp. no. 7; Be'ur ha-Gra to Sh. Ar., OḤ 8:2)." (emphasis added).
Modern rabbis cite a misleading part of Ta•lᵊmudꞋ Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ 31a and Ma•sëkꞋët Sha•bâtꞋ 156b to wit: "Cover your head, so you should fear from heaven." They don't tell you the context, which is steeped in Babylonian custom and superstition: "For R. Nahman b. Isaac's mother was told by astrologers, 'Your son will be a thief.' [So] she did not let him [be] bareheaded. She said to him, 'Cover your head so that the fear of heaven may be upon you, and pray [for mercy]' " And R Khunah cited his Babylonian-assimilated custom, for which there is no evidence whatsoever in Israeli (as opposed to Diaspora) history: "Cover your head, so you should fear from heaven."
The Babylonian Ta•lᵊmudꞋ also implies that – in Babylon – only unmarried men didn't wear a kip•âhꞋ: "Rabbi Hisda praised Rabbi Hamnuna before Rabbi Huna as a great man. He said to him, 'When he visits you, bring him to me. When he arrived, he saw that he wore no head-covering. 'Why do you not have head-covering?' he asked. 'Because I am not married,' was the reply. Thereupon, he [Rabbi Huna] turned his face away from him and said, 'See to it that you do not appear before me again before you are married."
Additions to Scripture (contradicting Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1), found in the Babylonian Ta•lᵊmudꞋ – particularly in contrast to the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ, inform us what idolatrous Babylonian religious customs were assimilated by Babylonian Jews returning to YᵊhudꞋâh wielding the authority of the Babylonian regional ruler: King Koresh, Jr. – not the pristine tradition from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ!
Relying on the "European-approved" Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ, Ram•ba"mꞋ ruled that a man is required to cover his head during tᵊphil•ōtꞋ; – perhaps the catalyst first introducing the custom to the Yᵊhud•imꞋ of Yemen (the Tei•mân•imꞋ). The insinuation is that there was certainly no requirement, even according to the Babylonian-assimilated tradition, to wear a head-covering other than for tᵊphil•otꞋ. Thus, the Ram•ba"mꞋ may have been promulgating an earlier Medieval European reform, entirely alien to the Middle East, stemming from the Roman destruction of the yō•khas•inꞋ authentication of ko•han•imꞋ — for which there is no earlier certain evidence whatsoever.
Today, a kip•âhꞋ is worn by most Israeli Orthodox Jews as part of normal dress, and by others when visiting places of Jewish prayers. However, even in Israel (contrary to Ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox rabbis' beliefs), personal observance over several decades has shown that more than a few, and an increasing number of, moderate Orthodox don't wear a kip•âhꞋ outside of tᵊphil•ōtꞋ and beit kᵊnësꞋët.
The historically authentic Judaic headdress remains the Scripturally-commanded tō•tëphꞋët, which implies a mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët with several tᵊkheilꞋët stripes, held in place by a tō•tëphꞋët. Tzitz•itꞋ were required on the four-cornered, fringed outer robe in the ancient wall reliefs, later reformed by conflation with the mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët, into today's ta•litꞋ.
In cases where correctness falls short of logical proof, precedence must always be given to the least assimilated, historically-accurate and logical (scientific) opinion reflecting the the most pristine practice from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ. Scholars agree that this is typically the Tei•mân•imꞋ. However, even they, despite their general isolation from the surrounding Middle Eastern Arab culture (which protected them from assimilation more than any other Jews in the world; best preserving them as the least assimilated from our Biblical Middle Eastern Judaean culture), suffered a number of assimilations acknowledging their subjugation, which were imposed on them by their Arab rulers until they made a•liy•âhꞋ to Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
Today, it is often the case that no one is able to prove what was original and historically correct at Har Sin•aiꞋ. Always, in the tradition of Beit Hi•leilꞋ, there must be respect for diverse opinions relative to uncertainties; since mortal opinions are not Divine commands. Contrary to the Divine overruling Authority that rabbis claim (which, in fact, is constrained to teaching in accordance to the One Tor•âhꞋ), Scripture forbids additions (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1) or even following the majority of rabbis or Sages לְרָעֹת (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 23.2 – remember: the majority, people and clerics, followed after the gold calf-mask of Hât-HōrꞋ!); i.e., when it contradicts Scripture or the Creator-Singularity's reality of facts and His Laws of Logic/resolved science.
Contrast this logic with the sanctimonious arrogance of Beit Sha•maiꞋ – today's Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ!
 |
|
 |