Home (Netzarim Logo)

Ki Tisa
Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

(Shᵊm•ot 30.11—34.35) ' "—" "
Shᵊm•ot 34.33-35 :(Ma•phᵊtir)
TorâhHaphtârâhÂmar Ribi YᵊhoshuaMᵊnorat ha-Maor

Rainbow Rule

5772 (2012.03)

Why did Michelangelo sculpt Mosh•ëh With Horns?

Contributing to Centuries of Associations with the Devil

© 2012 Yirmeyahu Ben-David. No duplication of any kind without proper attribution, including link to this website.

Har Sinai (modern Har Karkom, Israeli Negev)
Click to enlargeHar Sin•ai (Har Kar•kom; "Saffron / Senna – Mountain," in the Israeli Nëgëv). Note cleft in rock at right of summit. There were 2-3 mountains in the Sin•ai that were traditionally regarded as "Holy Mountains" by all of the peoples – and called "Sinai Mountain." This is the "Har Sin•ai".

Israeli recognition that the Creator is a Singularity dates back to Av•râ•hâm. Mosh•ëh surely understood that ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu, the Singularity, could not be fully represented in the physical world. It follows, that he understood that seeing "His kâ•vod" meant witnessing some physical manifestation by His Hand.

The most potent physical manifestation of Divine Power as perceived in the ancient world was the lightning bolt.

At the top of Har Sin•ai (viz., Har Kar•kom) protrudes a natural bim•âh of (on right side of summit in photo). "Behold the place with Me – you station yourself on that " (Shᵊm•ot 33.21).

In the side of the natural bim•âh, at the top of Har Sin•ai, notice that there is a ni•qᵊrâh. "When the passing-through of My kâ•vod shall have become, then I will put you in the ni•qᵊrâh of the " (Shᵊm•ot 33.22).

33.20 "Then He said, 'You're not able to see My Face because hâ-â•dâm shall not see Me and live… 22 So I shall cover you over with the Palm of My Hand until I've passed by 23 Then I will remove My Palm and you will have seen My Rear…"

How can this passage be understood in terms of manifestations of thunderbolts? Mosh•ëh had spent days on the mountain trying to unify thirteen different sets of tribal law into one unified set of laws that would unify Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil as one nation. He needed affirmation – a sign – that his work had the imprimatur of ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu.

One of the reasons that certain mountains were considered holy from antiquity doubtless traces to the proclivity of lightning to strike its summit during the rainy winter months. Most deaths from lightning results from cardiac arrest. In antiquity, no one knew CPR. Being hit by lightning was considered to having seen the face of a god and been struck – generally fatally. To explain those who survived likely entailed rationalizing that they must have been affected only by what we would call a secondary or nearby flash (bolt), which they may have regarded as the "rear" of the god.

In such case, Mosh•ëh would have interpreted these instructions as meaning that, at the first sign of His Coming (manifestation – lightning nearby), he should take cover in the ni•qᵊrâh immediately below where he had stationed himself, in order to avoid seeing His Face. He would have interpreted a lightning strike on the , which would have been blindingly brilliant, as the blinding Palm of ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu, covering him from seeing the Face of ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu. Perceiving that ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu had "passed by," Mosh•ëh would then have ventured out of the ni•qᵊrâh to see "." At this point, it appears that Mosh•ëh either saw, or was struck by, a secondary lightning strike. In either case, the evidence strongly suggests that, whether by the first bolt or the second, Mosh•ëh was certainly struck by lightning.

"The red-hot air in a jagged bolt of lightning is heated to up to 30,000 degrees Celsius (54,032 degrees Fahrenheit) for a split-second. Sweat and rain water on the skin explode instantly at this temperature. Sometimes this explosion of moisture rips the victim's clothing and shoes from his body. Burns, if any, are usually the result of scalding from the suddenly heated steam." (Lightning Strike Survivors Meet For World Conference, Manfred Dworschak , www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,491477-2,00.html; accessed 2012.02.03).

A typical lightning strike carries an impulse current of about 300 kV. "Most of the current from a lightning strike passes over the surface of the body in a process called 'external flashover.' " (Human Voltage, What happens when people and lightning converge; Science at NASA; science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/essd18jun99_1/; accessed 2012.02.03).

A few verses later (Shᵊm•ot 34.29), we discover, "So it was, when Mosh•ëh descended from Har Sin•ai, with the two tablets of the Eid•âh in hand while descending from the Har, so Mosh•ëh didn't know that:

Moses with horns - Michelangelo
Click to enlargeMichelangelo's (European, un-Semitic gentile) "Moses"

So, why did Michelangelo sculpt Mosh•ëh with horns? The European translations of the Bible translated this phenomenon as "beams," which they presumed to be a halo-like crown of light rays radiating from the head, as depicted in the many-pointed crowns of kings and ancient sculptures of Zeus – notice also the Statue of Liberty. The longstanding politically correct explanation has been that artists and scultors didn't know any other way to depict rays of light radiating from the head. However, this does not explain why Michelangelo depicted Mosh•ëh having exactly two horns, protruding from the front top of the head, rather than the "standard" seven rays emanating around the crown of the head.

The oldest translations of the Christian Bible misojudaically mistranslated this phrase into their Bibles as "his face had horns" based on "the Babylonian and Egyptian conception of horned deities (Sin, Ammon), and by the legend of the two-horned Alexander the Great (see the Koran, sura xviii. 85)." (Jewish Encyclopedia.com; accessed 2012.02.05). This resulted in the misojudaic canard that Jews have horns on their heads.

Moses with horns - medieval
Medieval European Christians depict Mosh•ëh with horns
Moses & Yehoshua Bin-Nun with horns (Medieval European Christian)
Click to enlargeMosh•ëh & Yᵊho•shua (Bin-Nun ?) with horns (Medieval European Christian)

keraunographic lightning tree fern-leaf feathering NBC News
Click to enlargeLightning-strike (keraunographic); fern-leaf feathering tree, Lichtenberg figures; burn marks on skin where lightning followed the path of skin blood vessels of Winston Kemp, a 24-year-old electrician. (Cari Nierenberg, NBC News)

What is one of the visible aftereffects that a lightning flashover can cause? "An almost pathognomonic cutaneous feature known as feathering [i.e., radiating] or lightning prints comprises linear, fernlike [i.e., radiating], superficial skin markings (also called keraunographic marks [derived from qâ•rân?]) that disappear after several days. These cutaneous manifestations of lightning injury usually consist of erythematous [radiating] streaks that do not blanch on diascopy. Erythema begins to fade in 4-6 hours with no residual skin changes. This bizarre cutaneous manifestation is probably related to the flashover phenomenon, from the transmission of static electricity along the superficial vasculature."

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5765 (2005.02)

Why is Mᵊlâkh•âh prohibited on Shab•ât?

31.13 – --

Christians have been taught since 135 C.E. that Tor•âh is the "law of sin and death" because, the Church teaches inter alia, Tor•âh conditions upon being perfect in one's works. Setting aside for a moment that is different from (and never used as) a name, in Tor•âh this is a military and nationalist term that is never spiritualized to the individual "soul," which the quoted pâ•suq demonstrates that Tor•âh teaches exactly the opposite of what Christians historically have ignorantly charged.

Shabat collage

In fact, so central is the teaching -- , that this pâ•suq specifies, the whole reason that one isn't permitted to do mᵊlâkh•âh on is to demonstrate that on the day most holy to Jews, , Jews aren't doing, or concerning themselves with, any mᵊlâkh•âh at all! -- does all of the atoning and sanctifying while Jews bear witness with by going on —doing no mᵊlâkh•âh at all, to demonstrate that:

  1. Yi•sᵊrâ•eil recognizes and commemorates that all is worked by ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu – not man; and

  2. On this day commemorating the of ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu, Yi•sᵊrâ•eil concerns herself not with the profane and temporal worldly pursuits of mᵊlâkh•âh that we cannot take with us, but with the eternal spiritual pursuits, which we can never lose, of communing with ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu and His family – Yi•sᵊrâ•eil ! In other words, it includes rest & relaxation with family (specifically within Am Yi•sᵊrâ•eil).

Yes, commemorates that -- created the universe in six "days" and rested. But the reason we Jews do no mᵊlâkh•âh on this commemoration has nothing to do with any notion of human creating. No human has ever created anything more than an idea; and we can be none too sure that isn't merely a reformation of existing data. We cease doing mᵊlâkh•âh every weekly and Special to demonstrate that—squarely contradicting ignorant Christian charges—Jews understand that our mᵊlâkh•âh has no connection to our eternal ; that we don't achieve or sanctify ourselves, by our own works.

, like , is all worked by --, without any mᵊlâkh•âh of our doing.

, being exclusively through --, is a teaching of Tor•âhnot an original Christian teaching.

Seventh day is a "day of complete rest"

Be careful of the English, even in a Ta•na"kh published by Orthodox Yᵊhud•im. We're not perfect either. In the case of 31.15, the phrase in the heading is a mistranslation of .

indeed derives from the verb meaning to cease or go on strike. The phrase can be translated literally as a "cessation of ceasing" or "cease and desist." However, other passages containing the phrase help us to better understand the meaning of the phrase and the term.

This phrase is found at:

  1. Shᵊm•ot 31.15 (the first instance is this week's passage)—tells us that the seventh day is a , (which is) a for --.

  2. Shᵊm•ot 35.2—also tells us that the seventh day is a , a for --.

  3. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 16.31—tells us that Yom Ki•pur is a , thus equating the of the two.

  4. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.3—tells us that the seventh day is a of a -. This tells us, additionally, that the definition of a includes a -.

  5. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.32—reiterates that Yom Ki•pur is a and that - .

    This specific form is found only four times in Ta•na"kh (Shᵊm•ot 16.31; 23.27, 32 & bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 29.7) and is always found only in this phrase.

  6. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 25.4—commands us to make a (i.e., for Yi•sᵊr•â•eil) in the Shᵊmit•âh year—a for --.

Additionally, the term, by itself, apart from this phrase, is found at:

  1. Shᵊm•ot 16.23—tells us that the first day of Khag ha-Matz•ot, the day beginning with the Pësakh Seidër, is also a , which is a for --; thus making the Khag and Yom Kipur special Shabatot ("Shabbats")—not "lesser Shabatot." Jews who light up cigarettes on break between services on Khaj•im, thinking they are "lesser Shabatot " transgress Tor•âh.

  2. Shophar (ayal-ram)
    Click to enlarge
  3. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.24—Biblical Yom Tᵊru•âh, misnamed "Rosh ha-Shanah" (New Year) in the modern era, is defined here to be a

    , -

    a of remembrance of (i.e., commemorating) the sho•phâr-blasting of a convocation of Tor•âh-recitation.

    Again, and from a different perspective, the emphasis is upon calling (the blasting of the sho•phâr is an emergency alert call) the practicer of Tor•âh to retrospection, dedication and commitment.

    Ergo, a convocation of = Tor•âh-recitation.

  4. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.39 (twice)—defines the first and eighth day of Khag ha-Suk•ot, each, as a .

  5. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 25.5—reiterates that the Shᵊmit•âh year is a .

Taking all of these descriptions together, , including the seventh day of the week, is a of for --.

Can "spiritual considerations" override Law?

The most obvious answer is: "That depends on one's definition of "spiritual considerations."

A note to 31.12-17 in the Artscroll Ta•na"kh—(rightly) noting the succession from building the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh to giving the mi•tzᵊw•âh to keep —states that: The Tor•âh teaches that the construction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh does not override . This contradicts those who claim that law must be pliable enough to permit its relation for what they regard as valid 'spiritual' considerations. Those who make such claims first transgress, of course, the mi•tzᵊw•âh against following one's own heart and own eyes (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 15.39) instead of mi•shᵊpât—the Beit-Din.

Ben-Yehudah St., Yerushalayim - afternoon approaching Shabbat
Click to enlargeBen-Yehudah St., Yerushalayim - afternoon approaching Shabbat

The notion that the ancients' definition of work, mᵊlâkh•âh, in B.C.E. 1467 is the same as today's definition in the modern world, where work has changed so greatly, is logically invalid. For example, most Orthodox college students regularly study for school exams on (not , of course). Avoiding writing doesn't exclude an activity from being mᵊlâkh•âh! It permits Orthodox business people to talk deals on (and some do). That's mᵊlâkh•âh too. Orthodox computer programmers may spend hours on working out programming problems in their minds. This is hypocrisy. Modern rabbis should clean up their own act before condemning others.

Further, the rabbis unanimously recognize that the principle of pi•quakh nëphësh must (not "may") take precedence over the laws of . Where there is a time urgency, something that cannot be done during weekdays, it is essential that the spiritual welfare of another take precedence over the laws of . However, this cannot be used merely as an excuse to do mᵊlâkh•âh that isn't directly aimed at the goal of rescuing a timely-urgent, endangered nëphësh. My point here is that the spiritual nephesh is infinitely (literally) more important than the physical nephesh. There are, and have been, Orthodox rabbis who subscribe to this view. (Rabbi Carlebach was one.)

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5760 (2000.02)

Eyes See, Brain Assumes

32.1 , - -

(…and the kindred had seen, that Mosh•ëh was abashed to descend from the mountain)

The only other instance of in Ta•na"kh is found at Sho•phᵊt•im 5.28, where this same theme is corroborated.

Mosh•ëh doesn't come down from the mountain, the popular voices declared. Therefore, "everybody knows" it's because it will be discovered that he has no connection to Ël•oh•im and so he is ashamed to show his face. So we need to follow our own heart and our own eyes and develop our own understanding of Ël•oh•im, according to our own understanding. If that sounds repetitive, it is—petitio principii.

This is the kind of reasoning which still passes for "logic" today. After all, they saw with their own eyes that Mosh•ëh didn't come down from the mountain. Who could argue with fact? What followed next is well known.

It's falling for the non sequitur which is the logical fault—the "therefore" isn't valid. But the "Herd Syndrome," or "Lemming Effect," is drawn to what is popular, not what is logical.

This should be a warning to everyone today who follows the crowd, acquiescing to peer pressures (see Shᵊm•ot 23.2), and who isn't in the Way of -- and His Tor•âh (Instruction). Ribi Yᵊho•shua confirmed this same principle in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 7.14.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5759 (1999.02)

How You Can Know You "Find Favor" with --

33.13 – , -


The Hebrew phrase "that I may find favor in your eyes" is an idiom meaning "that you may like me," something which cannot be expressed in Hebrew literally.

Myriads of people claim to want to know --. Many claim to know --. Rare indeed is the individual that has gleaned how to know --—though it is plain and straightforward in the preceding clause of this pâ•suq:


Any fourth grader should be able to figure out that Moshëh could only have been referring to the Tor•âh he was teaching to Yi•sᵊr•â•eil.

This is the only !!!

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5757 (1997.03)

This begins:

-- - : ‫ …

‫ … ‫, …

This is one of many pᵊsuq•im that demonstrate that, contrary to Christian suggestions, blood is not the only .

Half-sheqel Tyre 22 C.E. Temple tax and 30 pieces silver (zionism-israel dot com)
Obverse: Face of laureate municipal idol of Tyre; Reverse: Eagle, facing left, on prow of ship with palm branch on shoulder and club.Half-shëqël of Tyre (22 C.E., actual size; silver) struck under Roman occupation. The most used half-shëqël coin during the last years of Ribi Yᵊho•shua's life. This was the only coin accepted for the half-shëqël "Temple tax" and probably the 30 pieces of silver thrown by Yᵊhud•âh into the Treasury of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh.
Half-sheqel (66-70 C.E.)
Obverse: Qidush cup with inscription ''ShëqꞋël Yisᵊrâeil. Year 3'' Reverse: Three budding pomegranates with inscription ''YᵊrushâlaꞋyim ha-QoꞋdëshSilver Half-shëqël minted in Yᵊru•shâ•layim in 68 C.E. (year 3 of First Revolt).

In this case, the required is ½ shëqël (11.3g of silver – at today's silver prices; not today's copper-aluminum-nickel ½ ), for the maintenance of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh. You can simply Google the latest per-gram or per-troy-ounce value of silver. This is described, in pᵊsuq•im 13 & 14 as a for --.

30:29— brings out another anomaly in Christian interpretations. Most of Christianity understands "Holy of Holies" to refer exclusively to the innermost sanctum of the ancient TempIe.

The original phrase for "Holy of Holies" is . In this pâ•suq we discover that also refers to such things as the Laver and all of the utensils used in the service of both Altars.

Rather than imply that only the innermost sanctum of the ancient Temple carried this highest degree of holiness, which only the Ko•hein ha-Ja•dol could see annually on Yom Ki•pur, 30.29 demonstrates that there were varying degrees of associated with a range of things.

has a different meaning in Judaism than the vague and amorphous "holiness" has in Christianity.

Modern Half-Sheqel (actual size)
Modern Half-Shëqël (actual size; Copper 92%, aluminium 6%, nickel 2%)

In Tal•mud, is contrasted with :

  1. Ma•sëkët (I, Mi•shᵊnâ•yot 6-9). Here, Tal•mud sets forth ten degrees of contrasting with ten degrees (Mi•shᵊnâ•yot 1-5).

  2. Yet, does not equate to , which is discussed in Ma•sëkët II.

While Ta•na"kh relates to people, places and things (e.g., ), Tal•mud relates exclusively to places, each within the previous, in order of increasing :

  1. (Yi•sᵊr•â•eil)

  2. walled cities

  3. area within "the Wall" [city wall of Yᵊru•shâ•layim]

  4. (Har ha-Bayit, Mountain of the House, pop. the "Temple Mount"),

  5. (kheil; the Bulwark or Rampart beyond which non-Jews were forbidden to approach),

  6. (ezrat Yisraeil Area; pop. "Court of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil"),

  7. (ezrat Kohan•im; Kohan•im Area, pop. "Court of Kohan•im),

  8. the area between the (Ulam; Hall, Lobby) and the (Miz•beiakh; Altar),

  9. the (Hei•khâl; Palace, pop. "Temple"), and

  10. the .

The Mishnaic Hebrew term for is . That which is regarded holy is (Ency. Jud., 10.866ff).

Clearly, Jews are not a place. Yet, Tor•âh instructs (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 19.2):

; , -- ‫:

(Holy m.p. may you m.p. be; because Holy, I am -- your m.p. Ël•oh•im).

Contrasting with pagan concepts of holiness—i.e., taboo, Ency. Jud. (ibid.) explains "In Biblical religion, on the contrary, holiness expresses the very nature of [Ël•oh•im] and it is He who is its ultimate source and is denominated the Holy One. Objects, persons, sites, and activities that are employed in the service of [Ël•oh•im] derive their sacred character from that relationship. The extrinsic character of the holy is reflected in the fact that by consecrating objects, sites, and persons to [Ël•oh•im] man renders them holy. Further, since holiness is conceived as the very essence of [Ël•oh•im], biblical religion, in both the priestly and prophetic writings, incorporates moral perfection as an essential aspect of holiness, though by no means its total content."

Both pagan religions and Judaism distinguish between the holy and the profane. However, "since pagan religions regard holiness as a mysterious intrinsic power with which certain things, persons, locales, and acts are charged, the division between the realms of the holy and the profane [in pagan religions] are permanently, unalterably fixed. In fact, the latter represents an ever-present danger to the former. By contrast, biblical religion looks forward to the universal extension of the realm of the holy in the end of days so as to embrace the totality of things and persons.

"While biblical religion recognizes an area of the profane ("impure") as capable of defiling and polluting the sacred, nowhere does it regard the former as possessing a threatening dangerous potency" (ibid.). In other words, Christianity sees the realms of holy and profane not only as mutually exclusive but also as fatalistically fixed by controlling forces.

Yerushalayim dusk (jerusalemshots.com)
Click to enlargeYᵊru•shâ•layim at Dusk (jerusalemshots.com)"

Citing Yᵊshayahu ha-Nâ•vi 6.3, recited in daily services, Ency. Jud. continues (ibid.): "The hope that the divine glory will fill the whole earth takes on a messianic tinge in [bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar] 14.21. The latter is conceptually linked with [Zᵊkharyah ha-Nâ•vi] 14.20-21. There, in a messianic prophecy, Zᵊkharyah ha-Nâ•vi anticipates the day when even the bells of the horses will be engraved with the legend [' --'] as [will] every pot in [Yᵊru•shâ•layim] and [Yᵊhud•âh].

"The ultimate extension of the sphere of the holy so that it will embrace even the mundane and profane underscores the biblical concept of holiness not as a natural, inherent quality, but rather as a quality conferred both by [Ël•oh•im] and man [together, cooperatively – a Team]. This aspect of holiness in the messianic age is reflected in the prophet [Yo•eil ha-Nâ•vi's] promise that prophecy—an endowment of holiness—will become a gift possessed by young and old, by servants and handmaids (3.1-2)" (ibid.).

"In rabbinic theology, holiness is repeatedly defined as separateness. Unlike [Ël•oh•im's] holiness, that of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil is not inherent. It is contingent upon its sanctification through the performance of the [mi•tzᵊw•ot]" (ibid.). It is in our doing our utmost to keep the mi•tzᵊw•ot that Ël•oh•im, in His khein, has chosen to confer upon Yi•sᵊr•â•eil (subsuming geir•im). We do not earn by "our works" of keeping of the mi•tzᵊw•ot!

It is only in this context of that one can relate to the . The Christian concept of a "Holy Spirit" that countenances Displacement Theology antinomianism and/or rejection of the mi•tzᵊw•ot is, by Tor•âh criteria, thoroughly unholy (Dᵊvâr•im 13.2-6).

"Preeminent among the [mi•tzᵊw•ot] whose observance sanctifies Yi•sᵊr•â•eil are [] (Mekh. I) and [tzitz•iy•ot] (Sif Num. 1.15). This notion is expressed in the formula of the traditional benediction '' Who has sanctified us by His [mi•tzᵊw•ot],''"

Echoing many arguments of Paul (e.g., VI Sh. 8), Ency. Jud. further observes: "A man who has attained the highest degree of sanctification, as did the Patriarchs or [Moshëh], is freed from his dependence upon his flesh, and thus he imitates [Ël•oh•im]" Who, likewise, is not dependent upon flesh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5756 (1996.03)

Your Relationship To --: Defined in
How To Know --: Defined in
Red Heifer (American Brangus)
Click to enlargeRed Heifer (American Brangus, 2012 Grand Champion, Houston) – not cartoon-red

commemorates the ancient pu­ri­fi­ca­tions, in the ashes of the clay-red (English: chestnut) cow, of pilgrims to Yᵊru•shâ•layim for Pësakh.

The Hebrew of the titular pâ•suq of this pâ•râsh•âh reads literally: " - of Bᵊn•ei-Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, ."

How Can You Know Whether -- Likes You?

33.16— "And by what shall it be known wherefore, that You like me, me and Your kindred? Isn't it with us? So we shall be distinguished, I and Your kindred, from every kindred which is upon the face of the earth."

How Can You Know Whether -- Is Walking With You?

How can one know whether -- is walking with him or her? In a previous pâ•suq (13), Moshëh reveals that he understands how: "make known to me, prithee, . Then I shall know You so that I may be liked by You. Then see [to it] that [is] ."

Conclusion: We can know that -- is walking with us when we match our walk to His. It is we who must walk His –namely, ; not the reverse!

This is reinforced with the very next thing -- instructs Moshëh: prepare two stone tablets for the , the embryonic compilation of the 13 Tribal Laws into one, indivisible, .

is defined in Ta•na"kh as including plus - (namely, Ha•lâkh•âh). Together, indivisibly (not selectively), is --.

Ergo, when—and only when—we walk according to His , which includes His , then we walk lockstep in His —namely, --. Therefore, if we walk in His then we can know that we walk in lockstep with Him, and, conversely, He with us.

(Conversely, we can also know that those who aren't walking according to His , including His aren't walking with Him nor He with them! "By their fruits, that is their {works / conduct / product} you shall know them.")

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5755 (1995.02)

31.16-17 is recited in every Orthodox bât•ei ha-kᵊnësët every :

- -; -, : -, ; - , -- - -, , ‫:

Teimani Havdalah
Click to enlargeHavdâl•âh Tei•mân•it
(Ha•das is the spice; no European "castle spice box." While a sprig of myrtle is preferred, any fragrant herb or spice will suffice.)


"Extra soul" of Shab•ât

In the 3rd century C.E., Yi•sᵊrâ•eili Âmor•â (and reformed highwayman bandit) R. Shim•on Bën-Lâ•qish (popularly Reish Lâ•qish) illogically and weirdly expanded: (last word of 31.17) to interpret it as standing for " () " (Ma•sëkët Beitz•âh 16a; Ma•sëkët Ta•an•it 27b).

Then, in profoundly circular reasoning (petitio principii), Reish Lâ•qish extrapolated from his 3rd century C.E. innovationreform – that an "extra soul" is at the end of (Ma•sëkët Beitz•âh 16a).

Continuing to hang reform innovations on the thread he has dangled from nothing, he invents a coming of this "extra soul" at the beginning of , which is then at the end of – and this becomes the basis of the popular Lᵊkh•a Dod•i in the Qa•bâl•at liturgy; and the theme is also found in the Havdâl•âh liturgy.

There is no evidence of the "extra soul" theory in Judaism prior to the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh. Consequently, this constitutes adding to Tor•âh, explicitly prohibited (Dᵊvâr•im 4.2 et al.).

Moses' Horns

34.29-35 "Mommy, why do Jews have horns?"

In these pᵊsuq•im, we find that Moshëh , .

, primarily meaning a beam (also in the sense of "his face was beaming") or ray, was depicted in antiquity as an animal horn or cornucopia; and, by extension, assumed these connotations as well. When Michelangelo depicted Moshëh in a statue, borrowing from more ancient artists, he depicted these "horns" of light as horns coming from Moshëh's head. Consequently, misojudaics assumed from seeing the statue that Jews had horns. Odd though, no one has ever made that mistake about the images of the sun-god, Jesus, the Statue of Colossus – or the Statue of Liberty!

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5754 (1994.02)

English translations convey the gist of pâ•suq 12, however much of the Hebrew is lost:

- -

This seems to be used figuratively, in the sense of a nation lifting up its head m.s. (referring to a nation's public consensus or army). This is corroborated by the immediately following use of the verb . The translation of this verb ranges wildly because of failure to pinpoint its consistent theme.

Klein's defines as "to attend to; to visit, muster; to appoint." In the pa•al active preterite transitive], Klein's further lists "1 he attended to, observed; 2 he commanded, ordered; 3 he mustered, passed in review, he numbered, counted, enumerated, passed in review; 4 he remembered, recalled; 5 he punished, took revenge; 6 he visited; 7 he missed was lacking; 8 PBH [= post-Biblical Hebrew; ybd] he had marital relations with." That's like saying it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to. This is the verb from which the title of the Nᵊtzâr•im leader, is derived.

Analyzing all instances of this verb in Ta•na"kh (via a concordance), shows that the central theme is "muster and oversee." Audit is appropriate where "visit" or "remember" is used. Muster is appropriate where "number" is found.

Oversee or supervise is appropriate where "command" is rendered. There are almost two full pages of citations, it isn't practical to list them here. Readers should obtain and use an exhaustive Hebrew concordance for such research.

The next phrase of 30.12 is . To find the shorësh in this complex form we must strip off two suffixes: -' ('-hem; them) and (ei; the plural connective particle). Removing the infinitive prefix (li-; to/for') then reveals the shorësh: .

Mosh•ëh's Title – Rabbeinu ("Our Rabbi")?

Mosh•ëh is never referred to in the Bible as "rabbi." Of course, rabbis didn't even come into existence until 13 centuries later (ca. B.C.E. 175)!

Nor was Mosh•ëh primarily a rabbi – regardless whether this almost exclusively C.E. term is understood as "master" or teacher.

Israeli soldiers praying
Israeli soldiers praying

The Bible provides no title for Mosh•ëh, who, prior to defecting to the Habiru (Hebrews, Yi•sᵊrâ•eil), had been an Egyptian Prince, and, therefore, a General in the Egyptian Army, in the House of Par•oh, the world's superpower for over a millennium – many times longer than the U.S. has been a superpower. The Bible doesn't describe Mosh•ëh as a rabbi, but, rather, as a military general and legislator, most often using the verb ! If any title comports with the Biblical description, it is – which implies not the traditional self-serving (and petitio principii) rabbinic Mosh•ëh but, rather, the more Biblically-correct theme of overseer or military commander – Mosh•ëh (Mosh•ëh Pᵊqid•einu; our Pâ•qid)!!!

And, in fact, this is the origin of the title of the 1st century succession of Nᵊtzâr•im leaders – documenting the authenticity of its ancient tradition. "This is the Hebrew term Hellenized in LXX into [their native] Greek as επισκοπος (episkopos; inquisitioner, critical-examiner) and later rendered in Vulgar Latin as ebiscopus—which was then anglicized to 'bishop.' " (quoted from our Glossary page). There was no difference in the 1st century C.E. between the English "bishop" and "pope." They were identical in Latin ebiscopus and the underlying Greek επισκοπος.

Mustering & Oversight

The pâ•suq continues, "and they shall give, a man

, --

A more accurate translation of this pâ•suq is: "that you shall bear the head of the sons of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, for the musterings-and-overseeings of them; and, in the mustering-and-overseeing of them, [every] man shall give an expiating-ransom for his psyche." Clearly, the half-shëqël is another aspect of' , demonstrating that our "works" (i.e., Tor•âh-observance) are also required for . This corroborates our long-standing position that -- provides , inter alia through the Mâ•shiakh, only for shortcomings vis-à-vis Tor•âh-observance, not deliberate rejection, even in part—or Ha•lâkh•âh—of Tor•âh-observance.

This brings up a question raised by one of our ta•lᵊmid•im: does full Tor•âh-observance mean that a geir should observe all of the Tor•âh concerning, for example, the Kohan•im?

No, this is not what the Nᵊtzâr•im mean by full Tor•âh-observance. As this ta•lᵊmid correctly pointed out, there have always been divisions between the mi•tzᵊw•ot applicable to Kohan•im, Lewiy•im, Yi•sᵊr•â•eil and geir•im.

The Nᵊtzâr•im position is that an individual in one of these categories is required to observe everything that Tor•âh requires of their category if it is possible. Where it is impossible, or we fail despite our best efforts, that is where --'s provision for blood atonement, inter alia through the Mâ•shiakh, takes effect; to cover a shortcoming, not a conscious choice to reject halakhic Tor•âh-observance.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5753 (1993.02)

This is Pâr•âh, ( of the cow; referring to the chestnut, or clay-red, cow). This is always the which precedes ha-Khodësh. Purification with the ashes from the chestnut cow was compulsory in the era of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh. Pâr•âh commemorates the custom of everyone who would participate in the Pësakh Seidër, during Khag ha-Matz•ot to Yᵊru•shâ•layim, having to cleanse himself in due time.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

(Haphtâr•âh; resolution, wrap-up, dismissal) Tei•mân•it Bal•ad•it:

' " '-"

The Haph•târ•at Tei•mân•it is Mᵊlakhim Aleph 18.1-46, not the Sᵊphâ•râd•it Mᵊlakhim Aleph 18.20-39 or Ashkᵊnazit Mᵊlakhim Aleph 18.1-39.

5770 (2010.03)

Ancient Chemistry: "Automatic Fire"

(18.38a) ---

When, ca. B.C.E. 891, Eil•i•yâhu challenged the nᵊviy•im of Baal, after they had failed to call down fire on their sacrifice, Eil•i•yâhu repaired a neglected Miz•beiakh of --, located on Har Karmël (in ), and prayed to -- for an --- to ignite the Miz•beiakh and consume the qor•bân.

It isn't until the 9th century C.E. that the right combination of chemicals for gunpowder, in the correct proportions, is documented in the Tang Dynasty in China. However, all of gunpowder's reactive ingredients were known, mined and used in Biblical times – and some of their Biblical uses were closely related to fire.

Greek Fire
Click to enlargeGreek Fire

What isn't widely known is that "Greek fire", an English distortion of the original Byzantine πυρ θαλασσιον, is dated, according to Theophanes (ca. 759-818 C.E.), back to ca. 672 C.E.

The Greek historian, Thucydides (ca. B.C.E. 460-395), mentions the use of "tubed flamethrowers" in the siege of Delium in B.C.E. 424.

The Apocryphal book of II Maccabees recorded – in the 2nd century B.C.E. (!) – the recovery (!) of "automatic fire"; what the modern world calls a spontaneously-combustible, exothermic reaction!

naphtha (Ronsonol lighter fluid)
Naphtha – in a more recognizable form (since replaced by butane)

1.19 "When our fathers were to be led into the land of Persia, the godly priests of that time took some of the fire of the Altar and hid it secretly in the hollow of a sort of empty cistern, wherein they made it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men. ‎20 Well, after many years, when it pleased Ël•oh•im, Nᵊkhëm•yâh was sent on a mission by the king of Persia, and he sent in quest of the fire the descendants of the priests who had hid it. When they announced that they had found no fire, but νεφθαι, ‎21 he commanded them to draw out some and bring it to him; and when the sacrifices had been duly positioned, Nᵊkhëm•yâh commanded the priests to sprinkle the liquid both on the wood and on the sacrifices. ‎22 When this was done, after some time had elapsed, and the sun, formerly hidden in clouds, had shone out, there was kindled a great blaze, so that all men marveled."

Ancient Reactive Raw Materials
Related to Gunpowder

Gunpowder is composed of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate. Charcoal has been around for millennia. Only the remaining two ingredients need examining:

Other Ancient Fire-Associated Natural Materials
Mineral Salts Extraction, Yam ha-Melakh
Click to enlargeMineral Salts Extraction, Yâm ha-Mëlakh
Now: Peering Back Through the Dark Ages

While modern man arrogantly—and sometimes mistakenly—assumes superior knowledge, it's unclear that ancient peoples considered such phenomena "supernatural" like superstitious people today. Certainly, the priests knew how to perform such feats naturally. It is also uncertain that the priests tried to fool the people that such achievements were "supernatural" powers, since it was the knowledge to perform them was regarded of divine origin—(claimed to be) knowledge of the ël•oh•im, which, they claimed, proved that the priests had been "chosen" representatives of the ël•oh•im. Thus, the power was understood to be in their demonstration of custodianship of the esoteric knowledge, not in any supernatural "magic" like today's religious charlatans.

In other words, the ancient priests claimed to do natural things through advanced technological knowledge received from false ël•oh•im (in the form of predecessor priests) while today's counterparts claim to mediate pretend supernatural things by their manipulation (via mystical "angelic" pronunciations, incantations, etc.) of the True Ël•oh•im.

Rather than pretend to control pretend supernatural powers like charlatans today, the ancient practice among all sorts of priests seems to have been to learn technology in order to demonstrate very real phenomena (in contrast with today's reliance on pretend fakery and false claims) that was inexplicable to the masses, then—with integrity—credit what they thought was due to their ël•oh•im.

Thus, the ancient religious contest was a technology race. Today's religious rivalry and resulting conflicts, by contrast, pits the logical and historical Tor•âh against the "supernatural" pretenses of supersessive displacement superstitions.

It then remains to explain how the description matches the science. We read (18.38a) " ---." To paraphrase, "Then fire of -- combusted-spontaneously."

The science of "automatic fire" was lost during the Dark Ages and remained unknown for the past 1-2,000 years. However, modern scientists, consulting Pliny (23-79 C.E.) and other ancient historians, have replicated this feat. Accordingly, relying on modern science, we can surmise filling in blanks purposely left in the account.

Warning!!! Major Fire Danger Don't try this at home; you will have a major fire!!!

Just prior to Mi•nᵊkhâh

18.31 "Eil•i•yâhu took 12 stones, corresponding to the number of tribes of the children of Ya•a•qov (to whom the word of -- came, saying, “Your name shall be Yi•sᵊr•â•eil”).

quicklime calcium oxide CaO
Quicklime – Calcium Oxide (CaO)

32 He built the stones into a Miz•beiakh for the Name of --, and he made a trench large enough to plant 15 liters of seed around the Miz•beiakh [which he "seeded" with quicklime, laced liberally with pulverized rock sulphur]. ‎33 He arranged the wood, butchered the bull, and placed it on the wood. ‎34 Then he said, “Fill four jugs with ‘water' and pour them over the ascendance-offering and over the wood.” He said, “Do it a second time!” and they did it a a second time. He said, “Do it a third time!” and they did it a a third time [this time completely filling the trench with quicklime and pulverized sulphur around the Miz•beiakh and, perhaps, and for the first time, real water instead of νεφθαι]. ‎35 The water went all around the Miz•beiakh [into the trough of quicklime and pulverized sulphur] and the water even filled up the trench.

Then Eil•i•yâhu prayed for it to spontaneously combust…

38 “ ---…"

When water contacts quicklime, the chemical reaction produces well in excess of the heat required to ignite the naphtha spontaneously, which, in turn, ignites both the rock sulphur (producing a great deal more heat ensuring the wood is burning well) as well as igniting the naptha-soaked wood across the entire Miz•beiakh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

(•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua)

Ma•tit•yâhu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•it; Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhu

(Redacted, Christianized & corrupted to 4th-century "Matthew")

5765 (2005.02)

Shabat collage

The Tor•âh section (5765) exposes hypocrisy in the modern interpretation of Ha•lâkh•âh relative to the observance of . First-century Pᵊrush•im Ribis recognized not only the principle of piquakh nephesh, later codified in Talmud; they echoed the teachings of Ribi Yᵊho•shua. As I pointed out in NHM (note 12.8.1), R. Yo•nâ•tân Bën-Yo•seiph said: ", " ‭ ‬ (… , because holy is it to / for you; Shᵊm•ot 31.14), i.e., [] is committed to your hands, not you to its hands.'" (Ma•sëkët Yom•â 85b). In other words, if Jews were to serve , then the passage would have read, " (because holy are you to / for it).

Ribi Yᵊho•shua presents an even more forceful argument in NHM 12.8. The Jew may serve only One •don--, not (or the rabbis). Ribi Yᵊho•shua observed that the Kohan•im worked all in the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh—and were blameless because they served --, not themselves or their own personal mᵊlâkh•âh.

Clearly, neither the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh nor was •don over the Kohan•im. Rather, the Kohan•im were •don over the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh and . The legitimate leader ordained by -- is an •don over the Bën-âdâm. Therefore, the •don over the Bën-âdâm is even moreso •don over , which is subject to the Bën-âdâm (as taught by Ribi Yᵊho•shua and corroborated by R. Yonatan Bën-Yoseiph)!

"Yᵊho•shua's meaning is that a legitimate Judaic leader designated by -- (e.g., the Bat•ei-Din system ordained by Mosh•ëh himself, kings of Israel such as Dawid ha-lëkh, plus the Kohan•im) is greater than either the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh or ." (ibid.).

Ribi Yᵊho•shua also corroborated the principle of piquakh nephesh, setting forth the Ha•lâkh•âh that "One should do good on (NHM 12.13).

When one considers that the future Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh comprises the nᵊphâsh•ot of those who keep Tor•âh, then the principle of piquakh nephesh and Yi•sᵊr•â•eil becoming a nation of Kohan•im converges with the construction and operation of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh by Kohan•im. Doing good on then converges with Kohan•im operating the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh.

Contrary to the popular misrepresentations of hate-mongerers, no teaching of Ribi Yᵊho•shua contravened the Ha•lâkh•âh—concerning or anything else. Ribi Yᵊho•shua was an authoritative teacher of Ha•lâkh•âh and a "poseiq" (in modern parlance, one who makes determinations of Ha•lâkh•âh).

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

5771 (2011.02)

Tor•âh Translation Mid•râsh Ribi Yᵊho•shua: NHM NHM
Shᵊm•ot 33.14

And He said: will go and rest you.

Come to me all who are weary and burdened,11.28.1 and I will satisfy11.28.2 you. 29 Bring your necks11.29.1 into my yoke.11.29.2 Trust me,11.29.3 that I am poor and lean,11.29.4 and, (Yirmᵊyâhu 6.16),

You will find the place of repose11.29.5 for your nᵊphâsh•ot. 2.20.1

30 My yoke is soft11.30.1 and my burden is light. 11.30.2

Shᵊm•ot 34.28

And he was there with --, ‎ 40 days and 40 nights, no lëkhëm did he eat nor water did he drink; and he wrote on the lukh•ot the Div•rei ha-Bᵊrit, A•sërët ha-Dᵊvâr•im.

Ribi Yᵊho•shua was fleeing4.1.0 from the sâ•tân4.1.1 and hit•pa•leil.5.44.2 2 He fasted6.16.1 forty days4.2.1 on the har.4.2.2 3 Then, look, the sâ•tân4.1.1 came and said to him, If you are a son3.17.2 of Ël•oh•im, say to this stone that it should become lëkhëm, and eat it4.3.1 4 Ribi Yᵊho•shua said, The writing, Dᵊvâr•im 8.3, is:

for not on the lëkhëm alone shall the man8.20.1 live, for upon everything going forth of the Mouth of ' 1.22.1 shall the man8.20.1 live. 4.4.1

Shᵊm•ot 34.6-7,12 & 15-16

(of --)

(chanted in a min•yân on special days)


-- -- ; , , ;

Shᵊm•ot 33.14

And He said: will go and rest you.

See that you dont disdain one of these youths, for I tell you that, through everything, their ma•lâkh•im1.20.1 in the heavens3.2.2 behold the Face18.10.1 of my Father Who is in the heavens.3.2.2 11 For the bën-â•dâm8.20.2 came to save the lost.18.11.1

12 How appropriate this is for you:18.12.1 If a man will build a flock of an hundred sheep, and one of them strays off,22.29.1 he will abandon the remaining ninety-nine and go seek the one. 13 If he shall find the stray, truly I tell you, he is more jubilant over it than the others.18.13.1 14 Indeed, the Father Who is in the heavens3.2.2 does not want that even one of the youths should stray.

Shᵊm•ot 34.29

When Mosh•ëh descended from Har Sin•ai, with two lukh•ot of ha-Eid•âh in the hand of Mosh•ëh, in his descent from the Har; but Mosh•ëh didn't know, that in his speaking with Him.

Six days later, Ribi Yᵊho•shua took Shim•on "Keiphâ"4.18.2 Bar-Yonâh16.17.0 and Ya•a•qov "Bën-Rogëz" Bar-Zav•di•eil4.18.0 and his brother, Yokhâ•nân "Bën-Rogëz" Bar-Zav•di•eil4.18.0 and brought them up upon a high NHM17.1.1 privately for him lᵊ-hit•pa•leil.5.44.2 2 There he was metamorphosed before them. His face beamed17.2.1 like the sun and his ta•lit9.20.2 became white as the or.4.16.0 3 And look… Mosh•ëh and Eil•i•yâhu17.3.1 appeared to them to be talking with him.17.3.2

Shᵊm•ot 34.10

And He said, Behold, I Myself a bᵊrit, all of your am I will make , which were never [before] created in all of -ârëtz or among any of the goy•im; and all of ha-am, within whom you are, shall have seen the Ma•as•ëh of -- for it is awesome, what I've done with you.

Related: Yirmᵊyâhu 15.9

Wretched is she who birthed seven, her nëphësh ; her sun ; while there was still daylight she was shamed and embarrassed; and their remnant, I shall give to the sword, before their enemies, declares --.

Related: •mos 8.9

And it shall be on that day, declares A•don•âi --, ‎ the sun by noon; and I will darken the ârëtz in a day of or.

Related: Yᵊho•shua 10.12-14, 27

Then Yᵊho•shua shall speak to -- on the day that -- shall give the Ë•mor•i, before Bᵊn•ei-Yis•râ•eil; and he said before the eyes of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil, "Sun in Giv•on , and moon, in the Valley of Ai•yâl•on." 13 and the sun and the moon stood, until the goy took retribution against its enemies, isn't it written - and the sun stood in the middle of the heavens, and did not speed-up for a whole day. 14 There was no day like that before it or after it, -- hearkened to the voice of a man, for -- battled for Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil27 It became at the season of of the sun, that Yᵊho•shua tzi•wâh, and they lowered them from the stakes and sent them to the cave in which they had hidden; and they placed large stones over the mouth of the cave – until this very day.


See, inter alia, Yᵊsha•yâhu 60.19, Mish•lei Shlom•oh 6.23 and Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.6; 49.6 and 60.3.

The sky became dark and gloomy overcast from noon until 3:15 p.M.27.45.1 Then, about 3:15 p.M., Ribi Yᵊho•shua shouted (Tᵊhil•im 22.2):


(Eil•i, Eil•i lâ•mâh a•zav•tâni), that is: "My Eil, my Eil, Why have you abandoned me?) 27.46.2

The KJ/V is not even close to either the Hebrew or the Tar•gum Aramaic (below). Sounds like a gentile Roman, who didn't understand a word of Hebrew or Aramaic, trying to spell it phonetically from a 4th-century Hellenist Jew who probably didn't know it himself. The Aramaic Tar•gum reads:

(Eil•i, Eil•i mᵊtul mah shâ•veiq•tâni râ•khiq min pu•rᵊqâni – mil•i a•khᵊlâ•yut•i; My Eil, my Eil, for what purpose have you left me far from my redemption? – are the words of my outcry.)


Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar


Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

Translated by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu & Yâ•eil Bën-Dâvid.

("The [Seven-Branched] Candelabra of Light"), The Teimân•im Yᵊhud•im' Ancient Halakhic debate, Corrupted into the Zo•har & medieval Qa•bâl•âh

At Beit-ha-Kᵊnësët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ•âmi here in Ra•a•nanâ(h), Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, liturgy for a regular concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

Proof reading of Hebrew parts by Yâ•eil Bën-Dâ•wid.

© Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu Bën-Dâ•wid. All rights reserved. Copies, reproductions and/or retransmissions strictly prohibited.

Part 1 (of 5)

A man will always be as careful with a mi•tzᵊw•âh that appears easy in his eyes as a mi•tzᵊw•âh that is hard in his eyes. As we recite in chapter 2 of dᵊ Âvot: Rabi said, Which Way is straight that shall be honest for a man, etc.? So he should be as careful with the easy mi•tzᵊw•âh as with the hard. Therefore, when one mi•tzᵊw•âh shall become opportune to a man he mustn't relax from performing the other mi•tzᵊw•âh. As it is said, There's no [acceptable] transgressing of mi•tzᵊw•ot.

Part 2 (of 5)

And to the world-age a man should see to himself that it is because of that one mi•tzᵊw•âh that he may perhaps tip the scale to his merit. As it is memorized (40.1), To the world-age a man should see himself as half credits and half debits.

He who performed one mi•tzᵊw•âh—he's happy that he tipped the scale to his credit.

He who transgressed one transgression—Oy for him that he has tipped the scale to his debit.

As it is said, "One misstep shall ruin much good" (Qohelet 9.18). For the sake of one misstep that he has misstepped, this ruined much good. Rabi Elazar in [the name of] Rabi Shim•on says: Because the world-age followed the herd concerning the topic under discussion, and the individual followed the herd concerning the topic. [Note: Shᵊm•ot 23.2]

One who performs one mi•tzᵊw•âh is happy that he tipped the scale, for himself and all of the world-age entirely, toward credit.

He who transgressed a transgression—Oy for him that he has tipped the scale, for himself and all of the world-age entirely, toward debit.

As it is said, "One misstep shall ruin much good."

On account of this single misstep that he absolutely misstepped, he has ruined his own many good [works] as well as [the many good works] of the world-age.

Part 3 (of 5)

The onus is upon us to study from Moshëh (upon him be peace), [who is] the •don of all of the nᵊviy•im, whole in all of the mi•tzᵊw•ot. There hasn't been another like him in the world-age—and he favored perpetuating one mi•tzᵊw•âh [especially], as it is memorized in Pirqa Qama dᵊ-Sotah (13.1): The Rababan taught: Come and see how Mosh•ëh favored perpetuating the mi•tzᵊw•ot. All of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil busied themselves with looting, but he busied himself with mi•tzᵊw•ot, as it is said, 'The wise-hearted will take mi•tzᵊw•ot' (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh 10.8).

From whence did Moshëh know where the tomb of Yo•seiph was? But they said, Serakh Bat-Asheir was left behind, etc., as it is above in chapter 6, the section on tomb of the dead (section 212b).

Part 4 (of 5)

We find also that we shouldn't lust to enter hâ-Ârëtz, except as a means for perpetuating the mi•tzᵊw•âh concerning hâ-Ârëtz. As it is memorized at the end of the chapter (Sotah 14a), Rabi Simlai interpreted, "For what reason [lit. because of what did] Mosh•ëh lust to enter hâ-Ârëtz? Did he have to eat from its fruit or to satiate himself from its good? Rather, Mosh•ëh said thusly: "Many mi•tzᵊw•ot are commanded of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil [some of which] cannot be kept except in hâ-Ârëtz. I will enter hâ-Ârëtz in order to keep all of them."

Ha-Qâ•dosh, Bâ•rukh Hu, said to him, "You're asking nothing solely for the purpose of receiving remuneration. I will credit you as if you performed them." As it is said, "Therefore, I will assign him a portion among the many", etc. "and he bore the kheit of many and interceded for the posh•im." (Yᵊsha•yâhu 53.12).

"Therefore, I will assign him a portion among the many"—Can it not be like the latter [the many who came to Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil to establish the mi•tzᵊw•ot] and not the first [generation of the Yᵊtzi•âh]? Tal•mud says, "and to those who are mighty He will apportion booty" * (ibid.) like Av•râ•hâm, Yi•tzᵊkhâq and Ya•a•qov, who were mighty in Tor•âh and in the mi•tzᵊw•ot.

Egyptian calf mask: front
Click to enlarge left viewClick to enlarge front viewPattern of the "Golden Calf": Egyptian (Hathor of Queen-Par•oh Khat-shepsut (reigned ca. BCE 1504-1483): mask of her face encoding her royal name: the forehead cobra (maat, truth or justice) + the bull horns (ka, soul or psyche) holding the solar disk (Ra, the sun god), virtual-egyptian-museum.org.

"In place of whom [namely, the posh•im, like the generation of the Yᵊtzi•âh] he bared his nëphësh to death" (ibid.)—that he delivered himself to death as it is written, "And if not, erase me, I prithee, from Your Book," etc. (Shᵊm•ot 32.32).

"And with the posh•im he was counted" (Yᵊsha•yâhu 53.12)—that he was counted with the dead of the midbâr [following the Yᵊtzi•âh: e.g. A•har•on, Mosh•ëh and the generation who witnessed Har Sin•ai but weren't permitted to enter hâ-Ârëtz).

"And he bore the kheit of many"—that he made ki•pur concerning the Ma•as•ëh of the [gold] cow [namely, the Egyptian idol-mask of Hathor).

In the incident of the "Golden Calf" (mask), contradicting the primary rabbinic quasi-halakhic claim to rule (that everyone must follow the – by which they mean the rabbinic consensus), Ta•na"kh here confirms the principles that:

  1. Yi•sᵊrâ•eil—the —errs, and

  2. Shᵊm•ot 23.2 commands the exact opposite: - -

"And interceded for the posh•im"—he requested rakham•im for the posh•im of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil who will return tᵊshuv•âh; and there is no intercession except tᵊphil•âh as it is written: "And you, don't pray on behalf of this am, don't bear jubilance or tᵊphil•âh on their behalf and don't intercede [for them] in Me" (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu 7.16).

* Note: This is a more accurate rendering of the original Hebrew of Yᵊsha•yâhu 53.12, verified in iQIsa. Interestingly, the meaning revealed here is corroborated by the teaching of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, almost certainly relative to this pâ•râsh•âh, in NHM 25.14-30.

Part 5 (of 5)

When [Mosh•ëh] knew that he couldn't enter hâ-Ârëtz, he fulfilled the mi•tzᵊw•âh by his love of the mi•tzᵊw•âh. As it has been memorized in Ma•sëkët Mak•ot, chapter "These are the exiles" (10a), Rabi Sismai inquired, "What is written? 'Whoever loves money shall not satiate [himself with] money' (Qo•hëlët 5.9). This is Moshëh, who was aware that there wouldn't be three cities [of refuge] across the Yardein [river] to absorb [refugees] until three were chosen in hâ-Ârëtz. [Recognizing this opportunity to establish a mi•tzᵊw•âh,] â•mar, "A mi•tzᵊw•âh that came into my hand I will keep it."

Whoever loves his crowd has [its] produce (ibid. [i.e., one reaps what he sows). For whom is the study of the crowd befitting? For whomever everything [of that crowd] becomes his produce. This is what Rabi Eliphâzâr said: "What is written? 'Who shall verbalize the heroics of --' (Tᵊhil•im 106.2)? For whom is it befitting to verbalize the heroics of --? For whomever all of his Tᵊhil•ot are heard.

Therefore, let not maintaining the mi•tzᵊw•ot be a slight [thing] in the eyes of any man, great or small. And if it is despised in his eyes [yet, he performs the mi•tzᵊw•âh despite disliking it], perhaps it is great in the eyes of the Creator to give him (mushᵊlâm; complete) reward [lit. wage]. And concerning a dâ•vâr like this, â•mar (Shᵊlomoh) ha-mëlëkh (upon him be [ha-Shâ•lom], "Whoever despises a dâ•vâr shall corrupt himself, but whoever shall (yi•rᵊei; revere) a mi•tzᵊw•âh (yᵊshulâm; shall be complete[ly rewarded])" (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh 13.13).

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic