Home (Netzarim Logo)

Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

(wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 21.1—24.23) " '—" "
wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 24.22-23 :(Ma•phᵊtir)
TorâhHaphtârâhÂmar Ribi YᵊhoshuaMᵊnorat ha-Maor

Rainbow Rule

5765 (2005.05)

24.22 , ‮;

Regularly, khav•ra•yâ in our Khav•rutâ ask how he or she should observe this or that mi•tzᵊw•âh. The answer is explicated by the passage above.

Yehudim Teimanim

There are differences in which mi•tzᵊw•ot apply to Kohan•im, which to Lewiy•im, which to Yisra•eil•im and which to geir•im. The only difference between Yisra•eil•im and geir•im is that the latter don't eat meat in the Pësakh Seidër and, when praying in public, don't wear outward signs that would likely be mistaken for a Jew: tzitz•it showing or tᵊphil•in.

The latter is only to prevent geir•im from being mistaken for Yᵊhud•im, which could promote an improper relationship leading to intermarriage. When praying in private, however, there is no difference between Yᵊhud•im and geir•im: male geir•im wear tzitz•it and tᵊphil•in.

Unless I'm forgetting something, in all other respects geir•im practice identically to Orthodox Teimân•im Yᵊhud•im. Therefore, you usually shouldn't need to ask. Unless the Nᵊtzâr•im Beit Din has published differently, don't be different in any other respects from Orthodox Yᵊhud•im Tei•mân•im! In all other respects, practice identically to Orthodox Tei•mân•im.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5760 (2000.05)

Reliance upon misojudaic Christian-redacted distortions of Ta•na"kh causes extensive aveir•âh of , of the gravest kind, in this week's pâ•râsh•âh.

In the KJ/V, and its Christian relatives, "Leviticus" 24.11, 15 & 16 seems only to condemn one who "blasphemes" the Name: "And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." Of course, Christians hold that "the Lord" is their Jesus.

The original—from which the Christian corruption was grossly mistranslated, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil, reads dramatically differently:

Burn Auger
"Burn Auger - The burn auger produces a hole in wood by burning the wood and reaming out the char with the auger itself. This style of auger is thousands of years old and even the crudest bog iron can burn a smooth hole. Usually square iron tapered to a point with the handle bent at 90? to provide leverage and a grip for this hot tool. It is heated in a fire and the point is thrust into the wood and twisted, burning and reaming the wood to the desired size. The taper allows for different size holes to be made with one tool." (fullchisel.com, 2013.04.21)

24.11 - - , … 15  , - , : 16  -- , … :

My paper, Profaning the Holy Name Unawares, details how even the Hellenized LXX was far more faithful to the original Hebrew for these two verses, reading 24.11: "επονομασαςτο2 ονομα3 κατηρασατο1 " and 24.15: "προς1 αυτους2 ανθρωπος3 ος4 εαν5 καταρασηται6 θεον7, let him take [i.e., bear] his transgression." Notice, too, that 24.16 doesn't stipulate cursing along with naming the Name either in Masoretic Text or LXX (which reads "ονομαζων2 δε1 το3 ονομα4 κυριου5εν1 τω2 ονομασαι4 αυτον3 το5 ονομα6 κυριου7 τελευτατω8 "). Simply uttering the Name in ordinary (less than ) circumstances constituted "augering-out" the required proper awe, reverence and for the Name – a capital aveir•âh of . For further information see the cited paper.

Only when understood as originally set down in the Hebrew, and in the original ancient perspective, are these passages, which prohibit "swearing by" (and even uttering) the Name, logically consistent with other passages in Ta•na"kh that require swearing by the Name.

Two kinds of swearing by the Name are prohibited:

  1. false or unauthorized (misapplied) swearing, which the Name and

  2. normal or casual (i.e., vain) swearing, which profanes (makes common) the Name like any other name.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5757 (1997.05)

Today's Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Jews
Biblical Middle-Eastern Israelis / Hebrews / Ha•biru

22.2 -

BCE 841 Israelis-Hebrews showing hair, beard & dress. Yeihu (Jehu; Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk) BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lakhish showing carts, women & children. (Sennacherib relief) BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lakhish showing hair, beard, dress, harps & war turbans. (Sennacherib relief) BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lakhish showing hair, beard & dress. (Sennacherib relief) BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lakhish; Syrian soldier herding two Israelis-Hebrews. (Sennacherib relief)
Click to enlargec BCE 841 Israelis-​Hebrews; hair, beard & kaftan.Yeihu Click to enlargec BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khish; carts, women's dress & children. Click to enlargec BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khish; hair, beard, kaftan, harps & war turbans. Click to enlargec BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khish; hair, beard & kaftan. Click to enlargec BCE 701 Israelis-Hebrews of Lâ•khish; Syrian soldier herding 2 Israelis-Hebrews; hair, beard & kaftan.

Khareidim European Hassidim
Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•​im: Modern Hassidim of Me­dieval & Dark Ages Euro­pean origin (UK)
Khareidim European Mitnagdim
Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•­im: Modern "Litvak" (Lithua­nian) Mit•na•gᵊd•im of Me­dieval & Dark Ages European origin. (Note fur hat on rabbi at left)
What an Orthodox Jew and Rabbi looks like
Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach: What an Orthodox Jew and rabbi of today looks like – normal, same beard and hair; current dress, but no Medieval European costume!

The Babyloni­an assimilat­ed rab­bis of Tal•mud, having been "sepa­rated" from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh (pre­vi­ous­ly destroy­ed by the Romans), dis­tort­ed to mean "with­draw" or "sepa­rate from." Con­se­quently, sub­sequent rab­bis of Dark Ages and Medieval Eu­rope, long alien­ated from their ancient Middle East origins, felt compel­led to ren­der this pas­sage in a way that was more compatible with their situation of a permanent "separation" from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh .

Yet, their "reinterpretation" contra­dicts the text. This passage is explicitly addressed "to A •ha•ron and his sons," not to "the contaminated among A •ha•ron and his sons."

This difficulty is simply resolved, and reconciles with the context – without the need to contradict the text by peremptorily changing the addressee – by our rendering. Note that is the shorësh (root) of Nâ•zir. The original meaning was simply that the Kohan•im, because they served in the (now defunct) Beit ha-Miq•dâsh, were to consecrate themselves to even more stringent state of than the rest of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil.

Vowed Offering vs Voluntary Offering

22:18 - -

Nubian buck kid
Click to enlargeGoat (Nubian buck kid)

The difference isn't what an English speaker would expect.

"A is a personal obligation: "I obligate myself to bring an []." The nature of the undertaking means that if the animal is selected and then becomes lost or blemished [or dies, etc.], the person has not discharged his and must bring another animal.

A [] is a contribution: "I consecrate this animal for use as an []. The owner's obligation is to offer the specific animal, not to see to it that an animal be offered. Therefore, he has no further responsibility if it cannot be brought." (Rash"i on Ma•sëkët Kin•im 1a; from Artscroll Vayikra [sic] IIIb.386).

are discouraged, yet are entirely appropriate.

These relate to today's in the Teimân•im (& other ) Bat•ei ha-Kᵊnësët: the auctioning of the honors of opening the •ron ha-Qodësh, carrying the Seiphër Tor•âh to the bim•âh, displaying the Seiphër Tor•âh, a•liy•ot, replacing the Seiphër Tor•âh in the •ron ha-Qodësh, closing the •ron ha-Qodësh, leading different parts of the tᵊphilot, etc. on Shab•ât. Unlike an ordinary auction, no money is even present on Shab•ât (much less exchanged). Rather, the opportunity is given for Jews in the congregation to make a .

Congregants vying for the honor bid to offer the . Paralleling the time of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, the opportunity for the congregant to make a (non-sacrificial) is awarded to the best (highest) offer. Only the (and a•liy•ot to , of course) is made on Shab•ât. The actual transaction and payment of the volunteered is handled during one of the subsequent weekdays.

The decisive finality of the verbal commitment of a is illustrated by the following: "Verbal sanctification is considered to be tantamount to an act because it changes the halachic status of the animal from secular to sacred (Lëkhëm Mishᵊn•ëh)" (Artscroll Vayikra lIlb.3867).

22:21— -

Artscroll renders - as "because of an articulated vow." While this fails to accurately convey the meaning of the verb , it, nevertheless, forcefully conveys the impact of the verbal distinguishing—articulation—of the as transforming it to something wonderful. From this, the Sages derived that "In order to be valid, a [] must be formulated clearly. If it is worded vaguely, it is not binding. (See Ma•sëkët Nᵊdâr•im 5b.)" (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.387).

Beit ha-Miqdash ha-Sheini

During the time of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i, the Roman-vassal Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im "Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha"—as they were called by the Qum•rân Tzᵊdoq•im (Bᵊn•ei-Tzâ•doq) Kha•sid•im—perverted this teaching to line their own pockets. (Artscroll editors describe these priests, exemplified in the Boethusian family (documented in Ta•lᵊmud and Josephus), as: "most of them venal and unworthy of their office" Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.289).

Using some pretext concerning the offerer's verbal sanctification of his or her vow or contribution, the greedy priest often declared the offering invalid, unfit for the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh and Miz•beiakh—therein becoming the priest's own. It was this perversion by the "Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha" that the Qum•rân Kha•sid•im Tzᵊdoq•im Bën-Tzâ•doq condemned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, greed mixed with meticulous religiosity (Yiddish: "frum")—the more meticulous and minutiae-oriented, the more profitable, the more profitable the more powerful and prestigious, the more powerful and prestigious the more influential and revered in religious circles—a spiral into minutiae that's still powered by the same motivations today.

Cutting Or Piercing The Body – Of Free Men & Chattel

22.24—  ". In the wake of the "Heaven's Gate" mass suicides – all of whose males were required to be castrated, it's appropriate to note that "The blemishes listed in this verse are all forms of castration, and it is forbidden to do such a thing to any animal, whether it is in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil or elsewhere. The phrase "in your land" means only that the prohibition applies to every conceivable species of animal in the country, whether or not they are acceptable for offerings or kâ•sheir as food (Rash"i on Ma•sëkët Kha•gig•âh 14b)" (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.388).

Arab Muslim Shia flaggelate themselves and their children on the Day of Ashura (death of grandson of Muhamad)
Click to enlargeArab Muslim Shia – and their children! – flagellate themselves on the Day of Ashura (commiserating the murder of the grandson of Muhamad)

Recall in pâ•râsh•at Qᵊdosh•im (19.28) the prohibition that "   " (laceration to the psyche, i.e., to lacerate oneself for the dead—an ancient pagan form of mourning) "  ". This verse intimates that one is prohibited from inflicting wounds on the body except as specifically stipulated in (e.g., circumcision).

Another exception, perhaps surprisingly, is a nose (engagement) ring—-, cf. bᵊ-Reish•it 24.47; Yᵊsha•yâhu 3.21 & Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  11.22). However, these exceptions were not for free men. In this connection, it is essential to recall that women and slaves, the only ones wearing ear or nose rings, were chattel. Free men did not wear either a nose ring or ear ring, both of which exclusively, and indelibly, marked chattel – even women of high station were apparently decorated for the pleasure, and ownership branding and marking as chattel, of free men. This does not seem appropriate for free women of the modern era.

nose ring

As one is not allowed to lacerate oneself even in mourning, nor castrate even a non-kâ•sheir animal, only in extenuating circumstances recognized by the Orthodox rabbis, is surgical sterilization of animals, much less persons, permitted.

Concerning such things as pierced ears, I don't allow it for my (minor) daughter based on my understanding of the intention of these pᵊsuq•im, but may defer to Orthodox rabbis, if they present compelling logic, for other Nᵊtzâr•im in this matter.

22:27 — "Before an animal can be used for a sacred purpose, it must live through a [Shab•ât], just as a [Shab•ât] must go by before a boy is circumcised. Because it bears testimony to [Ël•oh•im's] creation of everything, [Shab•ât] gives spiritual validity to the entire universe (Tzror Ha Mor, Zohar)." (Artscroll Vayikra IIIb.389).

While this explanation is a syrupy sentiment most swallow thoughtlessly, it proves illogical. If the purpose was to ensure the boy and animal lived through a Shab•ât there was no need for an ambiguous and circuitous requirement of eight days. Further, deferring circumcision of boys born on a sixthday beyond the following firstday constitutes a baseless and illogical law (self-contradiction of a Perfect Creator). Since is never deliberately obtuse (Dᵊvâr•im 30.11-14), the requirement would have been expressed stating explicitly that the boy must be circumcised, and the animal used, only after living through one Shab•ât.

Rather, the number eight is defined in its following of seven / Shab•ât, which symbolizes closure.

Eight, then, symbolizes renewal, revivification. Only on the eighth day is a boy's renewal, and the renewal of his future offspring. Only on the eighth day does he become qualified to become initially (in contrast to the later, and mutually exclusive, Christian notion of "born in sin") via circumcision. Similarly, only on the eighth day was an animal regarded as a qualified qor•bân capable of symbolizing spiritual revivification relative to hâ-ol•âm ha-ba.

23:36— In this light, one may reflect on , which is the eighth day that concludes Suk•ot, "the only festival that, in the [Shᵊmon•ëh Ësᵊr•eih], is called ." (Artscroll Vayiykra IIIb.406) — and I would liken it to Hi•lul•â!!!

This eighth day, following seven days in the temporal world of Suk•ot, similarly symbolizes the revivification, to hâ-ol•âm ha-ba, of -observant Yi•sᵊr•â•eil.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5756 (1996.05)

This begins

21.1 -- -,

Nubian buck kid
Click to enlargeGoat (Nubian buck kid)

wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 22.2 instructs concerning "the safeguarding of the sanctity" of the Musâph•im and tᵊrum•ot. The kindred "are enjoined to avoid the disqualification of sacrificial meat and tᵊrum•âh through contamination." (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.379). Qor•bân offerings are often compared to the offering of tᵊphil•âh – and we will see that this instruction applies to tᵊphil•âh as well.

The pâ•suq says of a Ko•hein who has become , beyond the requirements for a Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, . The Nâ•zir was one who was consecrated, or consecrated himself, apart.

At the other end of the spectrum, this verb means for Kohan•im to consecrate themselves apart from the other Kohan•im, from the , whenever they become —so that they don't disqualify the offerings? Not just the offerings. The pâ•suq continues:

- ; , ‫…

In other words, a Ko•hein who was desecrated not only the offering of the Israeli, but the Name that the Israeli had sanctified in that offering as well. "One who desecrates the offerings that bear Ël•oh•im's Name has desecrated the Name (Sheim olam)" (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.379). Since prayer is the modern parallel of sacrifice, every Christian will find his or her own repeated desecration of the Name exposed in Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlomoh 28.9!!!

Thus, desecrating the offering equates to desecrating the Name. Compare this with how the offering of tᵊphil•âh can be an abomination (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  28.9) that, in the same way, profanes the Name. Remember, too, that Israel is to be a Realm of Kohan•im with holy goy•im (Shᵊm•ot 19.5-6).

The lesson is that the instructions regarding are still valid. Ignoring them—from eating pork and shellfish to family purity—turn one's prayer into an abomination and a desecration of the Name, just as the Ko•hein who was desecrated both the offering and the Name. instructs that Israel (which includes geir•im) is to be a holy kindred. Moreover, 22.31-32 "refers to everyone, Kohan•im and Israelis alike. The next verse's [32] mi•tzᵊw•âh regarding sanctification of the Name exhorts the kindred not to desecrate Ël•oh•im's Name by bringing such invalid offerings." (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.390).

Though ignored by Christians in favor of more distorted but convenient passages (e.g., Shim•on "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh's "Vision of the Sheet"—about how to regard goy•im, observance of the laws concerning physical is also noted in the NT. "The works of the flesh are apparent, which are promiscuity, , …" III Paul (Προς Γαλατας) 5.19, conjectured to have been originally composed ca. 51 CE). Many NT passages reiterate this same theme (see, for example, the many references in a Greek concordance under σαρκικος and σαρχ.

But becomes even more emphatic about anyone nearing these Qâdâsh•im that Yi•sᵊr•â•eil treats Qodësh for ‑‑which includes anyone nearing in tᵊphil•âh:

22.3 , ‫…

(then this psyche shall be excised from before Me)

The expression "from before Me" is a hapax legomenon (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.380). How grave is the responsibility to halakhically shed all before we approach the Qâdâsh•im in the heavens in tᵊphil•âh. In this context, Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  28.9 becomes conspicuous. Tᵊphil•âh from one who is is a blemished tᵊphil•âh—a blemished qor•bân—and attempting to near ha-Qâ•dosh, bâ•rukh hu, while in a state of .

22:25— is the basis for tᵊphil•ot being offered from the bim•âh on behalf of a -. "The stranger of this verse is a non- Jew, who is permitted to bring animals to be offered in the Temple, but not if they are blemished." (Artscroll, Vayikra IIIb.388). If even a - may do so, much more so a geir can—as explicitly stipulates —like geir like "born Jew" (24.16).

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5755 (1995.05)

Omer (''sheaf,'' of barley or wheat)
Click to enlarge

One of the most ambiguous, and fractious, teachings in revolves around the counting of the that determines the date of Shâv•u•ot, found in wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.9-11 & 15-16.

The Shomron•im (pop. Samaritans, of primarily Syrian origin), as well as the Qum•rân Kha•sid•im Tzᵊdoq•im Bën-Tzâ•doq, and later the Christians, too, all calculated Shâv•u•ot (or, in the latter case, originally Ishtar = Easter) from the Firstday of the week, based on the statement in this passage that the counting of 50 days begins .

First, we must examine a popular, but mistaken, convention. Pësakh is limited to late afternoon and evening of the 14th of Firstmonth, which is ërëv 15th of Firstmonth and, before the Seidër is over, becomes the 15th of Firstmonth. Though Pësakh introduces the week of Khag ha-Matz•ot, Pësakh ends with the Seidër. The 15th of Firstmonth is the First day of Khag ha-Matz•ot, not the First day of Pësakh as popularly, and sloppily, corrupted. Similarly, the Seventh day of this week is the Seventh day of Khag ha-Matz•ot, not the Seventh day of Pësakh.

Now, if the 1st and 7th days of Khag ha-Matz•ot (despite being defined as special Shabât•ot, regardless of the day of the week, by the Bible) aren't considered Shabât•ot, then would necessarily mean counting of the must begin on the day following the weekly Shab•ât, i.e. the Firstday of the week, and Shâv•u•ot, 50 days later, would, therefore, also always fall on a Firstday of the week. This is the evolving tradition of the Hellenist (who syncretized sun-worship) Tzᵊdoq•im, the Hellenist (Syrian) Shomron•im and emerging Hellenist proto-Christian tradition. The only major Judaic sect that rejected sun-god-day was the Pᵊrush•im.

However, this contradicts the Bible and Ha•lâkh•âh. The Pᵊrush•im have always begun counting the from the 1st day of Khag ha-Matz•ot, the 15th of Firstmonthconfirming it is a special Shab•ât—irrespective of the day of the week on which it happens to fall.

Ha•lâkh•âh can only begin the counting of the from the 1st day of Khag ha-Matz•ot because Ha•lâkh•âh has always recognized the 1st and 7th days of Khag ha-Matz•ot as special Shab•ât, regardless of the day of the week in which they fall. This is indisputably self-evident.

Since the 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•ot, as well as the 1st and 8th days of Suk•ot, are described virtually identically, these, too, are halakhically recognized as special Shabât•ot.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5754 (1994.04)

22:17-18— "Speak to A•har•on and his sons and all of the House of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, and tell them, 'Man by man, from Beit Yi•sᵊr•â•eil and from the geir who is in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil…' "

This pâ•suq acknowledges that the geir is, indeed, included in Yi•sᵊr•â•eil.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5752 (1992.05)

The definition of , the type of work prohibited on Shab•ât, is essential to the one who would be "sho•meir " in compliance with Shᵊm•ot 31.14.

The rabbinic tradition is derived from the proximity in between the prohibition against in Shᵊm•ot 35.1-2 followed by the instructions to build the Mi•shᵊkân (Tabernacle). It seems clear from this that the workers building the Mi•shᵊkân didn't work on Shab•ât—even though this was obviously (in Christian parlance) "the Lord's work"!

The rabbis reason from this that the kinds of labor expended in building the Mi•shᵊkân, not the physical exertion expended, determined the types of labor prohibited on Shab•ât. Therefore, the rabbinic definition of (Shab•ât 49b). This is topic is addressed in pâ•râsh•at wa-Ya•qᵊheil.

The first phrase of this passage, however, "six days you shall do ," is regarded as a separate command—also to be obeyed!!!

Significantly, we also find that the seventh day of the week is described here (Shᵊm•ot 31.15) as "   ".

Many readers wrongly assume that refers only to Yom Tᵊru•âh (inaccurately Rosh ha-Shân•âh—cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.24), Yom ha-Ki•pur•im (cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 16.31 & 23.32) and the 1st and 8th day of Suk•ot (cf. wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.39). These are special Shabât•ot, regardless of the day of the week in which they occur, and which are also "." Based on a rabbinically perceived distinction, the rabbis have come to observe them differently from the seventh day of the week Shab•ât.

The 1st and 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•ot and Khag ha-Shâvu•ot are similarly regarded. But here (and in Shᵊm•ot 16:23; 31:15 and 35:2), we are told that the seventh day of the week Shab•ât is also a !!! Thus, the earliest extant historical documentation shows that all of these "" were, in the time of the Beit Din -Jâ•dol, kept according to the same criteria as the weekly Shab•ât.

Note also that observing a is commanded. Attendance at beit kᵊnësët (i.e., in a mi•nᵊyân) is more than simply communal responsibility for one another and to pray for and support one another in the Jewish community. Attendance in a is a mi•tzᵊw•âh.

Omer (''sheaf,'' of barley or wheat)
Click to enlarge

23.10 -, -

(when you brought an of the first of your harvest to the Ko•hein)

The yielded about 2.2 liters of grain. Harvest here refers to the barley harvest.

23.15— The counting of the derives from this passage. There has been much confusion regarding counting "from the day following the Sabbath." Sun-worshiping gentile Roman Hellenists (who became the first Christians between the time of St. Paul the Apostate and 135 C.E.), not realizing that the first day of Khag ha-Matz•ot is also a special Shab•ât reasoned that the count always began on the next "sun(god)day." This was primarily argued by Samaritans (of Syrian origin) and Christians, asserting that "Pentecost" should always fall on a Sun(god)day.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

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

" "-"

Yekhezqeil 44.15-31

5760 (2000.05)


(who watchguarded the watch-shift of my Mi•qᵊdâsh)

This is one of the early references to the pre-split predecessors of the Qum•rân Kha•sid•im Tzᵊdoq•im Bën-Tzâ•doqTzᵊdoq•im—and the apostate Hellenist group that displaced them: the faux-Tzᵊdoq•im "Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha" under Yᵊho•shua ("Jason") Bën-Shim•on II Bën-Tza•doq and his successors. (See the beginning of the Khanukh•âh story – the most important part that even yᵊshiv•âh-educated Orthodox Jews and their rabbis are typically ignorant.)

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5754 (1994.03)

The Haphtâr•âh includes the mi•tzᵊw•âh that the ko•han•im be further limited genealogically, not just to Bᵊn•ei-A•har•on, but to Bᵊn•ei-Tzâ•doq (Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi 44.15).

What are the Kohan•im to do? Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi 44.23: - . They shall make them know the hav•dâl•âh ,

Like and , the term derives from .

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

(Ë•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua)

Ma•tit•yâhu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•it; Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhu
The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)

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

5770 (2010.04)

Translation Mid•râsh Ribi Yᵊho•shua: NHM NHM
wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 21.10

And the Ko•hein who is higher than his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and whose hand is filled, to dress, with the garments; his head shall not grow-wild, nor shall he rend his garments.

Then the Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•i3.7.2 Chief Ko•hein26.14.1 tore his garment26.65.1 saying, He has spoken blasphemy.26.65.2 Why have we need of any more witnesses? Look! Now you have heard the26.65.3 blasphemy.

wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 22.10

No shall eat of the Qodësh; not [even] a co-resident with, or employee of, a Ko•hein shall eat of the Qodësh.

Dont give bᵊsâr Qodësh7.6.1 to dogs,7.6.2 and dont set your faces7.6.3 before a pig7.6.4 lest, though it chews the vine7.6.5 while your eyes are on it,7.6.6 it returns7.6.7 to tear at you.

wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 24.5-9

And you shall take fine flour and bake 12 khal•ot of it… and set them in 2 rows, 6 per row, upon the pure table, before '… And you shall put pure frankincense upon each row, and it shall be for bread, for a memorial, a fire [offering] to '. Shab•ât by Shab•ât he shall order it before '—always. It is from Bᵊn•ei-Yis•râ•eil, a bᵊrit o•lam. And it shall be for A ha•ron and his sons, and they shall eat it in the Qodësh place. Because it is Qodësh Qâdâsh•im to him, from the fire [sacrifices] of ', a khoq o•lam.

On seeing them,12.2.0 the Qum•rân-Essene Tzᵊdoq•im sect of Judaism12.2.2 said, Look, your tal•mid•im5.1.1 are doing something that no one should do12.2.1 on Shab•ât." 12.2.2 Ribi Yᵊho•shua said to them,12.3.0 "Haven't you read what Dâ•wid did when he was hungry, and those with him? 12.3.1 Coming to the House of ', ‭ ‬  12.4.0 he ate the Display Bread 12.4.1 that he, and those with him, weren't12.2.1 allowed to eat. It was only for Kohan•im2.4.1 alone.

wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 24.16

And he who blasphemes the Name of ', he shall absolutely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the geir, as the "born Jew," for blaspheming the Name he shall be put to death.

What do you suppose should be done?" Replying they said, "He is liable unto death." 26.66.1

wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 24.17

And any man who strikes a nëphësh of â•dâm mortally, he shall be put to death.

Youve heard the Oral Law. 5.21.1 (Shᵊm•ot 20:13; Dᵊvâr•im 5:17):

'You shall not murder,'

and (Shᵊm•ot 12:12; wa-Yiq•râ 24:17):

'He that fatally strikes a man shall be liable to the halakhic death sentence.' 5.21.2

wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 24.20

Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; when he gives a blemish in an â•dâm, so it shall be given in him.

Youve heard the Oral Law5.38.1 (Shᵊm•ot 21:24; wa-Yiq•râ 24:20; Dᵊvâr•im 19:21) concerning: 'Eye for eye' and 'tooth for tooth'; and I say to you (Tᵊhil•im 37:1), 'Don't compete with wrong-doers.'

{The great distinction between Judaic and Christian clerics is that the latter expands [a] from writings in the NT (especially St. Paul the Apostate) and [b] independent of a non-Judaic context, which is why it can be antinomian and misojudaic. Ribi Yᵊho•shua, by contrast, expanded on the hermeneutics and logical derivation of Halâkh•âh from the and, therefore, within the contextual constraints—rather than contradictions—of and Halâkh•âh.
     It is clear from the earliest language that misguided Jews were perverting this passage of to argue that one who has been cheated may cheat in return, one who has been wronged may wrong in return, etc. This was the problem Ribi Yᵊho•shua was correcting: this passage of may not be perverted into an authorization for one to compete in a wrongs race.}


Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

Rainbow Rule

5769 (2009.05)


One of the most misojudaic Christian teachings warns "gentiles" to "Take heed and beware of the leaven," meaning teachings, "of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." (KJ/V "Mt." 16.6). Christians are blissfully ignorant that this misojudaic slant is a Christian-redacted perversion of an original teaching that was based on a pâ•suq from this week's pâ•râsh•âh:

The pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im were notoriously documented in the Qum•rân literature as being regarded by both other Judaic sects (Pᵊrush•im and the Essene-Tzᵊdoq•im) as "Wicked Priests"—i.e., Hellenist collaboraters with the Hellenist Roman-occupiers. (For example, it was the staunchly Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im who collaborated with the Roman Hellenists to crucify Ribi Yᵊho•shua.)

Even few scholars have shown awareness, however, of the "Herodians" faction—Hellenist by definition—of "Pᵊrush•im" (1st-century version of "Reformed" Pharisees). It makes no sense to suggest that, being a Ribi, Yᵊho•shua was a Pᵊrush•i himself, he rejected the teachings of the "Pᵊrush•im." By contrast, it is well documented that he often rebuked hypocrisy and corruption among the rabbis and, especially, among the "Herodians"—a Hellenist "Reformed" faction claiming to be Pᵊrush•im but allied with Herod, the Hellenist Ë•dom•i who ruled over the Jews by authority of the Roman Hellenist occupiers. Later, 2nd-3rd-century Christians, redacting the accounts to conform to their native gentile-Hellenist Christian doctrines, saw a perfect opportunity to displace Jews—simply by leaving out the qualifier, "Herodian," changing the implication from "Jews beware of hypocrisy and Hellenism" to "Hellenist gentiles beware of Jews"!!!

Here is how the passage reads from the earliest extant source documents (NHM 16.5-6):

1st-century Galil Boat
     Discovered in Yâm Ki•nërët, this Gâ•lil-boat's length is 8.2 m., its width 2.3 m. and its depth 1.2 m. Apparently a fishing boat, the vessel was large enough to carry 15 people, including a crew of five. Carbon-14 tests confirmed that the boat was constructed and used between B.C.E. 100 and 70 C.E. (mfa.gov.il).

"When [Ribi] Yᵊho•shua was on the bank of Yâm Ki•nërët, he told the tal•mid•im that they should prepare . Then he boarded a boat with his tal•mid•im, and his tal•mid•im forgot and didn't bring aboard any . [Ribi] Yᵊho•shua said to them, “See that you hold-off the khâ•meitz of the ['Herodian' Hellenist] rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im sect of Judaism and the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im” 

"They deliberated among themselves saying, “He is saying this because we did not take loaves of , and we will have to eat their .”

[Ribi] Yᵊho•shua said to them, “You sophomores think you have no . Do you still not understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets of leftovers you took! Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets of leftovers you took! Therefore, you should understand that I was not speaking of natural [loaves]. Rather, I am telling you that you should watchguard the leading of the ['Herodian' Hellenist] rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im sect of Judaism and the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im sect of Judaism.” "

"Then they related to the mâ•shâl that he was not saying to hold-off the khâ•meitz of their [physical] loaves of , but rather hold-off the teachings of the ['Herodian' Hellenist] rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im sect of Judaism and the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman sect of pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im Judaism."

<s>god</s> emerging through false door in rock
Egyptian god emerging through false door in rock (Mastaba (Tomb) of Idu, Giza).

The goy•im believed that their ël•oh•im lived in holy mountains (in which their god-kings had often been buried to give them better perceived access to the stars), from which they emerged through rock portals into holy temple-tombs and ate food sacrificed to them.

By contrast, Mosh•ëh taught that, instead of ël•oh•im emerging from rock portals ("false doors") into a temple-tomb, the A•ron hâ-Eid•ut (instead of an idol) stood above the rock (instead of trying to merge with the mountain) containing hard evidence (instead of an expected presence of a mythological spirit), creating a sanctified holy place linked by the bᵊrit between ‑‑ and Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, and rites that centered on obtaining a bᵊrâkh•âh from ‑‑ for the food, which was then eaten by the congregation rather than ‑‑.

has always been associated with religious teaching, the food of the spirit. Similarly, food "from the hand of a -" refers not merely to "sacrifices by gentiles," but, rather, the religious teachings of goy•im—first that of Babylon, then that of Rome: Hellenism (which was syncretized into Christianity). Hypocrisy, corruption and Hellenist doctrines, even when offered from the hand of Hellenist Jews, were regarded as from the hand of a -.

-, - -;
wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 22.25

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

Rainbow Rule

5765 (2005.05)


Recall the teachings concerning swearing from the section (5760). When understood in their pristine Judaic and Hebrew context, these passages are all consistent with the teachings of Ribi Yᵊho•shua in NHM 23.16-22: "Oy for you, blind leaders who say 'Whoever shall swear by the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh it is non-binding; but whoever swears by the gold of the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh is obligated.' You are stupid and blind, for which is greater—the gold, or the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh by which the gold was made Qodësh?"

Vows and "Blind Leaders"

Recall, too, the teachings concerning vows from the section (5757). Using some pretext concerning the offerer's verbal sanctification of his or her vow or contribution, the greedy priest often declared the offering invalid, unfit for the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh and Mizbei•akh—therein becoming the priest's own. These "Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha," condemned by the Qum•rân Kha•sid•im Tzᵊdoq•im Bën-Tzâ•doq in the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the "blind leaders" Ribi Yᵊho•shua condemned in NHM 23:16-22. Ribi Yᵊho•shua is, as always, found in the middle of the Pᵊrush•im Jewish community, NOT the community of gentile Hellenist Romans or their "Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha" pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im quislings.

What did Ribi Yᵊho•shua mean by "blind leaders"? "Blind Jews"?—like the Christians maintained from the inception of Christianity? In that case, he—being a Ribi ( a Pᵊrush•im, h-e-l-l-o-o-o) would have, himself, been a "blind leader"!!! Christian interpretation of "blind Jews" is self-contradictory.

To a Pᵊrush•im Ribi, a "blind leader" was one who perverted —the Hellenist Boethusian-Herodian "Perushim" (see NHM note 22.16.1), the pseudo- Tzᵊdoq•im "Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha," and their gentile, sun-worshipping, Roman-Hellenist, proto-Christian occupiers who empowered them and, subsequent to 135 C.E., founded Christianity and the Church. Christians cannot abandon their "blind Jews" interpretation without invalidating their own Displacement Theology. By "blind leaders" did Ribi Yᵊho•shua refer to "blind Jews" or -blind proto-Christians in the infancy of conceiving Christianity and the Church? This is one of the more subtle engines driving misojudaism among Christians. When Christian misojudaism ceases, Christian Displacement Theology self-destructs, Christian claims to religious validity evaporate and Christian claimed religious authority, including the pope, is revealed to be nothing more than a forcible usurpation of the Nᵊtzâr•im pᵊqid•im.

Unfortunately, as in the case of "Duh" (!! of "Heaven's gate") and his victims, instead of following logical and scientific teachers, Christians—and many Jews—today follow charismatic humans instead of the Ta•na"kh (implying the original Hebrew). This has been the case since before Jim Jones and David Koresh, and it remains the underlying cause of the popularity of religious leaders, nearly all of whom base their appeals on non-logical persuasion—demagoguery. Their message is often "vanilla"; traditional or "political correctness" designed to offend as few as possible (at least in their own camp) while cashing in on their target audience's current beliefs and superstitions. Their appeal is not in logic of content, but in their personal charisma and, in the case of "faith healers," in their magic. As Ribi Yᵊho•shua taught (NHM 7:15-23), beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. A good book exposing the kinds of magic practiced by the "Charismatics" is The Faith Healers, by James Randi (magician "The Amazing Randi"), with foreward by the late physicist Carl Sagan (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1987).

Counting the

Recall from the section (5755) that the Pᵊrush•im have always begun counting the from the 1st day of Khag ha-Matz•ot, the 15th of Firstmonth, irrespective of the day of the week on which it happens to fall.

Ribi (H-e-l-l-o-o-o) Yᵊho•shua was a Pᵊrush•im.

Thus, this is yet another case in which Christians reject the authentic teaching of Ribi Yᵊho•shua in order to follow, instead, the Displacement Theology of post-135 C.E. gentile—sun-worshipping (worshipping on the Roman sun-god-day)—Roman Hellenists, namely Christianity.

Biblically appointed Special Shab•ât Resolves '3 days and 3 nights' Prophecy

Recall also from the section (5755) that since the 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•ot, as well as the 1st and 8th days of Suk•ot, are described virtually identically, these, too, are halakhically recognized as Shabatot.

This is also corroborated by 1st-century Nᵊtzâr•im Ha•lâkh•âh. Ma•tit•yâhu ha-Leivi had no difficulties harmonizing the prophecy of Yon•âh ha-Nâ•vi being in the great fish (Nineveh) 3 days with Ribi Yᵊho•shua being swallowed up in the sepulchre 3 days and 3 nights (NHM 12:40).

This contrasts starkly with Christian theologians who, teaching a Sixthday evening burial and a Firstday dawn resurrection, have always been at least one night short of an intelligent interpretation and valid fulfillment of prophecy.

Ma•tit•yâhu ha-Leivi, on the other hand, knew that all of his readers—being Jews and geir•im, not gentiles—were intimately familiar with, and keepers of, Ha•lâkh•âh. They were aware that Ribi Yᵊho•shua was buried as the Shab•ât of the 7th day of Khag ha-Matz•ot approached—which by Judaic reckoning (unlike gentile reckoning) occurred at dusk that, in the year 3790, ended Thirdday of the week (full details in NHM 28 notes)!

Marked from dusk, spending 3 full days and 3 full nights in the earth brings us to dusk ending Sixthday of the week—and beginning Shab•ât, so that the women (who eventually discovered the empty sepulchre) had to wait until Motzâ•ei Shab•ât to make their discovery.

NHM corroborates this, recording (NHM 28.1) that the women found the tomb of Ribi Yᵊho•shua empty οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων

According to the account of Ma•tit•yâhu ha-Leivi, the body of Ribi Yᵊho•shua remained in the sepulcher 3 full days and 3 full nights, from dusk of Thirdday of the week at least until dusk of ërëv (regular) Shab•ât. On Motzâ•ei Shab•ât (regular, 7th day of the week) the women discovered his tomb was empty. This means that ‑‑ revived Ribi Yᵊho•shua sometime during Shab•ât (7th day of the week), not sun-god-day as originally sun-worship oriented Christianity maintains.

pâ•râsh•âh 23.6: Calculating Shâv•u•ot

This week's pâ•râsh•âh stipulates (23.6) "And on the 15th day of this month is (Khag ha-Matz•ot; the pilgrimage of Matz•ot).

NHM 28.1 corroborates the rabbinic Pᵊrush•im interpretation of the phrase in wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 23.11 (mi-mâkhârat ha-Shab•ât; from the morrow of the Shab•ât). The Greco-Roman Tzᵊdoq•im and Boethusians, sympathizers with the sun-worshipping Roman pagans, argued that this referred to the day following the weekly Shab•ât, i.e., Sun-god-day.

NHM 28:1, however, speaks of "twilight waning in one of the Shabâton." This phrase is non-sensical unless the first and seventh days of Khag ha-Matz•ot were regarded as special (additional) Shabâtot—as originally argued by the Pᵊrush•im. As Ribi Yᵊho•shua was well documented to be a Pᵊrushi and he is nowhere criticized on this issue we are thereby assured that the Nᵊtzâr•im followed rabbinic Ha•lâkh•âh as usual (cf. NHM 23.1-3)—not the conflicting practice of the Boethusians, Tzᵊdoq•im Roman-Hellenist (subsequently Christian) practice honoring the first—sun-god—day.

Recall also from the section (5752) that the counting of the derives from this pâ•râsh•âh (23.15). There has been much confusion regarding counting "from the day following the Sabbath." Sun-worshipping gentile Roman Hellenists (who became the first Christians around 135 C.E.), not realizing that the first day of Khag ha-Matz•ot is also a Shab•ât reasoned that the count always began on the next "sun(god)day." This was primarily argued by Samaritans and Christians asserting that "Pentecost" should always fall on a Sun(god)day.

This is also the key to how Ribi Yᵊho•shua was buried as the special additional Shab•ât (of the seventh day of Khag ha-Matz•ot) approached and his tomb was empty on the morning of the first day of the week—three full days later! (cf. NHM notes for chapter 28.)

Haphtâr•âh 44.21: Wine & the Last Seider

"No Ko•hein shall drink wine when they enter the inner courtyard." Some Christians have noticed that the words of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, in his last Pësakh Seidër, signaled the assumption of the royal service of Ko•hein by the Davidic king, based on Yᵊkhëz•qeil 44.21 and related passages, in NHM 26.29: "I tell you, I won't drink of the fruit of the vine at all from now until that day when I drink new wine with you in the Realm of my Father" (The Nᵊtzâr•im Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhu).

They must then be logically consistent in acknowledging the further verses defining Kohan•im in Yᵊkhëz•qeil 44.23-24: "They shall instruct My kindred concerning [differentiating] between Qodësh and khol, and they shall inform them concerning [differentiating] between tamei and tâ•hor. Concerning a disagreement, they shall stand for the mi•shᵊpât•im and shall adjudicate mi•shᵊpât according to My mi•shᵊpât•im, and My s and My khuq•im concerning all appointed times shall they watchguard, and they shall make my Shab•âts "

Note how starkly this contrasts with "changing the times and seasons," which was prophesied about the "antichrist" in Danieil (7.25), along with eradicating the "holy ones"—exactly as, even the earliest Christian historians documented, Christianity did to the Nᵊtzâr•im under Hadrian in 135 C.E. and, finally, under Constantine in 333 C.E. (documented in Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-Link (WAN).

Discerning and educated students will also notice that mi•shᵊpât•im and khuq•im, documented in this Haphtâr•âh, were the Biblical terms for Oral Law, which has come down to us today in an uninterrupted tradition of Beit-Din (Jewish courts) known today as Ha•lâkh•âh.

Haphtâr•âh 44.23: Kohan•im

Also in the Haphtâr•âh (44.23, see 5754), Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi defines the Ko•hein as an intrinsic part of : the moreh yoreh Torah ("instructor instructing the Instruction"). Legitimate genealogical Bᵊn-Tzâ•doq Kohan•im became impossible when the Romans destroyed all of the genealogies except those of Ribi Yᵊho•shua. Yet, prophesies (Shᵊm•ot 19.6) that the Jews will become


(mamlëkhët Kohan•im wᵊ-goy qâ•dosh; a realm of Kohan•im and a goy qâ•dosh).

Taken together, the Jewish people are to become a realm of moreh yoreh Torah as Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi sees the Kohan•im. The added phrase, (wᵊ-goy qâ•dosh; and a holy goy) implies geir•im.

This realm of Kohan•im are the ones Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi describes in 44.24, who are to stand and (shâphat; adjudicate-mi•shᵊpât [= modern Hebrew Ha•lâkh•âh, in the Beit-Din, pop. "judge," cf. Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC)]).

Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi writes (44.24): they shall stand , which is read of My and My khuqot in all My appointed [holy days] and they shall watchguard My Shabatot." This is another clear reference to the Beit-Din system, and Ha•lâkh•âh (though without rabbinic fences), that had already long been in effect in Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi's day.

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 & Dark Ages 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 Shab•ât concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

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

Part 1 (of 7)

The father is obligated to his son to bear up a wife [for him], in order to prevent the kheit, to educate him in a Judaic settlement and to enter him into the mi•tzᵊw•âh, perpetuating the kind.

Our rabbis bring support to this from the pâ•suq, as it is memorized in Pirqa Qama of Sanctifications (29.1): The Tana•im taught, The father is obligated by his son to circumcise him, to be Pâ•qid to him, to teach him and to bear up him a wife, etc., as it is above, in the first chapter of The General Raising of a Son (section 94.4). And we say above (ibid., 30.2), "To bear up a wife," what is the source? As it is written in Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu (29.6), Take women and give birth to sons and daughters; take women for your sons and give your daughters to men.' It's appropriate. His son is in his hand. But [husbands for] his daughters? Who were in his hand [for his daughters]? So he says [this means], To be good to whomever's hand knocks on her door and comes around.

Part 2 (of 7)

A time worthy for pairing is the best so long as he can make it early, before his urge gets over him. As Hatam memorized (29b): Rav Khisdâ is full of praise for Rav Hamnunâ in front of Rav Huna that he is a great person. He said to him: when he comes to your house bring him to me. When he came, he saw he didn't spread a scarf [over his head]. He said to him: 'Why did you not spread a scarf over your head?' He told him, 'For not taking a wife.' He said to him: 'You shall not see my face until I am married.' Rav Huna is in that opinion, as Rav Huna said: 'Twenty years old and he did not marry a woman—all his life in aveir•âh. In aveir•âh would it arise in your mind? But rather, all his days pondering aveir•âh.

Part 3 (of 7)

Rav Yoseiph said and so did [one of the Sages] from the house of Rabi Yi•shᵊm•â•eil: Up to twenty years ha-Qâ•dosh, Bâ•rukh Hu sits and looks forward to when a man will marry a woman, [and] since he came to twenty years and did not marry, He said: 'May his bones decay.'

Part 4 (of 7)

Rav Khisdâh said: 'The reason why I am superior to my colleagues is that I married at sixteen. And if I would have married at fourteen I would have told the Sâ•tân: "An arrow in your eye" ' [i.e. provoke him, since the evil urge does not control him]. Concerning this they said, 'The chapter about one who comes on his yᵊvâm•âh (Ma•sëkët Yᵊvâm•ot 63b): Rabi Khamâ Bar Khaninâ said: 'Since a man married a woman, his â•won•ot became plugged up. As it is said: "Found a woman, found good" etc. (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  18.22).

Part 5 (of 7)

And even though learning is greater than all the mi•tzᵊw•ot, and even moreso educating the youth [in ], you have a time that marrying a woman comes before, as Hatam memorized (Ma•sëkët Qi•dush•in 29b): To learn and to marry a woman—he shall learn and afterwards he shall marry a woman. If it is impossible without a woman—he shall marry a woman and then learn . Rav Yᵊhud•âh said Shᵊmueil said: 'Ha•lâkh•âh, he marries a woman and then learns . Rabi Yo•khân•ân said: 'Grinding stones around his neck and he shall deal with and there is no disagreement [on this matter]. This to us and this to them.

And we memorized also in Ma•sëkët Yom•â, chapter 'A Ko•hein ha-Ja•dol' (72b): "The awe of ‑‑ is tᵊhor•âh and stands forever" (Tᵊhil•im 19.10), said Rabi Yo•khân•ân: The one who learns in tᵊhor•âh. What is it? He marries a woman and then learns .

Part 6 (of 7)

The average time for the man who is not flooded by his urge is eighteen. Close to it ", a woman in her virginity, shall take" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 21.13). The number [in gi•mat•riy•âh of] [is 18]. So they said in Ma•sëkët Âv•ot (5.21): Eighteen years old to the khupah. As he is a lad, before his urge overtakes him, his first drop should be his firstborn son, in Qodësh. If he will be later than that time, he should conquer his urge and wait until his seed begins, as we have already found in [the case of] Ya•a•qov, our father, who was eighty-four when he married a woman and that which is written [in ] testifies about him, that Ruvein, his son, was the 'first of his might,' since it was his first drop. Also, they said about him that he never saw capriciousness in his days. Therefore, his seed was Qodësh.

Part 7 (of 7)

It is good for a man not to stall between engagment and the khupah so that he should not come to a situation of pondering in between. As memorized in Pᵊsiq dᵊ-Rav Kâhanâ 5.44): Rabi Khiyah Bar Aba said: "Prolonged yearning is a heartache" (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  13.12). This [man who marries] engages to a woman and takes her after a while. "And a tree of life, lust comes" (ibid)—this is one who engages a woman and takes her immediately.

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

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic