Home (Netzarim Logo)

Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

(bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 16.1—18.32) " '—" "
bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 18.30-32 :(Ma•phᵊtir)
TorâhHaphtârâhÂmar Ribi YᵊhoshuaMᵊnorat ha-Maor

Rainbow Rule

" ‎(5780; i.e. 2020.06)

Tribal Blood (rakh)
Egyptian Pharaonic-Prince Enlightener-Reformer (Mōsh•ëh)
(mundus mutatus)

Everyone knows that the people whom Mōsh•ëh brought out of Mi•tzᵊrayim in the Yᵊtzi•âh was Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, right? But who comprised Yi•sᵊr•â•eil? Were they a people anachronistically defined by the post-Holocaust, Nuremburg Trial (i.e. Nazi definition) and subsequent rabbinic internalization and adoption—REdefinition (reform!)—of being born of a Jewish (i.e. Judean) parent or mother (excluding the other tribes)?

Principally, of course, these were the I•vᵊr•im, who had immigrated from Iraq (i.e. Bâ•vël) to the Nëgëv of Kᵊna•an before being driven by a famine to sojourn in the fertile Egyptian Delta. By the end of their long sojourn in the Nile Delta, the I•vᵊr•im had been assimilating into the idolatrous culture of the Egyptians for some 4 centuries—for which they would be repeatedly punished for clinging to Egyptian idolatry (e.g. the Gold Calf-mask of Hât-Hōr) long after the Yᵊtzi•âh.

On the other hand, Mōsh•ëh also welcomed and included an .

The Issue:
Was Tribal-Pure rakh ha-Lei•wi
Religiously Superior To
Intermarried Egyptian Diaspora Pharaonic-Prince Of The ?

While apologists strive to retroactively force him into a monogamous mold, the historical account records that Mōsh•ëh was polygynously intermarried to two women: a Mi•dᵊyân•it (Tzi•pōrâh) and an unnamed Kūsh•itneither of whom were I•vᵊr•it!!! Ergo, whether they were the same woman as some modern theologians would like, or not, Mōsh•ëh, himself a Lei•wi, was intermarried!

This racist-religious arrogance and sanctimony, that ones personal Ultra-Orthodox purity translated to the Will of ‑‑, was the core underlying rakhs claim to enjoy preferred Divine Favor and Ultra-Orthodox superiority over Mōsh•ëh.

Yet, ‑‑ empowered Mōsh•ëh, not rakh, who, along with his supporters, were destroyed by ‑‑!

Khareidi sawing off limb sitting on
Click to enlargeUltra-Orthodox Kha•reid•i sawing off limb hes sitting on

Over the intervening millennia, the lesson of rakh has dimmed in the collective memory of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil. rakhs legacy has been resurrected in todays sanctimonious Orthodox rabbis who, like rakh, are determined to rule over modern Jews (Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eil), while cutting-off todays Diaspora .

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5760 (2000.07)

16.5 , - ‫:

Ben-Gurion Airport, Berukhim ha-Baim le-Yisraeil (Welcome to Israel)
" 1 terminal reception sign reads: Bᵊrukh•im ha-Bâ•im lᵊYi•sᵊrâ•eil (Welcome to Israel; lit. "Blessings on Those-Coming to Israel"). See more photos in our virtual "Welcome" Center (click in navigation panel at left).
- (Bën-Gurᵊyon Airport)

"… and whomever, whom He shall choose He will cause to approach Him".

Mosh•ëh – Providentially Placed, Promoting Principles
rakh – Providentially Not Placed, Self-Promoting

On the last evening of a vacation to Israel with my wife, Karen, in 1983, about to return home to Florida, "I remember on the bus back to Bën-Gurᵊyon [airport] looking at the lights in the apartments and wishing I could be in any one of them rather than leaving' At night when I look out at the lights in the apartments I remember that night on the bus back to Bën-Gurᵊyon and thank -- that tonight I am standing in one of those windows." ("One man's search," Jerusalem Post Magazine, 1990.07.27, p. 10f).

I still do.

In fact, often when I drive to get my computer repaired [update 2012: now we walk, no more car, too expensive here], walk downtown on an errand and the like I still marvel that I'm really here in Israel, and thank -- that today I am driving [riding in a bus or taxi] or walking in Israel.

With countless Christian Jews and other assorted gentile Christians clawing and clamoring to crown themselves the leader representing their version of Jesus, I still marvel at how, without my really trying, I one day discovered – after an exhaustive but fruitless search for a Nᵊtzâr•im to follow – that -- had placed me where I am, showed me there was no one then following Ribi Yᵊho•shua as the Mâ•shiakh in good standing in the Pᵊrush•im-heritage Jewish community except me, and dropped the mantle from the last Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid in the authentic Jewish community—the 15th Pâ•qid Yᵊhud•âh ha-Tza•diq, back in 135 C.E.—on the only Pᵊrush•im-heritage follower of Ribi Yᵊho•shua in the Pᵊrush•im-heritage community—me. It was a moment in which the proportions of the historic task were daunting and humbling. While others were self-proclaiming themselves great leaders in Christianity I was asking, "Why me? How can I do this? I'm just a man." But -- showed me in His that Mosh•ëh also had to deal with the same feelings of inadequacy (Shᵊm•ot 3.11).

I am reminded of this theme every year when we read pâ•râsh•at rakh, who epitomizes the person who self-proclaims himself to be the leader, or if that's not possible syncretizes a historical figure into a more desirable version and the redacts the history, rather than accepting the leader, for whom -- has seen fit to open doors, smooth paths, provide opportunities and lead into the position of Pᵊrush•im-heritage authority.


The rakhs of the world, defying the leader who was placed in position by --, arrogantly and defiantly self-proclaim themselves and their own quack displacement theology that empowers themselvesdefining a cult – rather than point people, not to their own authority but toward the Authority of and --.

Khareidim throw feces at Orthodox schoolgirls, call them whores in Beit Shemesh, Israel BBC 2011.10.10
Click to enlargeBBC video 2011.10.10 – Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im spit on an eight year old Orthodox elementary schoolgirl, calling her a (whore), a (slut-prostitute) and a or " (assimilated German – namely, Yiddish – for "detestable goyah girl"); according to mother, Hadassah Margolis (dossim.com/ContentPage.aspx?item=352). They also assault an Orthodox rabbi (blue shirt) for being moderate – Beit Shëmësh, Israel video

rakhs have reincarnated unendingly throughout the ages. Particularly notable from the Dark Age are the Qabâl-ists, who produced the false Mâ•shiakh, Shabᵊtai Tzᵊvi. Today's reincarnation of the 1st century C.E. Roman-collaborating, Hellenist-mired Tzᵊdoq•im are the secular-collaborating, European Medievalism-mired Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im. Whereas, in the 1nd century C.E., the Qum•rân Tzᵊdoq•im identified themselves as Sons of Light in contrast to the Hellenist-mired Tzᵊdoq•im, whom they identified as sons of Darkness, today's Ultra-Orthodox (aka Kha•reid•im), are belligerently and incorrigibly anti-science and anti-education – willfully and defiantly, sons of Darkness by choice.

The Christian Idol
Calling the 2nd-4th century Christian-syncretized counterfeit by a Hebrew name doesn't change the idol. The historical 1st century Pᵊrush•i Ribi was not Christian!

But rakhs are not limited to the Jewish community. The major offspring displacement theology, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil, Christianity, is founded on a re-purposed version of the Romans' native Zeus – a Hellenized counterfeit christ idol that syncretized the Hellenist messianism of the "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate with the Romans' native Hellenist mythology – displacing the authentic, historical, Pᵊrush•i Ribi Yᵊho•shua with their Hellenist re-purposed idol – Jzeus (Jesus)!

To corroborate their re-purposed, displacement theology Jzeus idol, history (Hegesippus) documents that, no earlier than 142 C.E. and no later than 168 C.E., the Hellenist Romans began ἐποιησάμην the matching succession of Greek Επισκοπος ("popes") – to similarly displace the first Ya•a•qov ha-Tza•diq and succeeding pᵊqid•im. Christians swallow all of this displacement theology that flies in the face of hard evidence. While Christianity claims that their ἐποιησάμην Greek first Επισκοπος ("pope"), "St. Peter," died in Rome, the bones of Shim•on "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh, at this very moment, still rest in an ossuary (photo) marked with his name, in the Har ha-Zeit•im Tomb Complex in Yᵊru•shâ•layimnot Rome!

In today's Christian community, today's rakhs range from charlatan "Netzarim" poseurs, pseudo-"Messianic" Christian Jews, "Royal Nazarene Great Sanhedrin," Christian popes and priests, evangelists, and preachers; all offspring of the Hellenist Romans, who managed to wrest control by force in 135 C.E. and delude the entire world that the authority vested in the first Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid of the Jews (Pâ•qid Ya•a•qov ha-Tza•diq) be displaced, instead, to Hellenist Romans and their ἐποιησάμην Greek Επισκοπος ("popes") rather than accept the authority of -- and His delegated from Har Sin•ai.

Through historical perversions and incompetencies, and not infrequently through blatant deception, these modern rakhs rely upon verbal sparring, polemicizing – routinely relying on raw slander and smearing – and clawing; attempting to force their way into the earthly counterpart of the eternal Realm of --, rather than enter through Shaar ha-Tzar (the "Difficult Gate"—cf. The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 7.13-14) of legitimacy and earning recognition in the Orthodox Jewish community as a Pᵊrush•im-heritage Nᵊtzâr•im. Ribi Yᵊho•shua, too, rebuked the rakhs of his day as "[pseudo-religious predators] who are breaking [the earthly institutions of the Realm of -- and] preying upon it" (NHM 11.16).

Ribi Yᵊho•shua recognized, and probably based this teaching on, the principle of Zᵊkhar•yâh 4.6: "'Neither by valor nor by force, but by My ,' â•mar -- of armies."

The demise of rakh portends the ultimate destiny of all who are like him, simulating—counterfeiting— through " oneself by after one's own heart and one's own eyes" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 15.39-40)—creating a Displacement Theology.

The rakhs – and their followers – are usually incorrigible, but you needn't be among his followers who were swallowed alive into the pit (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 16.33).

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5759 (1999.06)

, -: ‬ ‭ —16.2:

Har Karkom, valley and Har Kharoz
Photograph from summit of Har Kar•kom looking toward Har Kha•roz, showing intervening valley where Yi•sᵊrâ•eil camped.

"… noblemen of the eyewitness-convocation, those called of appointed celebrities"

The rebellion of rakh and his supporters—the "important" and "politically correct" VIPs and celebrities of the day—and its consequences, are well known and oft-taught. However, it isn't usually pointed out (as it is, to their credit, in the Stone Ta•na"kh) that this was no mere uprising of laity or the masses. rakh was a Lei•wi like Mosh•ëh. He was supported by a significant number of well-known leaders of Israel.

When a usurper wannabe cannot elevate himself or herself to the level of the leader empowered at the pleasure of --, what alternative does (s)he always follow? Their tactic is invariable and as close to eternal as mortals get: if you can't raise yourself to their level, try to drag them down to your level. They ask, "Who appointed you leader? What makes you worthy of being leader? Why do you represent yourself to be above the others? You're no better than anyone else?"

Where does Scripture record that Mosh•ëh made any claim to be better than anyone else? To the contrary, Scripture records that Mosh•ëh was the meekest of men. That Mosh•ëh was the leader designated and commissioned by -- in the absence of any such claim strongly suggests that --'s choice of Mosh•ëh was based on qualities unrelated to any claim to be better than anyone else. In fact, this suggestion is later confirmed in the handing down of at Har Sin•ai in which the necessary qualities of leadership were recorded (Dᵊvâr•im 13.2-6).

In an attempt to displace Mosh•ëh and bring him down to his own level, rakh and his Mosh•ëh with . The Hebrew verb "impugn" is !!!

16.3 — ? This question implied that Mosh•ëh's and A•ha•ron's (the verb is pl.) only claim to leadership was self-proclaimed—lifting himself up. Self-proclaimed divine selection by Mosh•ëh would have been no more compelling than rakh's claim. Thus, rakh was impugning Mosh•ëh in an attempt to bring him down to rakh's level.

Discerning between one who is self-proclaiming and one commissioned by -- is as simple as determining:

  1. to whom -- has opened doors and

  2. whether they regard themselves as authority or point to a standard authority.

Whom had -- placed in the household of Par•oh to learn everything about leading a nation, military strategy, developing powerful political contacts both in Egypt and among the tribes of the Sinai – Mosh•ëh or rakh? Whom had -- arranged to develop an intimate knowledge of the terrain, water and resources of the Sinai – Mosh•ëh or rakh? Whom did -- arrange to have the finest education the world's superpower, Egypt, could offer – Mosh•ëh or rakh? Whom did -- arrange to have the finest military training the world's superpower could offer – Mosh•ëh or rakh? Whom did -- arrange to receive the most intimate, albeit pagan, religious knowledge in the known world – Mosh•ëh or rakh? Start counting the many things that -- arranged to be particular to Mosh•ëh. Every one of these distinguished Mosh•ëh, as the one whom -- selected, from rakh, who sought to elevate himself.

And who, by contrast, offered nothing but their own naked assertions—i.e., self-proclamations—and opinions of equally unknowledgeable celebrities? -- had placed one in authority while the other sought to displace him based on his own self-proclamations and the support of equally unknowledgeable, politically correct, celebrities.

We can all read the outcome of rakh's . Yet, today, we see the same kind of —baseless misrepresentations and false innuendos, at a machine-gun pace with shotgun precision, being proliferated by Jewish religious leaders, and especially self-appointed, hate-mongering Jews calling themselves "anti-missionaries," as well as religious-politicians—all this today at a magnitude that might have 'scared straight' even rakh himself.

Gossip, rumor or slander

Today's rakhs frequently claim that anything that is critical of them is . Some rakhs even claim that only calumny that is true qualifies as , that lies are ok!!! That is diametrically wrong.

That which is demonstrably true is a valid judgment and can only be included as when it is not essential to the communal good; in other words, when it's no more than gossip.

That which is a lie is slanderous, typically malicious, . In fact, today's rakhs surpass the evil of the original rakh by exceeding the evil of , committing .

The primary litmus tests are [a] whether the information is true or false and [b] whether there is constructive and reasonable cause to warn the community and, if so, who in the community needs to be warned.

Those who represent good as evil and vice-versa violate . Charging, for example, that a person "loves" practicing is itself presuming to judge the (kawân•âh) of the heart, the spirit. Such a charge concerning the heart of the impugned, though unprovable, leaves the victim defenseless. How can the victim prove what is or isn't in his heart? Such a charge of is itself an instance of ! When it is based on a misrepresentation (i.e., no has occurred), it is a particularly virulent—and currently popular and pervasive—form of character assassination—which the Sages equate to murder because the murder of a person's reputation is murder of the person. Lies, misrepresentations and innuendos of false implications comprise the of rakh. To avoid , the misstep of rakh, one must exercise the greatest caution:

  1. to avoid judging the heart / spirit (intentions / kawân•âh) of another,

  2. to ensure that one adheres to demonstrable truth—substantiated facts, not unfounded assertions or charges, and

  3. that there is a genuinely justifiable reason to communicate such fact(s).

Compounding his transgressions, what was rakh judging? Mosh•ëh's kawân•âh, his heart. One can, and is commanded to, judge results and actions. They're hard facts—fruits—which can be verified or established. At the least, when someone has been wronged, actions must be judged. But only -- can look into the heart and see a person's kawân•âh. Because mortals cannot look into the heart of the victim to confirm or refute such a charge, against a person's heart and spirit cannot be refuted. Victims are helpless against , especially from the mouth of a populist, VIP, celebrity or authority. No man can give another a peek at, or a print-out of, his heart to prove his innocence. There is no defense against directed at a person's kawân•âh—against his spirit. In logic, such a charge is a fallacy called ad hominem. When the Spirit of that victim is the —i.e., the Spirit of —then such is particularly grave (NHM 12.30-37).

In the 1st century C.E. Ribi Yᵊho•shua taught about directed against the . And what were the circumstances that induced this teaching? A rival Pᵊrush•im group (a priori, most likely the Boethusian "Herodians" often mistaken for Tzᵊdoq•im; cf. NHM note 22.16.1), judged what could only be in Ribi Yᵊho•shua's heart (since there were no witnesses to the contrary)—viz. in what Name he cast out demonic-forces (NHM 12.22-45 with respective notes, especially 12.31.0). Ribi Yᵊho•shua's teaching here elaborated the lessons of Eili (Shmueil Aleph 3.14 where see 2.25-26) and rakh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5757 (1997.07)

16.14 — The cantillation, which determines the correct punctuation, doesn't support any of the popular English translations. The cantillation is perplexing and its meaning difficult to fathom. This may be the reason why there is no mention of the strange phraseology in Ta•lᵊmud.

The pâ•suq is cantillated to read "(nor) have you given them an heritage of field and vineyard;

16.14 ; :

(The eyes of those men, [though] you may gouge-out we will not ascend).

See this same verb-object combination at Sho•phᵊt•im 16.21.

This is a seemingly strange way to phrase the pâ•suq. Yet, the cantillation confirms this, not any of the traditional English variations, is the correct phraseology. The pause after "those men" is required by the disjunctive tᵊvir. There is no further pause until the end of the sentence. The pause in the English after is not justified from the Hebrew. In other words, the cantillation dictates that the only pause must come between "the eyes of those men" and "you may gouge-out."

Mirrored Eyes of Horus
Click to enlargeMirrored Eyes of HorusWhat are the eyes focused on? Phonetic: Shen-n-yab? Ideogram: "Cup beneath waters beneath Immortals." Motif later syncretized to mirrored kᵊruv•im atop the A•ron ha-Bᵊrit

What does that mean?

To analyze the stich, I'll designate the resulting second part of pâ•suq 14 as 14b, which is then further split into two phrases: (14b1) (the eyes of those men) and (14b2) (you may gouge-out we won't go up)."

The phrase "the eyes of those men" is intriguing. We recently discussed the seven eyes in the vision of Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Bë•rëkh•yâh Bën-Id•o ha-Nâ•vi.

In this pâ•suq it is reasonably clear that Dâ•tân and Avi•râm were saying by this idiom that the eyes of the men were fixed on the aforementioned fields and vineyards. Pause, as if the speaker might have been pointing to the fields and vineyards.

It was the materialistic fixation or focus—the "eyes"—of the men that they accused Mosh•ëh of planning to figuratively gouge-out, dig or erode; i.e., literally, excising the materialistic bent—which Dâ•tân and Avi•râm also shared.

All-Seeing Eye
Click to enlarge"Eye of Providence"
Annuit Cœptis
Novus Ordo Seclorum

Accordingly, they refused to be any part of destroying their hedonistic "eyes" – symbolism tracing back to their exile in Egypt – by going up to support Mosh•ëh.

The tᵊvir forces the reader's attention to the symbolism of "eyes."

From this we can better understand the straightforward symbolism of Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Bë•rëkh•yâh Bën-Id•o ha-Nâ•vi in equating the seven lamps on the Mᵊnor•âh, not to seven "churches" as the Hellenist Roman goy•im—Christians—redacted, but to seven eyes—the focus of the Jew, whether worldly or oriented to --, on illuminating family and the surrounding world with each of the seven days of the week.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5756 (1996.06)

Sacred Fire vs Strange Fire

17.2 — " the censers from the flames, and disperse the yonder, for they have become ."

How did they become ?

When an apostate makes an offering, even of prayer, it is a (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlomoh 28.9), not something . The answer to this enigma is found in pâ•suq

16.35 — "then an went forth from -- and consumed [them]." This was an , rendering —i.e. purifying, refining— whatever it burned.

Stranger vs Resident-Alien

With respect to 17.5, the Hebrew phrase rendered "stranger" is , not . In the context of offering incense for making expiation, all—even Jews—who aren't genealogically documented descendants of A•har•on are classified as a and prohibited from offering incense before --.

17.12 - -

Here is one of the instances in which is accomplished [a] vicariously and [b] without blood qor•bân, demonstrating that there is more than one means of . (Contrary to an oft-argued premise, this doesn't demonstrate that this can substitute for blood , however, since blood also continued to be required in addition.)

18.2 (& 4) — "And also your brothers of the staff of of the tribe of your fathers, cause to approach Me, you.

Again, "stranger" in pᵊsuq•im 4 & 7 is not .

Male Firstlings & Firstborns

18.15 — "and the firstling of livestock you shall redeem [with money]." When a donkey, camel or horse was redeemed, did that magically change the donkey, camel or horse into a kâ•sheir cow, goat or sheep?

The same principle applies to redemption of the firstborn males of Israel. This pâ•suq directs that the firstborn of be redeemed with money. Elsewhere, stipulates that the one applies to Yᵊhud•i and alike. Taken together, this implies that are also to redeem their firstborn month-old males with money—but this shouldn't be construed as magically changing the redeemed child from a into a Yᵊhud•i.

– Substitutionary Replacement of Firstborns

This analogy holds also for the firstborn of the kâ•sheir animals parallelling the firstborn of all Yᵊhud•im. They are , and belong to --. Indeed, all firstborn Yᵊhud•im would have to be taken away from their parents permanently and given to the Ko•han•im for the service of --—except that -- has taken the as a substitute in their place. His willingness to accept a substitute-replacement also establishes the precedent for the Mâ•shiakh as vicarious substitute-replacement for the entire sacrificial system—which was never more than a symbolism for things in the heavens in the first place. See also discussions in pâ•râsh•at ‭ ‬ (1995.02), pâ•râsh•at Khuq•at (1995.07), our 1995.08 newsletter back issue dō•ar section), pâ•râsh•at Sho•phᵊt•im (1995.09) and our newsletter back issue of 1995.10 (Yom ha-Ki•pur•im).

After Destruction of Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh & Yo•khas•in
-Teachers – Substitutionary Replacement of

After the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, the and formerly owed to the and Ko•han•im were regarded as owed to the teachers of . In 18.21 & 24 -- declares, concerning what was due the , " all of the of Israel for an inheritance."

"," said --.

One can give only what belongs to him; one can allow only what one has the power to authorize or withhold.

The belongs to --!

Withholding = Cheating --!

The never belongs to anyone else! That's why withholding of or belonging to -- is defined by Ma•lâkh•i ha-Nâ•vi as -- (Ma•lâkh•i 3.8)—of something that belongs to Him.

Note (2002.05): There can be no equivocation concerning withholding that which belongs to --. Ribi Yᵊho•shua confirmed this in contrasting the meritoriousness of meticulous attention to the against the hypocrisy of neglecting "the more kâ•vod things of : adjudication-of-Ha•lâkh•âh, khësëd and ëm•un•âh" (NHM 23.23-25).

On the other hand, I can't help wondering if greed on the part of (cf. Zᵊkhar•yâh 11.17) has contributed to no one pointing out that since the principle of pi•quakh nëphësh can override the highest priority in (keeping ) then how much more so this principle must apply to the and !

requires that one who must choose between buying food for his or her family or paying the or is required by to provide food for his or her family.

The problem comes not only from the extreme of not acknowledging the application of pi•quakh nëphësh to and , but also, at the opposite extreme, the abuse of this principle in withholding that which belongs to -- to pay for something hedonistic, like a TV or a long list of other non-essentials. Every gray area in between these extremes must be carefully measured by this criterion.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5755 (1995.06)

The Individual vs The Government
rakh: Even If You Enslave Us by Gouging-out Our Eyes

16.14 ; :

(The eyes of those men, [though] you may gouge-out we will not ascend).

The only other instance of this verb-object combination in Ta•na"kh occurs at Sho•phᵊt•im 16.21, where it describes gouging-out the eyes of Shi•mᵊsh•on. Gouging out the eyes was the method of transforming enemies into helpless slaves, blind and completely dependent upon their taskmasters. This is one of the connections to the Ha•phᵊtâr•âh (Shᵊmu•eil Âlëph 11.2).

In other words, rakh and his argued that they wouldn't follow Mosh•ëh even under threat of turning them into helpless slaves by gouging out their eyes; besides, if Mosh•ëh did the worst, gouging out their eyes, then they couldn't follow him. So, it just wasn't going to happen and, they insinuated, there was nothing Mosh•ëh could do about it.


16.23 — "Go up from around the of rakh, Dâ•tân and Av•i•râm." The use of implies that rakh, Dâ•tân and Av•i•râm had begun setting up a . This command is reinforced in 16.21, employing the imperative , the verb used in instructing Yi•sᵊrâ•eil (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 10.10): " ."

This new of rakh, Dâ•tân and Av•i•râm was premised on the baseless allegation – presenting no evidence – that Mosh•ëh's intent was to over Yi•sᵊrâ•eil.

To justify their own , rakh, Dâ•tân and Avi•râm accused Mosh•ëh of wanting to rule over them. A ruler takes what he wants from the people over whom he rules. But, Mosh•ëh answered, he hadn't taken so much as a donkey from them, and hadn't wronged the first one of them.

Always Obey Mi•tzᵊw•ot Mindlessly?
When To Apply Pi•quakh Nëphësh
Ein Gedi waterfall
Click to enlargeWaterfall at Ein Gᵊdi

Some waterfalls were dammed with a rock during the rainy winter season. Moving and replacing the rock would produce, then retain, water during the dry season. -- commanded Mosh•ëh to vocally order an aide, not visible below, to move the rock, leaving the credit for the unseen neis to --, not to move the rock and bring credit to himself.

Probably every tal•mid is aware that Mosh•ëh was punished severely, being prohibited from entering Ërëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, for disobeying -- by striking a rock to produce water when he had been instructed merely to speak to the rock.

Above we read that Mosh•ëh obeyed without hesitation when -- instructed him to lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil between (himself and the qâ•hâl who were following him), on the one hand, and the of rakh, who were khol, on the other.

What may be less obvious is that Mosh•ëh was twice honored for declining to obey a command of --—in the tradition of Ya•a•qov Âv•inu wrestling with the Ma•lâkh -- (bᵊ-Reish•it 32.25ff). Discerning when to decline and when to obey is determined by which serves not one's own desires, but furthers the Work of --.

In Shᵊm•ot 32.10, -- commanded to Mosh•ëh, , My fury will be upon them, I will consume them and make you a great goy." But Mosh•ëh didn't leave it be for --, as -- had commanded. Instead, Mosh•ëh interceded for Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, pleading on their behalf—and providing the paradigm of an intercessor for Yi•sᵊrâ•eil.

Likewise, we see the same ta•vᵊn•it in this week's pâ•râsh•âh. In 17.10, -- tells Mosh•ëh, " , I will consume them in a moment." As before, Mosh•ëh declines the command of --.

What is the difference between 16.21, where Mosh•ëh obeyed in separating himself, and Shᵊm•ot 32.10 and bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 17.10 where Mosh•ëh declined, refusing to separate himself?

The first instance involved sectarianism – . A part of the kindred were contravening , self-proclaiming their own authority in rebellion against the authority ordained by --, and seeking to lead Yi•sᵊrâ•eil astray after them.

The last two instances both involved abandoning the entire kindred of Yi•sᵊrâ•eil.

Moreover, it may be instructive that Mosh•ëh obeyed the admonition to make an Ha•vᵊdâl•âh, but refused to "let it be" or "to elevate himself" above the kindred as rakh had alleged—even at the command of --!

promises (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 18.5) that Yi•sᵊrâ•eil shall live in the mi•tzᵊw•ot (an instruction in this life, necessarily supplemented by the promise for ha-O•lam ha•ba)—not die in them. This passage is the basis from which the principle of pi•quakh nëphësh is inferred. This is another way of saying, "Don't be so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good!" There is no contradiction between earthly good and heavenly good. Good is good and evil is evil, irrespective whether it's earth or heaven.

The lesson Mosh•ëh teaches here, by his own example, is the principle of pi•quakh nëphësh applied to Yi•sᵊrâ•eil as , above the individual This stands directly opposite the modern democrat-"ish" assumption (not intrinsic to democracy) that the individual is paramount above the community or people – the "me" culture of hedonism (subsuming materialism) with its inherent implication of renouncing moral values that stand in the way of "me" hedonism. Both extremes, government over people and people above government, must be constrained by moderation. How far people have strayed from the "Bible" that Mosh•ëh and Ribi Yᵊho•shua knew!

When a of Yi•sᵊrâ•eil strays—becomes apostate and cancerous, that must be cut off in order to preserve the faithful. But when , Yi•sᵊrâ•eil as a goy, is threatened existentially, the promises of -- to Av•râ•hâm Âv•inu, Yi•tzᵊkhâq Âv•inu and Ya•a•qov Âv•inu, promises that remain eternal and immutable, come to the fore—even though --'s command would have restored the people from Mosh•ëh as easily as He had from Av•râ•hâm.

Timespace continuum (Spiral Galaxy M64, Hubble)
Timespace continuum (Spiral Galaxy M64, Hubble Telescope)

The tal•mid must realize, as Mosh•ëh did, that:

  1. the command was a test (cf. Dᵊvâr•im 13.4-5), demonstrating the falseness of rakh's allegations, and

  2. While it's challenging to grapple with being outside the constraints of time, --, being outside of timespace and, therefore, pre-knowing Mosh•ëh's innermost heart, also pre-knew his decision.

-- could not have been courting the possibility of contradicting His earlier promises. The doctrines of an immutable -- (Ma•lâkh•i 3.6) cannot be contradictory.

One might, otherwise, venture that this imperative of -- broke the unbreakable rule that -- can neither be wrong nor irresponsibly angry.

However, when one considers that -- isn't constrained to our confines of timespace it becomes evident that -- was aware of the outcome before He presented the test to Mosh•ëh. If He had really been angry, knowing that Mosh•ëh would plead Yi•sᵊrâ•eil's case, -- would have simply consumed Yi•sᵊrâ•eil on the spot rather than presenting the test to Mosh•ëh.

Instead, however, the test demonstrated, both to those present and posterity, the of the faithful offering the ultimate qor•bân as a worthy —himself. Would a faithful place himself between the flock in his care and the owner of the flock who, in anger, would destroy his flock? Mosh•ëh stood in the breach.

In Ribi Yᵊho•shua's day, he noticed the lack of worthy willing to stand in the breach (NHM 9.35-38), with consequent judgment (NHM 25.31-40).

‭ ‬ – 1st Century & Today

In the 1st century, all three ‭ ‬ – [1] Qum•rân Tzᵊdoq•im, [2] Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im and [3] Pᵊrush•im – called each other . By the close of the 3rd century C.E., however, Roman informer, Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im poseurs, assimilating into Hellenist Roman Christianity, earned exclusive notoriety to the derogative, .

("My shepherd-idol")

By the close of the 20th century, endless news reports have well documented, and continue to document, that today's Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im, routinely presuming to override and change the mi•tzᵊw•ot in Ta•na"kh, are far more sanctimonious and high-handed blasphemers (see last week's pâ•râsh•âh, Shᵊlakh, bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 15.30-31) than the Roman collaborating and assimilated Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im of the 1st-4th centuries C.E. or even rakh himself (!)—and consider the demise of today's in light of Yᵊsha•yâhu 19.1; Yᵊkhëz•qeil chap. 34; Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu 10.21; 23.1-8; 3.15 and Zᵊkhar•yâh 11.16-17 ( ).

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5754 (1994.06)

? Or Displacement Theology ?

rakh was the grandson of Qᵊ•hat, the family of designated to border the on the south side.

16.3 – is rendered in English, "and they gathered themselves together'." This misses the full meaning of the Hebrew . This is from the same shorësh as and . Here, the first displacement theology is recorded—and --'s response.

How do begin? They argue that the authority that was designated from Har Sin•ai "is presumptuous because everyone in the (Christians broaden this to argue "the Church") is holy and -- is among them too—so why do you lift yourself up above the of --?" Then we read how Mosh•ëh arranges for --, not his own polemics, to vindicate his personal responsibilities and accountabilities.

What was --'s reaction to the argument of the ? He commanded that the true separate itself from the , which they did, and then He destroyed the .

Orthodox vs Non-Orthodox
Har Sin•ai vs of rakh Today? Updated 2013.06

rakh is the prototype of today's and displacement theologies. This incident teaches us the consequences of rebellion against reality, according to the historical documentation of the earliest extant interpretations of the Beit Din and in conformity with discrete logic and the latest science. This implies logical and scientific updates, as needed, to the most pristine tradition from Har Sin•ai on earth – which is the Ha•lâkh•âh of the Tei•mân•im.

Consequent to the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh and the influences of forced apostasies (first Christianity and then Islam), the wheels began to come off as the three major of the 1st century began to splinter under rabbis who presumed to override and relinquish those elements of Tor•âh shë-bikh•tâv that were claimed by "superseding" Christians, in order to differentiate Jews from Christianity. Then, during the Dark Ages, the plethora of went off the rails into magic (Qa•bâl•âh) and superstitions, particularly in Medieval Europe.

Teimani Beit K'nesset, Ra'anana, Israel
Click to enlargeTei•mân•i Beit ha-Kᵊnësët,
Ra•a•nanâ(h), Yi•sᵊrâ•eil

Scholarly consensus holds that the Tei•mân•i Ha•lâkh•âh (which is more similar to Sᵊphâ•râd•i tradition than to Ash•kᵊnazi tradition, but isn't part of the Sᵊphâ•râd•i tradition) is the most pristine Ha•lâkh•âh, least changed from Har Sin•ai by external influences, on the planet. Accordingly, adhering to mi-Sin•ai requires beginning with this most pristine core of Tei•mân•i Ha•lâkh•âh and fine-tuning it to the most modern understandings of logic and science (including archeology) applied to documented history.

Because the Nᵊtzâr•im insist on beginning with this most pristine tradition, we rely principally on Tei•mân•i Ha•lâkh•âh, fine-tuned to the most modern understandings of logic and science (including archeology) applied to documented history, to fill the lacunae not covered by Ribi Yᵊho•shua the Mâ•shiakhexclusively in NHM – to faithfully restore the ancient Ha•lâkh•âh as it was handed down to Mosh•ëh by -- at Har Sin•ai and promulgated by the Beit Din -Jâ•dol.

This approach routinely conflicts with the Medieval – anti-science and anti-history – "rabbinic approach" of the Ultra-Orthodox. Therefore, the tal•mid must exercise extreme caution when evaluating the assumptions, premises, reasoning and teachings even of Orthodox rabbis (while dismissing summarily the far greater apostasies of the non-Orthodox and goy•im – namely, Christians and Muslims). Additionally, the tal•mid must resolutely defend practices that, while condemned by some rabbis, remain within the purview of the interpretations "mi-Sin•ai" according to historical documentation, logic and science. This routinely means defending some practices widely perceived as non-Orthodox (most notably, the use of electricity and music on ).

These are the reasons why Nᵊtzâr•im are not permitted to retain any religious connections outside of Tei•mân•i and a moderate form of Orthodox Judaism. In locations where it isn't viable to pray in one of these, the Nᵊtzâr•im is charged with developing – and leading – a mi•nᵊyân faithful to these criteria.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5753 (1993.06)

Reading the English, it is impossible to tell that, in 17.5 and 18.4, "stranger" does not refer to a . Rather, the Hebrew is in 17.5 and in 18.4. Though may look a lot like to the uninitiated, they are no more related than dog and fog.

5 sheqel coin
Click to enlarge5 Shᵊqal•im

As a product of the Yᵊtzi•âh, every firstborn male of Yi•sᵊrâ•eil – "of man and animal" – belonged to the Ko•han•im (18.15). The of kâ•sheir animals as well as of fruits, vegetables and grains were given to the Ko•han•im directly unless prevented by distance (in which case money was substituted). Firstborn children were redeemed from the Ko•han•im for five shᵊqal•im. Today the five shᵊqal•im, or its equivalent in silver coins, is donated to an Orthodox mi•nᵊyân. This is the Pi•dᵊyon ha-Bein. For non-kâ•sheir animals, monetary contributions were substituted.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5752 (1992.06)

16.3— What is rakh's argument? That "all of the qâ•hâl of Yi•sᵊrâ•eil is and -- is among them" too. So why should Mosh•ëh and A•ha•ron and his descendants, the Ko•han•im, be regarded any higher than the Lᵊwi•yim, or even greater Yi•sᵊrâ•eil? We hear this in the rakhs of today: "What makes so-and-so more connected to God than me" (or "my clergy")?

His premise was correct. All Israel was and -- was among them too.

Logic: If not (A or B) then X.
(Gate, Circuit & "Truth Table")

But rakh's logic was faulty, and logic is the father of mathematics and science. Mathematics is one language for expressing logic. In championing rationalism – logic – against irrationalism of the mystics, and in corroboration of Shᵊm•ot 23.2, Ram•ba"m acknowledged the overarching worldly authority of logic.

This is no mean observation. Judaism recognizes logic as the overriding factor determining the proper interpretation of Scripture and consequent determinant of correct Ha•lâkh•âh.

rakh's logic was non sequitor (i.e., it, quite literally, does not compute). Why -- had placed A•har•on and the Ko•han•im above the was the jurisdiction of --. He is not required to explain His choice to men. The ones chosen need not, and sometimes may not, know themselves why they were chosen. Yet, the Mâ•shiakh (anointed) of -- was (as rakh and the rest of his soon discovered the hard way) properly grounded in Ha•lâkh•âh and not to be overturned by the ambitious or opportunistic.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

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

' " "—" "

Shmueil Aleph 11.14—12.22

5760 (2000.07)

This past week I received a prayer request from a person outside of the fold of Israel and Ribi Yᵊho•shua, asking for health and peace of heart. Most any Christian, and probably most any rabbi, would have dutifully rattled off a few words and forgotten about it. But teaches differently.

Notice in this week's Ha•phᵊtâr•âh (12.23) that Shᵊmu•eil ha-Nâ•vi recognizes his responsibility to pray solely and exclusively for Pᵊrush•im-heritage Yi•sᵊrâ•eilnot those who choose to remain outside of the fold! "Rather, I shall instruct you in the good and proper path"!!!

This places the higher priority on the petitioner's eternal well-being rather than the expected – and personally easier – recitation of a vain placebo that takes the Name of -- profanely (see my paper, Profaning the Holy Name Unawares). How routinely people drown themselves by unthinkingly doing what is expected by peers as "socially acceptable," "proper etiquette" and "politically correct."

Does "the Law" Require Perfection "to be Saved"?

Unlike Christian allegations that -- requires perfect observance, requires only that one do his or her utmost to keep non-selectively. Read Mikhâh 6.8!

But those like rakh who, to the contrary, rebel against leaders -- has placed in authority are destined not to receive abundant blessings and answered tᵊphil•ot, but rather the demise described of rakh and his . So, if you follow the wrong cleric, you remain accountable for doing so.

As I read the prayer request, it said nothing about desiring health in order that the petitioner could continue studying how to keep the mi•tzᵊw•ot of —"that you shall live in them"—or to continue studying in our Kha•vᵊr•utâ.

Not being in a proper relationship with a Pᵊrush•im-heritage Beit-Din, this person was, at best, selectively -observant (since requires subordinating "one's own eyes and one's own heart" to the authority of the Beit-Din from Sin•ai – which this person, clearly, was not doing).

consuming fire
Click to enlargeConsuming Fire (Carmel 2010.12.03 AFP -Ârëtz)

Therefore, it's clear how to "see by one's fruits, that is their works"—"You shall recognize them by their Ma•as•ëh (NHM 7.16)—that the person isn't (non-selectively) -observant. "Every tree that is not producing good fruit is cut out and thrown into the " (NHM 7.18).

And what does Ta•na"kh stipulate concerning the tᵊphil•ot of someone who isn't -observant? In Christianized versions, the citation describing the tᵊphil•ot of Christians—including the Southern Baptists who questioned whether Jewish tᵊphil•ot are heard—is found at "Proverbs" 28.9!

The reason for Ta•na"kh's harsh words concerning tᵊphil•ot from outside Yi•sᵊrâ•eil is that the decision to be outside of Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, not doing one's best to keep non-selectively, is the exercise of that persons free will – for which they are accountable! It's a voluntary, deliberate and wilfull rejection of (at least some part of) , and the voluntary, deliberate and wilfull rejection of --'s Instruction is a voluntary, deliberate and wilfull rejection of Him! How dare such a person offer up any prayer other than repentance to begin obeying non-selectively! Tᵊphil•âh must be preceded by the commitment to keep --'s non-selectively—the prayer of repentance and commitment. Even this prayer is consigned to Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlomoh 28.9 unless it is preceded by action—making a beginning to keep non-selectively and as interpreted by a valid, competent and Pᵊrush•im-heritage Beit-Din (not according to "one's own eyes and heart"—who, likely, can't even read it).

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")

5770 (2010.06)

Translation Mid•râsh Ribi Yᵊho•shua: NHM NHM
bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 18.31 Regarding received by the in the various cities and villages from Beit Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, after the , in turn, had given of it to the Ko•han•im:

And you may eat it in every place, you and your household; because it is your wage in exchange for your work in the Ohël Mo•eid.

     The lived in a number of special cities throughout Ëëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eil. This passage clarifies that they weren't confined to eating these within the confines of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, as applied to some of the sacrifices.
In every ir2.23.0 and in every suburb10.11.1 you enter, inquire diligently2.8.1 regarding who in it is worthy and stay10.11.2 there until you go forth.

This marks the contrast between the guidelines for the maintenance workers (), who were physically tied to, and periodically required to commute to, the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, and the emerging shᵊlikh•im Pᵊrush•im, who were not physically tied to or ritually dependent upon the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh like the and Ko•han•im before them. While the and Ko•han•im were oriented inward within the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh the emerging shᵊlikh•im Pᵊrush•im were oriented outward, bringing to the masses of Yi•sᵊrâ•eil. This difference enabled the Pᵊrush•im to survive the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh while the and Ko•han•im both lost their only raison d'être, leaving the Pᵊrush•im as the sole remaining authority and bearers of .


Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

Rainbow Rule

5760 (2000.07)

The Mᵊnorat ha-Maor section addresses differences with one's . For Nᵊtzâr•im a more basic question: who is your ?

•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua (NHM 23.8): "Don't wish to be called Ribi, for you have one Tan•â, and you are all brothers."

And (NHM 5.19)!

"Whoever deletes one Oral Law from the , or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called 'deleted.' Both he who preserves and he who teaches them [the Oral Laws] shall be called in the Realm of the heavens."

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar


Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Ab•u•hav

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

("The [Seven-Branched] Candelabra of Light"), The Yᵊhud•im Tei•mân•im' Ancient Ha•lâkh•âh debate, Corrupted into the Zohar & medieval Qa•bâl•âh

At Beit ha-Kᵊnësët Mo•rëshët Âv•ot – Yad Nâ•âm•i here in Ra•a•nanâ(h), Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, liturgy for a regular concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or

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

Part 1 (of 3)

Though (shë-hakholeiq; one may differ, differentiate, create a schism or ; from the root verb khâlaq, apportion, divide) from any man, this causes all of the wrong in the world-age. He who differs from his rav commits an â•won, causing the failure of the world-age—and this is considered as if he differed from the Shᵊkhin•âh.

As we have memorized (the [Differentiate] chapter of Ma•sëkët Sunedrion 110.1): '•mar Rav Khasᵊd•â, Everyone who differs from his rav is as if he differs from the Shᵊkhin•âh. As it is said, "in their quarreling with -- (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 26.9).

•mar Rabi Kham•a Bar-Khan•in•a: Everyone who does/makes a mᵊriv•âh (dispute) with his rav is as if he does/makes it with the Shᵊkhin•âh, as it is said, 'These are the waters of Mᵊriv•âh (Disputation—ibid. 20.13).

•mar Rabi Kham•a Bar-Khan•in•a: Everyone who thunders-with-rage at his rav is as if he thunders-with-rage at the Shᵊkhin•âh, as it is said, 'Not against us do you grumble, but against -- (Shᵊm•ot 16.9).

•mar Rabi A•vahu: Everyone who suspects his rav is as if he suspects the Shᵊkhin•âh, as it is said, 'And the kindred spoke against Ël•oh•im and Mosh•ëh (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 21.5).

Part 2 (of 3)

Part 3 (of 3)

Under Construction

(Translated so far)

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

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic