Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
Michah / Micah 5:1 (2 in Christian translations) says “But as for you, בֵּֽית־לֶ֣חֶם / Beit Lĕḥĕm Ephrathah... (you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah (so small you aren't even counted)- (but) from you [the messiah] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from early times (days of old).”
This is a real messianic prophecy. Micah is saying that the messiah will be descended from Kings David and Solomon who were of the tribe of Judah, from Beit Lĕḥĕm Ephrathah… NOT that he will be born in the city of Bethlehem. The issue at hand is another problem with missionaries distortion of this verse (as usual read out of context). The issue here is the fact that Micah is telling us that the messiah’s origins will be “from of old” -- ancient days -- a long time ago. This isn’t what a Christian translation will have. See the King James: “But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of bJudah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be cruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Old and everlasting are not the same! Interestingly enough the NIV (Christian translation) is correct and says “from ancient times.” One missionary actually wrote “Micah 5:2 means the Messiah is eternal as is eternal the Ancient of DAYS (GOD himself) mentioned in Daniel 7:13.” Ridiculous. The messiah must be a human -- born of a Jewish mother and a Jewish biological father -- he will be a mortal man and he will even eventually die (see the prophet Ezekiel). The prophet Ezekiel refers to "the messiah" as "the prince. Ezekiel 46:16-18 speaks of his son inheriting after his death. Neither Daniel 7:13 or Micah 5:1 say that the messiah will be eternal. This is a mistranslation -- and seemingly one on purpose as Christian translations usually translate these words properly everywhere they don’t paint Jesus into a verse. What the missionary doesn't understand is this: First, the interpretation of the Hebrew vocabulary in the Hebrew Bible is dictated by the CONTEXT of the text surrounding it. Hebrew is based on root words -- and a word can have multiple meanings in translation. Consider the word עֹולָֽם = olam -- which is found in Micah 5:1. It can mean world or eternity or even from “days of yore” (ancient days). Naturally the missionary wants to choose “eternity” in Micah 5:1 and paint Jesus into the verse. The problem is that Hebrew meaning changes with prefixes and suffixes -- and context within a sentence. The phrase in Micah 5:1[2 in Christian versions] is מִימֵי עוֹלָם. The word before עֹולָֽם = olam is מִימֵי = miy’MEI. The first mem = מ is a preposition translated as “from.” (Hebrew is read from right to left). Next comes a yud, another mem and another yud. ימֵי. This should be translated as “days of.” So we have “from days of” and then the next word is עוֹלָם / olam which here should be translated as “long ago.” Five other passages where some variant of מִימֵי עוֹלָם appears in the Hebrew Bible somehow the Christian translators manage to get it right had translate it as "from a long time ago" or "ancient days" -- not forever. At the bottom of this entry is an image from Rabbi Tovia Singer’s book “Let’s Get Biblical" showing these correct translations. In this verse there is another word which comes directly before the phrase we just discussed. This word is מִקֶּ֖דֶם = m’kedem. Again the mem / מ is a preposition which means “from.” Hebrew is based on root words. קֶדֶם in this case is a root which means "to come before" or "preceding." The word קֶדֶם / kedem can be a noun (masculine) or a verb or even a preposition! To know what it is and how to interpret it a person has to read it IN CONTEXT which is something missionaries almost never do! Christian translations usually translate this word correctly in Micah 5:1 (2 in Christian versions). The NASB has “from long ago.” The King James Version has “from of old.” The missionary referenced Daniel 7:13 as “proof” regarding the words we have discussed -- but it simply shows his ignorance. Daniel 7 is not in Hebrew -- it is in Aramaic which is a different language. There is a word here translated as ancient and it is וְעַתִּיק. It is not the same word as in Micah 5:1 and it is not even the same language. The missionary also referenced Chavakuk 1:12 where we again have the word קֶדֶם (Hebrew) which was in Micah 5:1. Here some Jewish translations -- including the Judaica Press translation found at the Chabad website -- use the word “everlasting” as a translation. Artscroll’s Stone Edition uses "from the beginning of time" which isn’t quite eternal since time does have a beginning -- but it seems “awfully close” to what the missionary is trying to infer. Those really are not the best translations of קֶדֶם / kedem -- and it just goes to show how missionaries prey on what can be misunderstood. As a noun קֶדֶם / kedem can be translated as "east" or "ancient times" or even "front" -- it all depends on the context. As I already explained he Hebrew Bible is dictated by the CONTEXT of the text surrounding it. If you read Chavakuk 1 in context you will see that it is Chavakuk asking G-d why the evil prosper. G-d responds that the evil will eventually fall, and then beginning in Verse 12 we have Chavakuk in prayer. Prayer. Not prophecy, not proof of anyone’s immortality (although G-d is immortal, but no human including Jesus ever is or was). Chavakuk is praying to G-d, who is from the beginning of time, and he trusts G-d that the people will not perish - the evil will eventually be punished. In his prayer Chavakuk praises G-d as being “from the beginning of time” -- or “from ancient times” -- not everlasting and not eternal (although G-d most certainly is both of those). Translators, as R’ Tovia Singer is fond of saying, are traitors. No translation is perfect -- and missionaries will often try to pick a word or two out of context and claim it points to Jesus when it obviously does not. The Reuben Alkalay Hebrew/English dictionary has "ancient days", "yore", for the noun קֶדֶם, and the Prof. Menaḥem Dagut Hebrew English dictionary has "antiquity", and for מִקֶּ֖דֶם, which Alkalay doesn't include, it has "from of old.” As usual missionary arguments disappear into the ether when simply examined.
0 Comments
What is shmurah matzo? As we prepare for the festival of matzo -- otherwise known as Passover -- we begin to rid our homes of chametz (leavened products). Some people sell them to the rabbi (putting them away until after Passover) and buy them back after Passover... For eight days we eat only unleavened things and in the case of bread this is matzo -- unleavened bread. "Safeguard the month of standing grain so that you will be able to keep the Passover to G-d your L-rd, since it was in the month of standing grain that G-d your L-rd brought you out of Egypt at night. In the place that G-d will choose to be dedicated to His name, you shall sacrifice the Passover offering to G-d your L-rd [along with other] sheep and cattle. Do not eat any leaven with it. As part of [the celebration] you shall eat matzah for seven days. This shall be hardship bread, since you left Egypt in a rush. You will then remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life. No leavening shall be seen with you in all your borders for seven days... For six [additional] days you shall then eat matzah, with the seventh day as a retreat dedicated to God your Lord, when you may not do any work." D'varim / Deuteronomy 16:1 - 8. Before we discuss the shmurah matzo you may be asking yourself "why don't the Jews bring a paschal sacrifice since G-d commands it?" Let's read some important parts of those 8 verses: "In the place that G-d will choose to be dedicated to His name, you shall sacrifice the Passover offering to G-d your L-rd [along with other] sheep and cattle.... You may not slaughter the Passover offering in any of your settlements which G-d your L-rd is giving you. The only site where you may sacrifice the Passover offering is in the place that G-d will choose as a site designated in His name. There you shall sacrifice it in the evening, as the sun is setting, at the time of year that you left Egypt. You shall cook it and eat it in the place chosen by God your Lord, and then you may turn around in the morning and return to your tents." D'varim / Deuteronomy 16:2, 5 - 7.
There is your answer. Jews may only sacrifice the paschal offer at the place G-d designated for this purpose. No other place is allowed. You can't do this in your towns, cities, homes... The last site designated by G-d (and the permanent location never to change) is the site of the holy Temples in Jerusalem. Currently that site does not have a Temple and the site itself is in a state of ritual impurity -- unusable until purified. So for now we can observe Passover with retelling the story as G-d dictated and also by observing the feast of matzo... Now you may have noticed that the Torah tells us to eat matzo for seven days and I told you we eat it for eight days. Why? Passover is celebrated in Israel for seven days and for eight days in Jews outside of Israel. Outside of Israel we observe יום טוב שני של גלויות / Yom tov sheni shel galuyot / the second festival day in exile. This is a gezera / גזירה (a law to protect another law, a "fence" to protect it). The concern was that communities in exile might get their timing wrong and miss observing certain holy days properly. Passover is not the only holiday with an added day in exile. It is a safety measure so that errs on the side of caution -- better to observe an extra day then to not properly observe the holy days commanded by G-d. So now we've answered two questions: why no paschal sacrifice and why eight days... Which brings us back to my original question: what is shmurah matzo? Look again at the first line of D'varim / Deuteronomy 16: "Safeguard the month of standing grain so that you will be able to keep the Passover to G-d your L-rd, since it was in the month of standing grain that G-d your L-rd brought you out of Egypt at night." D'varim / Deuteronomy 16:1. Then look at Sh'mot / Exodus 12:17: "You shall guard the matzo, for on this very day I will have brought your masses out of Egypt. You must carefully keep this day for all generations; it is a law for all times." The word shmurah / שְׁמוּרָה means "guarded." While all matzo is made under rabbinical supervision to ensure that there is no possibility of leaven shmurah matzo is more heavily monitored. From the time the wheat itself is harvested it is kept under close supervision. It is never left unattended until the matzo is finished. It is critical that no moisture contact the wheat as this can begin the process of leavening... The wheat is examined to ensure it is whole. The wheat is supervised as it is ground into flour -- and it is not baked that day to ensure that it is not hot from the grinding process and that no moisture comes into contact with the flour. The following day the flour is made into a dough -- keeping it away from sunlight which could cause it to ferment. Now that water is added to the flour to create the matzo that water itself is pure and has been guarded... It is then baked. All matzo is guarded -- but shmurah matzo is guarded literally from the picking of the wheat itself. Traditionally it was made by hand, although some is made by machine in modern times. It is traditional to eat shmurah matzo on the first (and second in the exile) nights of Passover when we hold the Seder. This is because we are commanded to eat matzo at those times while the other days of Passover it is not required to eat matzo -- although it is the only permitted form of "bread" during the holiday. Shmurah matzo costs much more than "regular" matzo -- and the reason should be obvious: there is an enormous amount of effort and supervision in its creation. Some observant Jews take the process even further: the Satmar bakery in America grows its wheat in Arizona -- a state known for its dryness. Sunday began Rosh Chodesh Nisan / רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן -- the first day of the month of Nisan. The day began at Sundown Saturday, 13 March 2021 and ended at nightfall on Sunday, 14 March 2021.
Nisan is the first month. "This month shall be the head month to you. It shall be the first month of the year." Sh'mot / Exodus 12:2. In ancient times Rosh Chodesh was determined by the beit din / Sanhedrin (Jewish court and governing body) once two credible witnesses testified that they had seen the new moon. In 359 CE the head of this court, Hillel II, decided to publish the calendar and have it distributed to all the communities due to Roman oppression making it difficult for the Sanhedrin to send out witnesses. Jews celebrate each new month. In times when a Temple exists “one baby goat, in addition to the [daily] tamid / תָמִיד (‘continual offering’)” was brought -- Bamidbar (Numbers) 28:15. The tamid was offered twice every day of the year (once in the morning and again in the late afternoon), together with its attendant mincḥah (flour-and-oil-offering) and nĕsĕch (wine-libation), specified in Bamidbar / Numbers 28:1-8. Without a Temple we still observe Rosh Chodesh. We insert a prayer into the three daily prayer sessions. We recite the Hallel, which is comprised of T'hillim / Psalms 113–118. We read Bamidbar / Numbers verses from the Torah (which correspond to parts of chapter 28). We recite T'hillim / Psalm 104 after Shir Shel Yom / שִׁיר שֶׁל יוֹם -- the psalm of the day and then recite T'hillim / Psalm 119 after which additional prayers are recited on Rosh Chodesh called Musaf / מוּסָף. During Rosh Chodesh Musaf we bless the new moon, mourn the loss of the Temple and desire for it to be restore, then we recite Bamidbar / Numbers 28:11 and ask that the new month be a good one. This is every month. But Nisan is special. Nisan is the first month. It is the month of our redemption from slavery in Egypt. It is considered even greater than the month of Tishrei, the month the universe came to be... The names of the months are Babylonian -- yet Nisan has a connection to Hebrew. In Hebrew ניצן / nitzan means "bud" -- as in Spring. "I went down to the nut garden to see the green plants of the valley, to see whether the vine had blossomed, the pomegranates were in bloom." Shir HaSharim / Song of Songs 6:11. When we were in the desert, after our escape from Mitzrayin (Egypt) we built the Mishkahn -- the portable Temple (Tabernacle). On the first of Nisan -- nearly one year after our escape -- Moses inaugurated the Mishkahn. "On the day that Moses finished erecting the Mishkahn, he anointed it and sanctified it along with all its furniture. He [also] anointed the altar and all its utensils and thus sanctified them." Bamidbar / Numbers 7:1. For 440 years the Mishkahn existed -- traveling with us in the desert and (Z'vachim 118a) moved within Israel from Gilgal (14 years), Shiloh (369 years) and at Nov and Givon, (57 years). When Solomon built the first Temple it was not destroyed -- it was kept in tact under the Temple itself as it was holy. Much, much later the first of Nisan was the day the first Jews began to return to the land of Israel after the exile to Babylon. Of course Nisan is also month of Passover -- the Festival of Matzo -- an eight-day holiday observed from the 15th through the 22nd of Nisan. During this special month -- this month of Spring, of a reaffirmation of the Jewish peoples special bond with HaShem, a month to remember our freedom from Egypt, from Babylon -- and of course the holy Mishkahn we say a special prayer for the blossoming of fruit trees. Link. So as we begin this special, special month I wish you all the joy of Springtime as we again turn our hearts and thoughts to He who has given us so much... Worshiping anyone other than G-d is absolutely idolatry for a Jew.
This includes adding any intermediary or “part” of G-d (holy ghost / spirit, Jesus). G-d has no parts. He is אֶחָד / eḥad -- one. He is a simple “one.” Many missionaries will claim that G-d is a compound unity – (as in “one forest” which has many things in it). False. G-d is one as in an “absolute one” not a compound unity. B'reshit / Genesis 1:26 begins “and G-d (SINGULAR) said”. Absolute. Singular. One. Idolatry in Judaism is עבודה זרה / avodah zarah -- literally "strange worship.” Any G-d we did not know at Sinai is a false god. No one at Sinai ever heard of Jesus or the so-called “holy ghost.” As is so typical with missionaries they are misusing and twisting Jewish sources to try to support the unsupportable. Some say that while Christianity is considered idolatry for Jews that some leading Jewish sources have declared that it is not idolatry for a gentile. How they can say this when G-d’s commandment against idolatry is given to all humans -- not just to Jews, (see B'reshit / Genesis 4:26) seems to be missionary wishful thinking. Do not profane / הוּחַל the name of G-d -- B'reshit / Genesis 4:26. Recently some missionaries are misusing Jewish sources to try to say that Christianity is not idolatry for them. They grab a Jewish concept called שִׁתּוּף / shituf which means “association” or “partnership” and declare that for a Christian this is acceptable: they “associate” or “partner” Jesus and the holy ghost / spirit with G-d and this (they declare) is not idolatry for them. They will reference numerous Jewish sources they claim support their claim. One is Yaakov ben Meir, known as Rabbeinu Tam / רבינו תם. He lived in the 12th century and was the grandson of the great Rashi, and an expert on Jewish law / halacha in his own right. His yeshiva (school) boasted many great scholars as well… Did he say, as the missionaries claim, that non-Jews can partner Jesus (or anything else -- an angel, a star, a rock) with G-d? Of course not. This insult is more disgusting when one considers the fact that he lived during the Second Crusade -- and was nearly killed by the Christians. On May 8, 1146 (the holiday of Shavuot), a Christian mob dragged him out of the synagogue to crucify him. He was stabbed five times! The mob shouted “If you’re the leader of the Jewish people in France, it’s no more than right that vengeance should be taken upon you for what the Jews did to our lord.” He was only saved by the arrival of a nobleman who the rav had helped financially in the past. The nobleman realized the crowd was out for blood -- but he told them “let me take him -- I promise to convert him to Christianity within two days. If I fail I’ll turn him back over to you and you can crucify him then.” The crowd agreed and instead the nobleman helped R’ Tam escape -- leaving behind his wealth, his home and all his belongings… So how do the missionaries distort this great man’s teachings? This man who was nearly killed rather than convert to Christianity??? They claim that R’ Tam stated that the trinity is not idolatry for Christians -- it is שִׁתּוּף / shituf and permissible. This is not what this revered man taught. He was writing specifically about Jews who did business with Christians, and if said Christian swore an oath in a court of law that would impact the Jew’s property then it was permissible to let the gentile say the oath in order to testify. In Tosafot (Bechorot 2b) Samuel ben Meir , the Rashbam (older brother to R’ Tam), had stated that if a Jew partners with a Christian -- and if the Christian felt obligated to swear under oath in a court of law regarding a legal case involving the Jew, the Jew should not accept the testimony because the Christian was sworn in not swearing to G-d but to false gods. If the court would allow the gentile to forgo the oath his testimony in a court of law would be acceptable said the Rashbam... His brother R’ Tam disagreed and said if the Christian is already a partner with a Jew then the Jew can accept the gentile’s oath to testify in a court of law if the legal case would save property. This Tosafot where both opinions were given was commenting on an entry in the Talmud regarding the same topic: a gentile testifying in a court of law who swears under oath to false gods. That is “it.” Nowhere did R’ Tam say that Christianity was acceptable for gentiles. He simply said that when a Christian “swore” in the name of their god(s) in a court of law as part of doing business with a Jew that oath was permissible. Someone said “In the Book of Esther Jews are never called “Israel” -- this is because they were only from the southern kingdom called Judah and didn’t include the other tribes (except for Benjamin which Mordechai is said to be from…” Jews are NOT “Israel” claims this anti-semite. It may sound crazy but there are people living today who have deluded themselves into thinking that the Jews are not the "real" Israel, the people of the bible. This derangement goes further -- they think that THEY are the "true" Israelites. They think they are surely from one of the "lost tribes." Their thinking is that when the northern kingdom of Israel was destroyed some 500+ years before the southern kingdom of Judah was destroyed that the ten tribes who mostly lived in the north "disappeared" into history. Thus they say only the tribe of Judah was in the southern kingdom -- thus the name of "Jew" and the Jew not (somehow) being "Israel." Unfortunately for these people the Hebrew Bible destroys this argument. It clearly states that after the destruction of the northern kingdom members of all the tribes moved to the southern kingdom of Judah. Thus all 12 tribes were resident in Judah. Many of the residents of the northern kingdom were exiled and have been lost to history. Most adopted pagan religions and married other pagans thus the thought that after 2500+ years those people would still have an unbroken chain of Jewish mothers (and thus be Jewish themselves) is ridiculous. History does not record that there are people in the world faithful to Torah and its mitzvot who are not Jews. There are a few who are זרע ישראל / zera Yisrael (seed of Israel) who may have some Jewish ancestry but are not halachally (Jewish law) considered Jews (or Israel). If these people feel a connection to Judaism they may decide to convert to Judaism under Jewish law, but until (or if) they do they are not legally considered part of our people, simply people who may have some Jewish ancestry... The Samaritans (who primarily live in what used to be the northern kingdom) claim to be Jewish, but they are not. The Cuthean people were imported by the Assyrians to populate the land after they exiled the people from Israel 2,500+ years ago. Today there are only 600 Samaritans living there. If there are rare exceptions like the Lemba they are few and far between. Jews are Israel are Jacob are Hebrews... and those claiming to be "Israel" are nothing of the sort. This insanity is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. They certainly don't want to fulfill the mitzvot given to the Jewish people (Israel). No, they are generally Christians of a certain mindset... To convince themselves of their delusion they will look for proof that the Jews are NOT Israel -- and they will cherry pick the Hebrew Bible looking for proof. Proof which of course does not exist... Jews are called by many names -- and we always have been. We are first called “Hebrews.” Jews are called by many names -- and we always have been. We are first called “Hebrews.” The Book of Esther covers events from 3395-3406 (366-355 BCE). It was written by the Men of the Great Assembly circa 3450 (311 BCE). The Book of Ezra comes later (events from 3390-3438 -- 371-323 BCE) and the word “Israel” is found 37 times. This book takes place after the return from Babylonian Exile (Esther takes place during the exile)... “And these are the people of the province who went up from the captivity of the exile, whom Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, had exiled to Babylon, and they returned to Jerusalem and Judea, each one to his city. [Those] who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvei, Rehum, Baanah, the number of the important men of the people of Israel.” Ezra 2:1 - 2. Don’t let anti-semites set up false issues. They are masters at it. The word "Jew" came to be a common name for us because the southern kingdom of Judah survived after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel... There were Jews from all 12 tribes in ancient Judah. The concept of a "lost tribe" is questionable. Scripture is clear that the Jewish people would one day be scattered (Moses prophesied as such:D'varim / Deuteronomy 4:27-28, 30:1; also Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah 30:11; and Michah / Micah 5:7-8), but it is equally clear that they would one day all be regathered (Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11:11-12; Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah. 16:14-15;23:3-8;31:10; Y'chezkel / Ezekiel 11:17-19;39:28; Tzefaniah / Zephaniah 3:20). When the northern Kingdom of Israel split from the Southern Kingdom of Judah there was significant intermingling of the twelve tribes (Divrei Hayamim Beit / 2 Chronicles 11:3,16,15:9). “Speak to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin" (the land of those tribes. . ."IN Judah").”Divrei Hayamim II / 2 Chronicles 11:3. and “And after them, from all the tribes of Israel, those who put their heart to seek the L-rd, the G-d of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the L-rd, the G-d of their forefathers. And after them, from all the tribes of Israel, those who put their heart to seek the L-rd, the G-d of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the L-rd, the G-d of their forefathers.” Divrei Hayamim II / 2 Chronicles 11:15-16. This is after the northern Kingdom of Israel had broken away from Judah – and there were members of ALL the tribes in Judah. . . Isn't it amazing how anti-semitic missionaries who want to claim to BE the "real" Israel don't bother to actually read the Hebrew Bible? “And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin and those dwelling with them from Ephraim and Manasseh and from Simeon, for many of Israel had defected to them when they saw that the L-rd their G-d was with them.”Divrei Hayamim II / 2 Chronicles 15:9.
In Sefer Ester (the Book of Esther) says of Mordechai: "There was a Judean man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite" Ester / Esther 2:5. Mordechai was of the tribe of Benjamin -- not the tribe of Judah. After the Babylonian Exile the term Jew and Israel were used interchangeably. See Ezra 8:35 ("Those coming from captivity, the people of the exile, offered up burnt offerings to the G-d of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel");10:25; Nechemiah / Nehemiah12:47 "And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel"). It is just plain silly that some people think the word “Jew” only applies to someone from the tribe of Judah or that the northern kingdom of Israel somehow had the only claim to that name -- after all there was an "Israel" before the northern kingdom broke off (the name was given to Jacob, the son of Isaac who in turn was the son of Abraham) and the Jewish people were called both "Jacob" and "Israel" throughout the Hebrew Bible... There is still an Israel today -- the Jewish people. The Jewish state in the Middle East adopted the name "Israel" -- and why not? After all it is the only country in the entire world for the Jewish people. Someone asked: "I was wondering why we use the moon name "T A M M U Z."? The Torah forbids us to say the names of foreign gods, and Ezekiel HaShem is showing Ezekiel the abominable things and he is showing him Israelites weeping for T A M M U Z. Yechezkel / Ezekiel 8:13-14.
We cannot say the divine name, so we say "HaShem Elokeynu." But we pronounce this name (t a m m u z) monthly in our calendar? Why do we not use the names of the moons in Torah?: The first month (Nissan): Torah name "Aviv" Shemot 13:4 The second month (Iyar): TaNaK name "Ziv" 1 Kings 6:1, 6:37 The seventh month (Tishrei): TaNaK name "Eitanim" 1 Kings 8:2 The eighth month (Cheshvan): TaNaK name "Bul" 1 Kings 6:38 I am just trying to make sense of this all. Thanks... PS- Various websites like Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica confirm Tammuz is a foreign deity." You mentioned Ezekiel, but this is actually a mitzvah (a Torah commandment). "the name of the gods of others you shall not mention; it shall not be heard through your mouth." Sh'mot / Exodus 23:13. That would seem to be worse then, wouldn't it? That the months of our calendar use what were names of false gods from Babylon? To refresh memories: the Jews of Judah were exiled to Babylon (423-371 BCE). Some of our greatest were sent into exile -- but there they established synagogues and schools... Many never returned from that exile until recent times. From 1949 to 1951, 104,000 Jews were evacuated from Iraq to Israel due to persecution and pogroms... By 2008 only 10 Jews remained in Bagdad... When the Romans exiled us again hundreds of years after the Babylonian Exile the great Jewish world in Babylon helped us to survive -- with the Babylonian Talmud and great sages... Babylon eventually became Iraq. Which brings us back to the question at hand: why are the months of the Jewish calendar using names (seemingly) of Babylonian gods? Isn't that a direct violation of a Torah mitzvah? Of course not. If it were then those wouldn't be the names -- religious Jews are very careful when it comes to observing mitzvot! The names that Babylonians used for their gods were often words that themselves did not mean a false god. For example while the word tammuz in Babylon was the word for fire. One argues that the month's name relates to the word, not the false god. Other sages opined that because the false gods of the Babylonian month names are no longer worshiped there is no prohibition mentioning them (Igrot Moshe Y.D. II, 53). Chazal (sages from the Mishna, Tosefta and Talmud eras) stated that prior to the Babylonian Exile we used numbers for our months with the following exceptions:
The Jews in Babylon adopted the names of the Babylonian month names (see the chart at the bottom for a comparison). The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 1:5) says the names: “came up [to Israel] with [the returnees] from Babylon" and explains that by using those names we will forever remember the exile -- just as we had been exiled previously to Egypt and later by the Romans... After the Babylonian Exile the use of month names from their reminded us of our exile there. The leaders remarked that if using a word does not "remind" one of a false god or idolatry it is not hence a "false god" in that usage. The Ramban on Sh'mot / Exodus 12:2:1 "And our Sages have already mentioned this topic, and said that the names of the months came with us from Babylonia (Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 6a), for at the start we had no names. The reason for this is that at the start the order of [the months] was as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt, but when we left Babylonia and the verse was fulfilled "Therefore, behold days are coming, says G‑d, and it shall no longer be said [by one who wishes to pronounce an oath], ‘As G‑d lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,’ but rather, ‘As G‑d lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the north land [Babylon] . . ." Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah 16:14" we returned to calling the months by the names by which they were called in Babylonia, as a reminder that there we stood and from there the L-d drew us out." Here are some additional comments on the use of Babylonian names for the Hebrew calendar and why they do not fall under the mitzvah of using the name of a false god. See also Sefer HaChinuch 86: "To not swear by idolatry: That we not swear by idolatry - and even to its worshipers - and that we not make a gentile swear by it, as it is stated (Exodus 23:13), "and you shall not mention the name of other gods." And we have understand that included in this mentioning is whether one swears or causes to swear. "And there are some that explain that the main negative commandment [here] is only coming about one who does business with a gentile on his holiday and makes him profit, as he goes and thanks [his god], and [so] he transgresses "you shall not mention"; meaning that others should not mention it in the forbidden manner, which is with intention to serve them. As this is forbidden also to [gentiles] by Torah writ, since the Children of Noach are prohibited in idolatry. And they, may their memory be blessed, added a distancing and said (Sanhedrin 63b) that a man should not say to his fellow, "Wait for me by the side of idolatry x." The name on the left in the image is the Babylonian month name and the one on the right the month from the Hebrew calendar. Someone wrote "in your list of 365 prophecies Jesus did not fulfill -- namely #265. Isaiah 53:11d...The sin-bearer for all mankind... Hebrews 9:28 -- you said Israel is not a sin sacrifice.
Well, Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal seems to disagree with you! In your blog post you say: "1. The word sin is not found in this verse. 2. It says nothing about bearing the sins of anyone, let alone the world. 3. The T'nach (bible) actually FORBIDS anyone bearing the sins of another. We are each responsible for our own sins. G-d clearly tells Moses that each of us is responsible for our own sins. That is why even in qorban (sacrifices) each of us must bring our OWN qorban (sacrifice)." But Rabbi Blumenthal disagrees with you. He says: "And even after the exaltation will the servant take responsibility for the sins of the nations. Israel is called upon to be God’s priest (Isaiah 61:6). Just as the priests in the Temple bore the responsibility of Israel’s sins so does Israel bear the responsibility of the sins of the nations (Numbers 18:1)" So you should correct your post! You've misinterpreted the rabbi's point. His blog, 1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources, contains the quote you gave, but it is taken out of context as I will show in this response by quoting it in more length, along with other quotes from the rabbi on his blog. Nowhere in his blog does the rabbi even suggest that Jews are a vicarious atonement -- a "sin" sacrifice. In his blog the rabbi wrote: "I do not believe that the prophet is talking about vicarious suffering of Israel on behalf of the nations." The rabbi also wrote: "you (Michael Brown with whom he was debating) have completely lost sight of the tremendous difference between the vicarious and redemptive suffering of the servant because of and for the sake of others, vs. the deserved suffering of the nation, under which the righteous remnant also suffers.... you have yet to provide me with a syllable demonstrating the vicarious and redemptive aspects of Israel’s suffering on behalf of the nations." The last bit of the quote you gave from R' Blumenthal referenced Bamidbar / Numbers 18:1. You interpreted his quote to be saying the Jews were a vicarious atonement (a "sin" sacrifice). This is not what he said or meant. Here is what the rabbi wrote on Bamidbar / Numbers 18:1 : "There is not a shred of textual evidence to support the contention that this passage in Numbers speaks of vicarious atonement. In fact, all of the textual and contextual evidence clearly demonstrates that this passage is speaking of a transfer of responsibility from the people to the priests. The missionary “interpretation” of this passage is not rooted in a loyalty to Scripture, it is rooted in a loyalty to Christian theology. "This is not a situation of vicarious atonement; i.e. the innocent priests suffering for the guilty sinner. Rather, this is a case where the priests are assigned the responsibility of preventing the sinners from sinning to begin with. Thus when they fail in their duty, they are held guilty for their own negligence." This explanation by the rabbi is perfectly acceptable with Israel's role as the suffering servant for the nations of the world in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 53, too. It does not in any way conflict with my statements. The Jewish people are Isaiah's suffering servant in Isaiah 53, but we are not a "sin sacrifice" or a "vicarious atonement." We are a suffering servant who accepted the role as G-d's nation of priests to the world -- who will suffer but will one day be vindicated and recognized as G-d's servant in the messianic age. Nowhere does he say (let alone infer) that the Jewish nation is atoning "sacrifice" for the sins of the other nations. Rather he is addressing the fact that the Jews have often been the suffering servant mistreated by the other nations. Read his blog entry Isaiah 53 – a Verse by Verse Exposition: "The prophet tells us that G-d desired to afflict the servant. The purpose of Israel’s suffering, from Israel’s perspective, is to refine them. As a loving father rebukes his son so does G-d put Israel through the crucible of exile (Deuteronomy 8:5; Proverbs 3:11,12; Amos 3:2). "In order for the suffering to accomplish its purpose the servant needs to acknowledge and to recognize his own guilt. No created being is free of guilt and by acknowledging guilt we come closer to G-d’s truth. Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah were all righteous people yet they all acknowledged their own guilt together with the sins of the nation (Isaiah 6:5; Daniel 9:20; Ezra 9:6; Nehemiah 1:6). "The prophet goes on to tell us the reward that the servant will experience as a result of acknowledging his guilt. The servant will see his physical progeny walking in his footsteps and his days will be lengthened. These two blessings are not unrelated. No individual saint is guaranteed long days. But through his progeny the servant perseveres and outlasts his persecutors. The might, the splendor and the power of those who persecuted the Jew have long faded away while the Jew still prays the same prayers and studies the same texts with freshness and vitality. It is the same Jew that stirred the fanatical hatred of the Church fathers, the mobs of Crusaders, the Moslem Almohads, the Inquisitors, the Ukrainian soldiers of Chemilnicki, the Russian Czars, the Communists and the Nazis. These and many like them have come and gone but the Jew is still here." No one can atone for the sins of another -- we are responsible for our own actions. The Jewish people are unique in the fact that (because we accepted a contract with G-d) we are judged both individually and as a people. The portion you quoted from R' Blumenthal was his point that we Jews are a nation of priests. Our role has always been to lead the rest of the world to know G-d. Sadly most of the world has killed us over the past 2000 years rather than accept our teachings. THIS is the rabbi's point when he wrote: "The servant will utilize his knowledge to render the many righteous. Israel will teach the truth that they carry in their heart (Isaiah 51:7) to the nations (Zechariah 8:23; Isaiah 42:4). And even after the exaltation will the servant take responsibility for the sins of the nations. Israel is called upon to be G-d’s priest (Isaiah 61:6). Just as the priests in the Temple bore the responsibility of Israel’s sins so does Israel bear the responsibility of the sins of the nations (Numbers 18:1). It is the priest’s responsibility to teach the people and guide them and if the people fail, the priests are held responsible (Malachi 2:8). In the Messianic age, the responsibility to teach mankind will fall on the shoulders of the righteous of Israel." We do not "bear the sins" of the gentile nations except in the sense that it is our role to lead them to know G-d by teaching them. In that sense, as priests, we Jews are held responsible for helping you to find the true G-d. Elsewhere in his blog the rabbi wrote "The servant makes people righteous through his knowledge – and he bears the people’s sins by praying for their welfare and serving as a balance for G-d’s judgment." We are not a sacrifice or an atonement for the nations -- but by praying for their welfare even as they mistreat us we are G-d's servant. Hopefully you better understand. The Christian concept of vicarious atonement is absolutely forbidden by G-d. I highly recommend you read the rabbi's entire article to help you understand his reasoning. Someone asked "How does Judaism understand Numbers 12? I see that Moses is spoken to be faithful in G-d's house, and that he is at a higher level than everyone because G-d speaks to him face to face. Will the future Messiah be higher than Moses? Who will be the greatest authority in G-d's house?"
The greatest authority in G-d's house is G-d. Study His Torah! Even as great as Moses was he was a mortal man with human failings. It is important to realize that all humans are imperfect and that our purpose in this world is to learn and grow as much as we can. Without falling there is no getting up... As for the messiah, in every generation there is a man alive who could be the messiah -- ready to appear if we warrant his arrival. This is a human being -- a descendant of kings who is very learned in Torah and a good man -- but nevertheless a man. A mortal man. Moses was the only prophet G-d communicated with directly -- without the use of dreams and visions, but directly as you might have a conversation with another person. “Behold, My servant shall be wise, he shall be exalted and lofty, and shall be very high.” (Y'shayahu / Isaiah 52:13). In some ways he will be greater than Moses, and in other ways "not." Our sages tell us the messiah will be greater than the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He will be greater than the prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah -- and approach the greatness of Moses. Hilchot Teshuvah 9:2 tells us he will be wiser than Solomon (the wisest man to ever live): "the king who will arise from David's descendants will be a greater master of knowledge than Solomon and a great prophet, close to the level of Moses, our teacher. Therefore, he will teach the entire nation and instruct them in the path of G-d. "All the gentile nations will come to hear him as [Y'shayahu / Isaiah 2:2] states: "And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of God's house shall be established at the peak of the mountains... [and all the nations shall flow to it]." "[Nevertheless,] the ultimate of all reward and the final good which will have no end or decrease is the life of the world to come. In contrast, the Messianic age will be [life within the context of] this world, with the world following its natural pattern except that sovereignty will return to Israel. "The Sages of the previous generations have already declared: "There is no difference between the present age and the Messianic era except [the emancipation] from our subjugation to the [gentile] kingdoms." Someone wrote: "I've heard missionaries claim that their is a prophecy about Jesus in the very first word of the Hebrew Bible: Bereshit.
"They say the meaning of the letters in the word bet-resh-aleph-shin-yud-tav) are a code which is a hidden prophecy which spells out: 'the Son of G-d is destroyed by his own hand on the cross.' "Can you tell me if this is true or not?" First of all the first two letters -- bet / ב and resh / ר do NOT make up the Hebrew word "son" (actually "son of"). That is totally false. The Hebrew word for "son of" is בן (ben). בן (ben) is the noun and its smichut case is בן. Ben not bar... Bar / בַּר in Aramaic means "son of" but the word בְּרֵאשִׁית / b'reshit -- the very first word of the Hebrew Bible is not written in Aramaic -- it is written in Hebrew! Aramaic and Hebrew are two totally different languages. The T'nach (Jewish bible) is primarily written in Hebrew, but there are a few parts where it is written in Aramaic. The first few words of Daniel 2 are in Hebrew, but with the middle of line four it shifts to Aramaic and continues in Aramaic until the end of chapter seven when it reverts to Hebrew for the rest of the book of Daniel. There are also two Aramaic passages in the book known as Ezra-N'ḥemyah (Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26), as well as one isolated verse in Yirm'yahu / Jeremiah (10:11) and the two words יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא y'gar sahaduta (“evidentiary cairn”) in B'réshіt / Genesis 31:47, which is a direct translation into Aramaic of the Hebrew word גַּלְעֵד gal'éd. But there is no Aramaic in the Hebrew bible in chapter 1. These missionaries generally say these "definitions" are Hebrew -- when they are no such thing. They are Aramaic and don't match the Hebrew meanings of words spelled similarly. The meaning of the Hebrew word bar / בַּר is “pure” or “clear" (not son). So right from the start: lies. So what if the first two letters of b'reshit begin with a beit and a resh? How many words in English begin with the same two letters and have absolutely nothing in common? Consider the two letters "ch" as the beginning of words:
And those are just a few! It is the same in Hebrew -- and Hebrew uses prefixes and suffixes which are added to words to give additional meaning. When used as a prefix the Hebrew letter ב / bet can mean in, with, or by. In the first word of the Hebrew Bible the ב / bet is a prefix to the word reshit / רֵאשִׁית. With "b'reshit" the letter bet means "in" as "in the beginning of..." The beginning of "what" you might ask? The next word which is בָּרָא / bara. The first two words of the Hebrew bible are בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא "at the beginning of G-d's creating of..." The word בְּרֵאשִׁית / b'réshιt has to be followed by another noun like "creating." The word רֵאשִׁית réshιt - "the beginning of [something]" - occurs 47 times in the T'nach, and it is followed by another noun in every case. Hebrew is also based on root words. The word reshit / רֵאשִׁית means "beginning of." It is a feminine noun. Masculine is רֹאשׁ / rosh (masculine noun) which means "head" as in Rosh HaShana -- the head of the year. So this person doesn't know the meaning of "son" in Hebrew or "head" for that matter! Neither of his claims hold up to basic Hebraic understanding! In Aramaic "bar" means son of and "resh" means head -- but once again B'reshit is HEBREW, not ARAMAIC. Also doesn't he say the first two letters mean "THE son"? Obviously that is wrong. In Aramaic the word for "the son" is בְּרָא (b'ra) not bar. In Hebrew the son of is הבן / HaBen -- the heh for "ha" being Hebrew in a prefix as "the." Then he says alef is G-d. Again -- total nonsense. אָלֶף [Alef] is the (feminine) name of the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet. אָלֶף [Alef] is generally not an actual word in biblical Hebrew, though it appears in the T'nach (bible) as a variant of the Hebrew word אֶלֶף [Elef], meaning "one thousand" (see, e.g., 1 Samuel 17:18, Psalms 84:11, 1 Chronicles 12:14). Moreover, there is the verb אָלַף [aLAF] used in the Hebrew Bible, meaning "to teach", "to learn". {The word אָלֶף [Alef] is also used in many later, i.e., more modern, Hebrew expressions.}. They probably get the idea that alef means G-d from their own Greek testament. The "alpha and omega" even among Christians is fairly new -- 19th century. The Textus Receptus (received text) was created in the 15th century used the Greek symbols "Α and Ω" (not "alpha" and "omega"). The Textus Receptus does not say "alpha and omega" (in words), but rather "Α and Ω". In the 19th century Delitzsch and Zalkinson (independently) translated the Christian bible into Hebrew. Both of them elected to translate "Α and Ω" into "alef" and "tav." BTW this whole lie is based on the idea that Hebrew is based on pictographs -- like Egyptian hieroglyphics. It isn't. The letter shin / ש symbolizes a flame. It can up to 5 meanings: 1. tooth 2. steadfast 3. change 4. return 5. year. But again -- Hebrew uses root WORDS not root letters. The next letter is a yud / י. The word hand sounds like the letter but it isn't the single letter -- the Hebrew word for "hand" is spelled יד -- a yud and a dalet -- not just the single letter yud / י. The letter ת / tav never ever meant cross. And again Hebrew was never pictographic either. The missionaries use a Canaanite alphabet where their letter resembles a cross and ignore the ancient Hebrew aleph bet version of ת / tav which looks more like an "x." There is a Hebrew word for "a cross" and it is צְלָב (tslav). There is no Hebrew word in the T'nach which depicts or resembles a cross. In the ancient k'tav ivri script the letter tav resembled the English letter "X". Missionaries love to use smoke and mirrors (which they call types and shadows) to try to find Jesus where he doesn't exist. This is a good example of this. In the Hebrew Bible prophecy is NEVER based on hints or "shadows" -- it is always based on plain meaning (p'shat). I discuss this in my blog fyi. Last night I was watching a video where Rabbi Michael Skobac was discussing Matthew 1 with William Hall (of Tenak Talk). Matthew 1:1 says “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham.” But it isn't. Not if Jesus is a "virgin birth." It is instead (purportedly) the lineage of Joseph who was not Jesus' father (biologically). So Matthew is listing Joseph's lineage (supposedly). And supposedly Joseph did not father Jesus. -- and if Joseph is not Jesus' biological father this list is immaterial. A tribal status (and thus the right to be a Davidic king) passes only if the mother is Jewish before she is pregnant, and if the biological father (meaning his sperm) impregnates her. It the "holy spirit" impregnated Mary then Jesus has no tribal status and is not eligible to be the messiah. Let's assume for the moment that this genealogy given by Matthew is that of Jesus. The claim that Jesus is eligible to be the messiah falls apart based on the lineage given by Matthew. Read Matthew 1:2 - 17. Pay special attention to verse 17! Matthew complete re-works the genealogies of the T'nach (Jewish bible) and distorts them. From Abraham to David the lineages given by Matthew aligns with the lineages in the T'nach. From Solomon forward Matthew changes things. First Matthew 1:17 claims are the 14 generations from David's son Solomon to the exile of Jeconiah. Matthew 17 lists:
Compare Matthew with M'lachim I / 1 Kings 1 through M'lachim II / 2 Kings 24. Then peruse Divrei Hayamim I / 1 Chronicles 3:10-17, and Divrei Hayamim II / II Chronicles Chapters 1-36. The T'nach records all of the father/son generations from David's son Solomon to Jeconiah and his exile. The list does not match the one given by Matthew 1:17. Here is the list from the T'nach:
Somehow Matthew skips five kings altogether:
Jehoiakim son of Josiah between Josiah and Jeconiah. Jehoiakim is the son of Josiah and the father of Jeconiah. Yet Matthew's genealogy skips from Josiah to his grandson Jeconiah. All in all from Solomon to Jeconiah and his exile there are 18 generations of fathers and sons who were King of Judah – not the 14 claimed by Matthew. This is nearly 100 years worth of kings! So, Matthew's list is wrong to begin with... And it is supposedly for Joseph, who was supposedly NOT Jesus' father (so why bother listing it at all -- it is immaterial?)... But there is an even bigger error in Matthew's list. Matthew includes Jeconiah. Matthew 1:11 "and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon." The T'nach tells us that G-d removed Jeconiah and all of his heirs from the throne -- thus though they are descended from David and Solomon none of the descendants could be a messiah (king). "As I live, says the L-rd, though Coniah (Jeconiah) the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, be a signet on My right hand, from there I will remove you." Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah 22:24. Oops. Now, missionaries will bring up the fact that the Talmud tells us that G-d forgave Jeconiah. True enough -- but Christians dismiss the Talmud. How can they say it is (on the one hand) nothing to them and then point to it as proof of anything at all? But the fact remains -- even IF Joseph were Jesus' biological father (no virgin birth) and even if Joseph's line per Matthew (totally different from Luke's line) includes Jeconiah -- being a Davidic heir does not make anyone the messiah. To be the messiah you must also fulfill the actual messianic prophecies includeing returning all Jews to Israel (the Romans exiled the Jews shortly after Jesus' death), world peace (see any?), global knowledge of the one true G-d, and rebuilding the Temple... Jesus did not one of them. But back to the question raised by R' Skobac: is it impossible to find a Davidic heir alive today who could be the messiah? The rabbi brought up the missionary claim that: "if Jesus wasn't the messiah Jews have no way of identifying a future messiah because all the lineage records of the Jews were stored in the Temple and were lost when the Temple was destroyed." This is false of course -- and we have discussed this topic here previously. Uri discusses this in his article Genealogical Scams and Flimflams. Were all the records lost when the Temple was destroyed in 68 CE? No. No, not "all" the lineage records were kept in the Temple 2000 years ago -- and the lineages of Davidic heirs (and the priestly line) were not lost. Some were, no doubt -- but a huge number remain known to this very day. Two famous heirs include רבי שלמה יצחקי Solomon Yitzach, 22 February 1040 – 13 July 1105 (aka "Rashi") and שלמה לוריא Solomon Luria, 1510 – November 7, 1573. Some of the family trees (researched by Chaim Freedman) include: 1) Ancestry of King David 2) David Monarchy 3) Principal lines descended from King David 4) Exilarchs, Gaonim and Rabbis – descendants of Zerubavel 5) Descent of Rashi from Hillel and King David 6) Rashi’s Family Circle 7) Rashi Key Chart 8 ) Treves, Shapira, Luria links 9) Shealtiel.com 10) Treves Family 11) Luria Family 12) Katzenellenbogen Family 13) Ancestry of the Vilna Gaon 14) Shapira 15) Everels Altshuler 16) Shrentzels 17) Isserles 18) Meizels 19) Lipshitz The point being that "son of David" does not = messiah. There have been, and still are, many sons of David alive in this world, but to date none of met the messianic prophecies. No one ever seems to think to ask the Jews! Maybe they don't want to know the answer? The key take away is to consider that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines -- there were many children and even though some were killed there are many Davidic heirs alive even today. . . there is a long list of criteria by which we will know the messiah, and his lineage is only the first on the list which includes world peace, global knowledge of G-d, return of all Jewish exiles to Israel and so on. . . Jesus accomplished none of the messianic prophecies -- including being a "son" of David. The rabbi mentioned that a majority of Jews 2000 years ago lived outside of Judah, and there were more Jews in Babylon (as they had never left there after the exile). It is a Christian myth that all lineage records were kept in the Temple. True enough -- and I've posted images of some "family trees" going back to King David of Jews alive today in the past. But I'm not sure I've ever discussed the Exilarch. The Resh Galuta / רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא / Exilarch / "Head of the Exile" was a Davidic ruler in Babylon. There were three different dynasties -- all descendants of Kings David and Solomon. The last recorded Exilarch, Shalom, (1365 - 1401 CE) was deposed by the Tartar King Tamberlane. It is estimated that they ruled until the 15th century of the common era. Even after he was deposed the Jews of the exile recognized his descendants as their Exilarch (king in exile) until the death of Pasha in the Baghdad ghetto in 1825. Even when the Exilarchs stopped ruling the Babylonian Jewish community in exile (forced to stop) they still had descendants and their lineages have been maintained. See the image of exilarch descendant in the top left corner of this post. The image is one of the descendants in the Musaphia Family. This family descended from the Exilarchs. Here is a link to a page which currently takes the line through the 20th century. Link. There is also The ibn Yahya (Yachya) Family which traces the descendants currently through the 16th century. Link. Of course the Resh Galuta / Exilarch was only one man in one family descended from King David and King Solomon. Keep in mind that Solomon alone had 1000 wives and concubines! There are many, many more Davidic heirs who have the potential to be the messiah when the time comes. Keep in mind that having the right lineage is a requirement but it does not guarantee a specific man is actually the messiah. To be the messiah a man must have this lineage and he must fulfill all the the actual messianic prophecies. In his lifetime all the Jews must return to Israel. There must be world peace. The entire world will come to know the one true G-d and the final Temple will be built... Someone asked "I was listening to Rabbi Tovia Singer taking about the resurrection concept taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Rabbi Singer stated that Paul’s view was Greek due to the idea of a “spiritual body” being resurrected from a physical body.
My question is, from a Jewish perspective, at the resurrection of the dead, does the physical body resurrect in the exact same form as it was in when it died? And if so, does this mean that the resurrected body dies again after the resurrection? Was Paul’s idea wrong of a resurrected body that doesn’t not die again?" Paul taught that people have to “accept” Jesus or be damned forever. You have to believe in not only his death and his resurrection to be “saved” you must believe that he died for your sins (even though he undied pretty fast!). By contrast the Hebrew Bible tells us time and time and time again that no one can die for your sins. You alone must atone and repent of your wrongdoings. By either name the concept is totally foreign to the T'nach (Jewish bible). It is more than foreign. It is forbidden. See Sh'mot / Exodus 32:33 "Whoever has sinned against Me, him I will erase from My book!" The Jewish position is that repentance is the key component in the atonement process. When man repents, G-d forgives. G-d clearly tells Moses that each of us is responsible for our own sins. The idea that no one can atone for the sins of another is repeated over and over again in the T'nach: "So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!" (Bamidbar / Numbers 35:33). "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." (D'varim / Deuteronomy 24:16; M'lachim Beit / 2 Kings 14:6). There are many more such verses -- no one can die for the wrongdoings of another, and human sacrifice is disgusting to G-d. Besides saying you have to believe in Jesus to be resurrected Paul also said that the Torah could not "save" you. Only belief in Jesus could "save you." Paul ignored D'varim / Deuteronomy 33:29 where Moses said we are “a nation that has been saved by HaShem” and Y'shayahu / Isaiah 45:17 says the Jewish nation “has been saved by HaShem” adding that “this is an eternal salvation”). Note that, in both verses, the words used were “has been saved” or "continually being saved." So we don't NEED Jesus to save us -- G-d has saved / is saving us continually, B"H! Salvation in the Hebrew Bible has nothing to do with the immortal soul – that lie comes from Paul. It always means our physical lives being rescued from danger – our immortal souls do not need saving. Tchiyat Hameitim / תחיית המתים is belief in a reuniting of the soul and body. The Rambam (Maimonides) explains that the body in T'chiyat Hameitim is unchanged from the physical body as we know it today. The Ramban (Nachmanides) disagrees and sees the body existing forever but becoming less material over time. The Rambam listed resurrection of the righteous (mentioned in both Y’shayahu / Isaiah and Daniel) as one of his 13 principles of Judaism. He taught that for several hundreds of years people would be resurrected, live and die again. Prior to being resurrected their immortal souls have been in olam haba – the world to come (think heaven), they live reunited body and soul a natural life and die again – to return again to olam haba. Where does the Rambam conclude that the resurrected will die again? See Y’chezkel / Ezekiel 46:16: “So says the L-rd G-d: If the prince (messiah) gives a gift to any of his sons, it is his inheritance and remains in his sons' possession; it is their property by inheritance.” This tells us that the messiah will eventually die and his children will inherit his possessions. The Ramban (Nachmanides) disagreed that the resurrected will die again. He opined that tradition in Judaism saw the resurrection as the beginning of immortality body and soul. He bases this on Y’shayahu / Isaiah 25:8: “He has concealed death forever.” The Ramban disagreed with the Rambam that body and soul would die again. The Ramban pointed both to Y’shayahu / Isaiah 25:8 and to Sanhedrin 92a: “The school of Eliyahu taught: The righteous whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to resurrect do not return to their dust, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that he who remains in Zion and he who remains in Jerusalem shall be called holy, anyone who is written unto life in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 4:3). Just as the Holy One exists forever, so too will they exist forever.” Notice that the concept is that the righteous will be resurrected – not that the messiah alone will be resurrected. Notice that it has nothing to do with anyone dying for the sins of another person. Notice that Paul’s god is only the god of the living: Paul says G-d is “not god of the dead, but of the living" (Mark 12:27). So the dead have no god according to Paul? All those who died are “gone” because Paul’s god is not the god of the dead as well as of the living??? Not much of a god! The Christian religion teaches that Jesus had to die and be resurrected to “save” the souls of other people. This is totally non-biblical – but it is very pagan. Consider the story of Hercules in mythology who goes to “save” Queen Alcestis (who had sacrificed her life for her husband) from hades. Euripides, Alcestis (a play circa 438 BCE). So the queen in this ancient play was able to die for someone else in Greek paganism – just as Jesus was able to die for the sins of others in the Christian religion. Totally non-Jewish and non-biblical. In Judaism the souls of the righteous who died are resurrected – it has nothing to do with vicarious (substitutionary) atonement of sins. The idea that Jesus had to die to remove the sins of humans is based on the concept of original sin – which again has to do with vicarious atonement and the mistaken thought that because of the sin of Adam all of men are damned without Jesus’ sacrifice. Again – pagan – not Jewish. There is no concept of original sin in Judaism. Indeed, G-d tells Cain that while sin “crouches at the door” he himself can overcome it (B’reshit / Genesis 4:7). If Cain can overcome his own wrongdoings so can you! Yet Paul says that Jesus became a god AFTER his resurrection. The Hebrew Bible has a few resurrections – and not one of those people were worshiped as a god after they came back to life. Indeed, none of them were mourned either (after all they were NOT DEAD!). The prophet Eliyahu (Elijah) prays and G-d raises a young boy from death (1 Kings 17:17-24); The prophet Elisha raises a boy whose birth he had prophesied (2 Kings 4:8-16 and 32-37); A dead man's body thrown into Elisha's tomb is resurrected when the body touches Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21). In other words, what many Christians see as the very reason for believing in Christianity (the resurrection of Jesus) is not unique to Jesus. Neither it is a messianic requirement for the messiah to be resurrected. The messiah IS required to resurrect the righteous dead (all of them) -- and this is something Jesus did not do. As shown above there are examples of Elijah and Elisha raising the dead in the T’nach – and we know that all the righteous will be resurrected in the messianic age. So for Paul’s resurrection you must be saved by Jesus – and when he comes back (second coming, also non-biblical) you will be given a new and improved body. Per Judaism the righteous are resurrected into their previous bodies. The Rambam believed that this body would eventually die again and the soul then lives eternally whereas the Ramban believed that the body and immortal soul were together eternally – but that over time the body becomes more and more refined since sin no longer exists. Whether the body becomes immortal or not the person is immortal -- with or without a physical body. Someone quoted Mark 5: "11 Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits] begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea."
"whether the pigs were wild or owned by a farmer, is killing them needlessly in violation of any Torah command?" Jews are forbidden from raising pigs -- so this tall tale in the Christian bible is false. From the Talmud: אין מגדלין חזירים בכל מקום תנו רבנן כשצרו בית חשמונאי זה על זה היה הורקנוס מבפנים ואריסטובלוס מבחוץ ובכל יום היו משלשים להם בקופה דינרין והיו מעלין להם תמידים The Mishna teaches that one may not raise pigs anywhere. The Sages taught in a baraita the background for this halakha (Jewish law) : When the members of the house of Hasmonean monarchy were at war with each other, Hyrcanus, one of the parties to this war, was inside the besieged Jerusalem, while his brother Aristobulus, the other contender to the throne, was on the outside. And every day the people inside would lower down money in a box from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice, and those on other side would take the money and send up sheep to them over the wall for the daily offerings. היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית אמר להם כל זמן שעוסקין בעבודה אין נמסרים בידכם למחר שילשלו דינרין בקופה והעלו להם חזיר כיון שהגיע לחצי החומה נעץ צפרניו בחומה ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה "There was a certain elder there who was familiar with Greek wisdom, and he said to those besieging Jerusalem: As long as they occupy themselves with the Temple service, they will not be delivered into your hands. The next day they lowered down money in a box as usual, but this time they sent up to them a pig. When the pig reached to the midpoint of the Temple wall it stuck its hooves into the wall, and Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs. "באותה שעה אמרו ארור האיש שיגדל חזירים וארור האדם שילמד את בנו חכמת יוונית ועל אותה שעה שנינו מעשה שבא עומר מגנות הצריפין ושתי הלחם מבקעת עין סוכר: At that time the Sages said: Cursed be the man who raises pigs, and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom. And it was concerning that time of siege that we learned in a Mishna: There was an incident in which the barley for the omer offering came from the gardens of Tzerifin, far from Jerusalem, and the wheat for the two loaves of Shavuot was brought from the valley of Ein Sokher. Barley and wheat could not be brought from any nearer because the besiegers had destroyed all the produce around Jerusalem. This concludes the baraita.." Bava Kama 82b. This ruling pre-dated Jesus -- which is why the stories in the Christian bible are nothing more than fiction and a tall tale. The Talmud tells us this rule regarding pigs began thanks to Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus / יוחנן הורקנוס / Yōḥānān Hurqanōs, also known as יוחנן כהן גדול / Yohanan Kohein Gadol / Johanan the High Priest, was a Hasmonean (Maccabean) leader who lived in the 2nd century BCE (born 164 BCE, reigned from 134 BCE and died in 104 BCE). BCE as in 150 to 100 years before Jesus was supposedly born. Ergo NO Jew in Jesus' time would have been raising pigs! See also the Jewish Code of Law, Choshen Mishpat 409:2. Pigs aside, there are laws about taking the property of others (theft) which is what this case would be -- and 2,000 is a BIG number! So Jesus stole those pigs. Why do I say he stole them? Well, ask yourself: did these pigs belong to Jesus ? Nope. Were they running wild? Also “no.” The Christian bible tells us: "Those tending the pigs ran off” Matthew 8:33 and Mark 5:14. So they were someone's property -- even if those "someones" weren't Jews... Destroying those pigs without buying them first constitutes STEALING. Surely a god could kill the demons without destroying some innocent person’s property and thus stealing it (breaking the law against stealing). Why couldn't he simply destroy the demons? And the Matthew 8:14 says there were two men possessed and a “herd” of swine. A “herd” indicates more than two, so why kill the whole herd of, as you pointed out, 2000 per Mark? Why not just put the demons into two pigs and be done with it? (Still stealing, even if just two!)... Halacha (Jewish law) tells us that a thief must provide restitution along with professing guilt (Jesus did neither). A thief must pay double as restitution for what he took: "If a person steals an ox or sheep and then slaughters or sells it, he must repay five oxen for each ox, and four sheep for each sheep." Sh'mot / Exodus 21:37. "If the stolen article is found in his possession, and it is a living ox, donkey or sheep, he must make double restitution." Sh'mot / Exodus 22:3. and let's not forget: "In every case of dishonesty, whether it involves an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or anything else that was [allegedly] lost, and [witnesses] testify that it was seen, both parties' claims must be brought to the courts. The person whom the courts declare guilty must then make double restitution to the other." Sh'mot / Exodus 22:8. Christians look upon this tall tale as a miracle by Jesus -- yet they never stop to think about reality -- both the laws of the time and the fact that a herd of swine was the property of someone. Taking them without permission so they can all drown is most definitely theft! Jesus didn't bother to ask the herders for permission, let alone the owner -- he just took those poor, innocent, out of place pigs and killed them with no thought to the fact that he probably made some man poor by his actions. Totally false story, ridiculous in fact. Someone wrote "don’t know where to even begin. Is it worth replying? Isaiah 22:23 And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place In a strong part of the wall or timber, where it shall not fail, or be removed, or cut down, and so let drop what is hung upon it: it denotes the stability and continuance of his government, and of the strength and support he should be of unto others; and well agrees with Christ his antitype; see ( Zechariah 10:4 ) and is expressive of the strength of Christ, as the mighty God; and as the man of God's right hand, made strong for himself; and as the able Savior, and mighty Redeemer....(snip)...
...and he will bring all his Father's family to sit with him on the same throne, ( 1 Samuel 2:8 ) ( Revelation 3:21 ) .]" The use of combining both our holy scriptures with Christian dogma to me replacement theology gone mad and cultural misappropriation. It really upsets me. Should I be? It is upsetting -- but it is also typical missionary proof texting. Christianity bases its claims for existence on misinterpreting the Hebrew Bible. It is literally spinning straw out of the air. There's no basis. Christianity bases its credibility on the Hebrew Bible -- ripping verses out of context, mistranslating it (virgin births), and making things up -- totally distorting the Hebrew Bible which refutes it's very core tenets. These claims fall apart when the Hebrew Bible is read IN CONTEXT and preferably in Hebrew (with a smattering of Aramaic) -- or at the least use a decent Jewish translation. The entire point of what you pasted is called proof texting. Missionaries take a word or sentence lifted out of context to make it seem to say something that it does not say. The proof falls apart when one actually reads the text in context. Y'shayahu / Isaiah 22 gives us Isaiah's prophecy of the “valley of vision” -- many nations coming against the city of Jerusalem. This never happened with Jesus so it doesn't apply in any way, shape or form -- so the missionary looks at one word or part of a sentence -- completely out of context -- and "sees" Jesus there. You could make it fit anyone or anything. Rabbi Moshe Shulman wrote a wonderful essay where he showed a rooster fits as many of this ripped out passages as does Jesus! It is interesting that the claim in your post says that verse 23 is about Jesus when Isaiah IDENTIFIES the person as Eliakim son of Hilkiah in verse 20! "And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will call My servant, אֶלְיָקִים / Eliakim son of Hilkiah." Y'shayahu / Isaiah 22:20. The next verses are about Eliakim, not about Jesus. Eliakim was the master of the house of חִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ / Hizkiyyahu / (Hezekiah) -- king of Judah, son of King Ahaz (of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7:14). Eliakim is mentioned in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 36:3 "And Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was appointed over the Temple and Shebna the scribe and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, came out to him" and M'lachim Beit / 2 Kings 18:18 "And they summoned the king, and Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was appointed over the palace, and Shebna the scribe and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, came out to them." As well as M'lachim Beit / 2 Kings 18:26 and 37. As for the parting reference of Shmuel Alef / 1 Samuel 2, ask yourself: what is the plain meaning in Shmuel Alef / 1 Samuel 2? “The bows of the mighty are broken; And those who stumbled, are girded with strength.” (line 4). In the time of Jesus the mighty defeated the Jews (the Romans killed Jesus and they later exiled the Jews). Those who stumbled were defeated, not given strength (Jesus himself was killed by the Romans). Read the chapter for yourself and it is easy to see that Jesus did not fulfill the words of Hannah. The missionary also mentioned Z'charyah / Zechariah 10:4 -- a missionary favorite. Again, read the entire chapter. Z'charyah / Zechariah 10 speaks of the victory that G-d will grant the Jewish people (the children of Judah and Ephraim) in battle: "And they shall be like mighty men, treading the mire of the streets in battle. And they shall wage war, for the L-rd is with them. And they shall shame the riders of horse." Z'charyah / Zechariah 10:5. Did Jesus wage war? Did Jesus wage war successfully? The answer to both questions is "no." In this chapter we are told that in messianic times the Jews won't be saved by other nations. . . None of that happened in the time of Jesus -- and the "second coming" is nothing more than an excuse made up to fill in the fact that Jesus failed to fulfill even ONE true messianic prophecy. So try not to be upset -- it is part and parcel of Christianity (it is even found in their bible -- often with distortion and mistranslation -- see Matthew "prophecy" that Jesus will "come out of Egypt" as a perfect example of this)... Just educate yourself so you can combat this ignorance when used to try to convert secular or uneducated Jews. None of the psalms are about Jesus. Most were written by King David and are about what happened to him in his lifetime. Verse 6 says:
"O G-d, You know my folly, and my acts of guilt are not concealed from You." T'hillim / Psalm 69:6. Jesus is supposed to be "without sin" -- so how can this psalm be about him? What acts of guilt did Jesus do? What folly? This is cherry picking -- proof texting -- taking a word or sentence out of context. Verse 6 in Christian versions is actually verse 7 in the psalm. Christians tend to ignore the first line of most psalms. In this case it says "For the conductor, on shoshannim, of David." The Hebrew word for a rose (flower) is שושנה / shoshanah, the plural of which is שׁוֹשַׁנִּים / shoshannim. Rashi tells us "Concerning Israel, who are like a rose (שושנה) among the thorns, pricked by the thorns, and he prayed for them." So the first line is telling us that this is a poem, a prayer about the roses (the Jewish people) of King David. Not Jesus. The timing of this psalm is when King David was running, in fear of his life, from his own son אַבְשָלוֹם / Absalom. Absalom (David's third son) crowned himself king and revolted against his father -- forcing David to flee from Jerusalem. David had sons by several wives. One son, Amnon, raped his sister Tamar. Absalom (as mentioned) turned against his father, David, trying to wrest the kingdom from him. Absalom was killed in battle. So what is verse 7? "Do not let those who hope for You be shamed through me, O L-rd G-d of Hosts; let those who seek You not be disgraced through me, O G-d of Israel." In this verse David is saying that people should trust in G-d and not be ashamed because of something David might have done. Please remember if you share any of my posts please provide a link back to the original post and credit me (Sophiee Saguy) as the author. All of my work is copyrighted... Rabbi Yaacov Haber discusses the historical background, context, plain meaning (p'shat) of the psalm at the Yeshiva University online site. Study the psalm as a whole -- learn a little of David's personal history (found in the T'nach) -- and realize that the missionary ploy of taking a partial sentence out of context to make something seem to fit Jesus does not work when one actually looks at the context of that sentence. Someone wrote "Shalom mam is this true? "El is Saturn, that is why you call your saturn god elohim.
Saturn is represented by the symbolic black cube, or kabba, which was also worshipped in Mecca, also on the heads of those Judaism rabbis. That is why the Jews study Kabbalah. Kabba(cube) and Allah(God), which means the God-cube, Saturn." ------- and this one as well? "According to old legends preserved by the Rabbins, the angel at the gate of Eden instructed Adam in the mysteries of Qabbalah and of alchemy, promising that when the human race had thoroughly mastered the secret wisdom concealed within these inspired arts, the curse of the forbidden fruit would be removed and man might again enter into the Garden of the Lord. As man took upon himself "coats of skins" (physical bodies) at the time of his fall, so these sacred sciences were brought by him into the lower worlds incarnated in dense vehicles, through which their spiritual transcendental natures could no longer manifest themselves. Therefore they were considered as being dead or lost. The earthly body of alchemy is chemistry, for chemists do not realize that half of The Book of Torah is forever concealed behind the veil of Isis (see the Tarot), and that so long as they study only material elements they can at best discover but half of the mystery. Astrology has crystallized into astronomy, whose votaries ridicule the dreams of ancient seers and sages, deriding their symbols as meaningless products of superstition. Nevertheless, the intelligentsia of the modern world can never pass behind the veil which divides the seen from the unseen except in the way appointed--the Mysteries." Unbelievable ignorance -- and yet this type of nonsense is used to create more hatred of Jews -- as if we need any more hatred against us! The Hebrew for Saturn is שַׁבְּתַי / Shabbatai and is related to the word שַׁבָּת / Shabbat. The Forward has an article on this topic. The word אֵל / el has nothing to do with Saturn. It means mighty or powerful. אֵל / El is often translated as "G-d", and אֵל / El is often used as a name (description) of G-d by itself or as part of other words (e.g. elohim). It, and derivatives of it, can be used to speak of humans, angels and even false gods -- because it means "mighty"! Neither Saturn or El have anything to do with the Kabba cube of Islam. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. It most certainly has nothing to do with Kabbalah / קַבָּלָה. The word קַבָּלָה means “receiving.” It has nothing to do with tarot or witchcraft or alchemy -- all of which are FORBIDDEN in the Torah and to Jews. Kabbalah is to be studied ONLY by Jews very learned in understanding the Torah completely -- which tell us that G-d is one and that we are to follow His instructions to be good to our fellow human beings and live a holy life... From the Chabad: "Rabbi Chaim Vital asked his teacher, Rabbi Isaac Luria—the holy Ari, the greatest kabbalistic authority of the past millennium—about the use of "practical Kabbalah." This means the use of divine names of G‑d and of angels in various permutations in amulets and incantations to heal the sick and otherwise manipulate the natural world. "The Ari was strictly opposed to such practice... "When it comes to Tarot and Wicca, there is obviously a much greater danger, since many of the teachers were not at all pure and holy—and often on the contrary... "For a Jewish soul, the danger is much greater. A Jewish soul must nurture spiritual energy from a Jewish place. No substitutes will suffice in the long term—just as you cannot replace mother's milk with cow's milk, and all the more so with Coca Cola." Then you ask about legends. Legends are STORIES -- they are not literal and they are not theology! Judaism has a rich history of using stories and "tall tales" to make a moral point -- but they are NOT literal. Man is not cursed. That is what Christians (many of them) believe -- original sin is total nonsense. One of the verses most devastating to Original Sin is B'reshit / Genesis 4:7, where G-d tells Cain that he can overcome temptation. Cain is envious of Abel because G-d accepts only Abel's sacrifice. Cain is tempted to murder Abel. G-d says, "if you do not do good, sin crouches at the entrance. Its desire is for you, but you can rule over it." And finally -- the Torah is NOT hidden. Quite the opposite is true! The Jewish bible itself never once gives an example of a prophecy being "dual" or being "hidden." Thus the Christian concept of changing the meanings long after the fact are simply not supported in the Jewish bible. "For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it? Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it. Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil, inasmuch as I command you this day to love the L-rd, your G-d, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the L-rd, your G-d, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it." D'varim / Deuteronomy 30:11-16. Someone wrote "I have a question. You wrote that the one in Daniel 7:13-14 ("one like a son of man") refers to the Jewish people, the nation of Israel -- but Rashi -- the great Jewish commentator -- says it was the messiah. Why are you disagreeing with Rashi?"
The prahse כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ k'var enash (it is Aramaic, not Hebrew) translates to: "[something] like a human being." Rashi is an acronym for רבי שלמה יצחקי / Rav Shlomo Yitzachi (1040 - 1105 CE) -- a man considered to be the great T'nach and Talmud commentator. Rashi did write that Daniel 7:13 - 14 is referring to the messiah. Link. But is Rashi giving us the literal reading of this passage? After all the text says "like" a human -- not a human. The messiah will be a normal human with two Jewish parents, his father being a descendant of Kings David and Solomon. He won't be "like" a human -- he will BE a human! We must conclude that Rashi's comment regarding this verse is not the literal / p'shat. The vision in Daniel 7:13 - 14 is actually explained to Daniel by an angel in Daniel 7:27. The entity called "like a son of man" (like a human) in Daniel 7:13 - 14 is identified in Daniel 7:27 as the Jewish people: "And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under all the heavens will be given to the people of the exalted (high) holy ones; its kingdom is a perpetual kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey [it]." The people. Not one person (e.g. the messiah). Ergo Rashi's interpretation can't be literal (p'shat)... Although people often think that Rashi always gives the p'shat this is not true -- very often he gives an aggadic interpretation. In B'reshit / Genesis 3:8 Rashi wrote: "I have come only [to teach] the simple meaning of the Scripture and such Aggadah that clarifies the words of the verses, each word in its proper way." Aggadah / אַגָּדָה is a teaching method used to support a moral perspective -- a deeper, but not literal, meaning. "Midrash aggadah can take any biblical word or verse as a starting point, but there is no one standardized method of interpretation. Indeed, some scholars define midrash simply as any Jewish statement with a reference to a specific biblical verse or verses." Link. Here Rashi tells us that he does not always "stick" to the literal meaning of a passage, but will also rely on aggadah at times. R' Herczeg (translator of the Artscroll Rashi series) wrote a book entitled Patterns in Rashi where he stated: "To Rashi, the line between drash (a deeper or even Midrashic meaning -- often inferred from other scripture) and p'shat (the "plain" ("simple") meaning of a passage) is vague. He viewed p'shat as the simple meaning of the pasuk (the Biblical verse being discussed), but only insomuch as it adheres to it grammatically and contextually. Whenever Rashi could not find a p'shat that fit with the grammar of the pasuk, he looked to Chazal's (Chazal refers to the sages from the final 300 years of the Second Temple) collection of aggadot... "You might say he felt that it was "pshat enough" even though it might not be the simplest explanation... "Other later rishonim disagreed with Rashi. Meforshim like Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and Rashbam viewed pshat and drash as distinct categories, reserving the simplest explanation of the pasuk and that alone for p'shat..." Rishorim refers to "the first ones" -- leading rabbis and legal scholars who lived during the 11th to 15th centuries CE). This is why we can only conclude that Rashi saying that the one "like a human" in Daniel 7:13 - 14 refers to the messiah is a drash interpretation, not p'shat (plain meaning). And remember -- Daniel is having a dream. In his dream the one like a human, just like the beasts, represent something other than what they appear to be. The beasts represent empires -- and so does the one who appears to be human. . . It is an empire, a people, a nation -- the Jewish people. Note that Daniel says like a son of man. "Son of man" is the biblical way of saying "human". Daniel 7 does not say "a human." It says LIKE a human. The Aramaic is כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ k'var enash, "[something] like a son of man (human)." Son of man would be בַר אֱנָשׁ . bar enash (בַר / bar in Aramaic means son of)-- but there is another letter there -- the letter כְּ / kaf. In Aramaic (and remember, this passage is in Aramaic, not Hebrew) the use of a כְּ / kaf as a prefix to a word means "like." Like a human. Not a human. Remember that this was a dream, and dreams use imagery to tell our minds something. Daniel himself did not understand the dream, (verse 15) and an angel interpreted it for him (verse 16). The vision, Daniel’s frustration and the interpretation all occurred within the dream. "I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him." Daniel 7:13. Remember this is a DREAM. Daniel is having a vision of the future in the form of a dream -- so none of it is literal. The important thing in the dream is its message. . . One like a man, or like a human being, did not ascend to heaven (as the list maker presents as a prophecy Jesus fulfilled). No, the one who is like a human came from the sky -- from the heavens IN THE DREAM. Daniel had many visions about the messianic era -- so some, including Rashi, interpret the vision of one "like a human" to be the messiah -- but others state that it refers to the rise of Israel after the end of the various empires who came after the Second Temple period... Given verse 27 this certainly appears to be the p'shat (plain meaning). Someone wrote to me troubled with the concept that G-d (and Judaism) seems to support the concept of slavery.
G-d created man with free choice -- so often the choices we have may not be perfect, but may be acceptable. The Rambam once opined (Chapter 32, Book 3 of The Guide for the Perplexed) that G-d allowed man to bring sacrifices because it was something man wanted to do and had been doing since Cain and Abel. If you remember, G-d did not ask Cain and Abel to bring sacrifices -- they did so voluntarily. Since man seemed inclined to do so G-d structured many mitzvot about the how, why and what around sacrifices. Sacrifices were never really something G-d Himself wanted, says the Rambam, but G-d recognized that they were important to humans because they felt as if they were giving Him something of value to them -- and they also felt the loss when a domestically owned animal (for example) of theirs was killed on their behalf -- they felt regret, sorrow and even pain.... So it helped in the repentance process. I think we can extend this type of thinking to indentured servants or even slavery. The Torah does not dictate slavery -- indeed Jews haven't had slaves for thousands of years. But the Torah recognized that people would be put into that situation as it was very common among all peoples in those times. Thus the Torah structured many mitzvot on how it is critical for a Jew to treat an עֶבֶד / eved (could be translated as servant or slave) properly. Translations are never perfect. The Hebrew word translated as slave is עֶבֶד / "eved" and it is translated as servant or slave. Moses is called "eved HaShem" in the Torah -- G-d's servant or slave. The Torah teaches us that one of the worst possible wrongdoings is that of idolatry. In biblical times when a person could be indentured to another (to pay a debt, for example) they served time to pay the debt and were then freed. However if such a person was an idolater it was considered better for their immortal soul to not be freed under those circumstances -- to return to idolatry. An eved who converted then fell under the rules for an eved Ivri (Jewish eved) and would eventually be freed. It was also considered a kindness to keep an eved because such a person might otherwise have been impoverished and would have died homeless and on the street (sound familiar). In Judaism a master had to take care of their servants / slaves before they could take care of themselves... it was actually not a bad lot in life! Does that make sense? The late Rabbi Sacks Z"L -- who we just lost very recently -- wrote a wonderful discussion of this very topic in his shiur on Parsha Mishpatim discusses this in detail. Here is a bit of his article and a link to it if you would like to read it for yourself. It is entitled "The Slow End of Slavery" -- "Change is possible in human nature but it takes time: time on a vast scale, centuries, even millennia. There is little doubt that in terms of the Torah’s value system the exercise of power by one person over another, without their consent, is a fundamental assault against human dignity. This is not just true of the relationship between master and slave. It is even true, according to many classic Jewish commentators, of the relationship between king and subjects, rulers and ruled. According to the sages it is even true of the relationship between God and human beings. The Talmud says that if God really did coerce the Jewish people to accept the Torah by “suspending the mountain over their heads” (Shabbat 88a) that would constitute an objection to the very terms of the covenant itself. We are God’s avadim, servants, only because our ancestors freely chose to be (see Joshua 24, where Joshua offers the people freedom, if they so chose, to walk away from the covenant then and there). So slavery is to be abolished, but it is a fundamental principle of God’s relationship with us that he does not force us to change faster than we are able to do so of our own free will. So Mishpatim does not abolish slavery but it sets in motion a series of fundamental laws that will lead people, albeit at their own pace, to abolish it of their own accord." Two thousand years ago there lived two great Jews who most people have never heard of. Their names were Hillél and Shammai. Both are quoted in the Talmud, including Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers). They lived around in the last century BCE and they both founded schools with tens of thousands of students. They were both members of the Sanhedrin, too... So who were they? Hillel / הִלֵּל (called Hillél the Elder), Hillél Hazaken, was born around 50 BCE and died 10 CE. He was born in Babylon, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. We are told he was a very poor man who became learned... As an adult he lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod & Emperor Augustus of Rome. Hillél was so great that for the nearly the next 500 years (15 generations) his descendants were Jewish leaders: 1. Hillél I Hazakén (“the Elder”) — 50 BCE-10 BCE 2. Shim'on I Hazakén (“the Elder”) 10 BCE- 30 CE 3. Gamliy'él I Hazakén (“the Elder”) 30 - 50 CE 4. Shim'on II 50-80 CE 5. Gamliy'él II d'Yavnah (“of Yavneh”) 80 - 120 CE 6. Shim'on III ben Gamliy'él 120-165 CE 7. Y'hudah I Hanasi (“the Nasi” or “Prince”) 65 - 220 CE 8. Gamliy'él III 220 - 230 CE 9. Y'hudah II “N'siy'ah” 230 - 270 CE 10. Gamliy'él IV 270 - 290 CE 11. Y'hudah III 290 - 320 CE 12. Hillél II 320 - 365CE 13. Gamliy'él V 365 - 385 CE 14. Y'hudah IV 385 - 400CE 15. Gamliy'él VI 400 - 415 CE On October 17, 415 CE the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II passed an edict deposing the Nasi (prince) of the Jewish people. Theodosius would not allow anyone to replace Gamliy'él VI and, fourteen years later, he abolished the office of Nasi altogether. But back to Hillél and Shammai. Hillél the Elder was so great he (along with Shammai) are even listed in the chain of transmission of the Torah from one generation to the next! They are both said to have been the last of the Zugot / זוּגוֹת meaning "pairs." When Shimon HaTzaddik, the last member of the Great Assembly died in 273 BCE the Zugot (two rabbis) were the leaders of the community. For hundreds of years there was a Nasi (the president), and an Av Beit Din (the head of the Sanhedrin). Hillél was the Nasi, and Shammai the Av Beit Din... Hillél was the ancestor of Y'hudah haNasi (Judah the Prince) -- tY'hudah I Hanasihe man who led the completion of the Mishnah -- the first part of the Talmud. Today many of his teachings and his decisions are still followed -- including how we light Chanukah candles! Hillél had some famous sayings which were saved inPirkei Avot: "Hillel would say: Do not separate yourself from the community. Do not believe in yourself until the day you die. Do not judge your fellow until you have stood in his place. Do not say something that is not readily understood in the belief that it will ultimately be understood [or: Do not say something that ought not to be heard even in the strictest confidence, for ultimately it will be heard]. And do not say "When I free myself of my concerns, I will study,'' for perhaps you will never free yourself." and "Be of the disciples of Aaron—a lover of peace, a pursuer of peace, one who loves the creatures and draws them close to Torah." and "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillél disagreed with his contemporary, Shammai only three times (most seem to think they were constantly at loggerheads, but this is not true). Shammai / שַׁמַּאי lived from 50 BCE to 30 CE. "Shammai would say: Make your Torah study a permanent fixture of your life. Say little and do much. And receive every man with a pleasant countenance." Y'vamot 14b tells us "Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed... nevertheless .. they behaved with love and friendship toward one another, as it says in Zecharia, "TRUTH and PEACE they loved" (8:19)." Mikdash Melech to Zohar Parshat B'reishit 17b tells us "In the time of the Messiah, we will follow the law according to Shammai. Hillél represents kindness and Shammai severity (hence the rulings of Beit Hillel are almost always more lenient). When the Messiah comes the advantage of the severity will be revealed and therefore the law will be in accordance with Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai comes from such a high level this present world is incapable of withstanding it, and only when the Messiah comes will we be able to do so." Did he write it when he got the 10 utterances or sayings ("commandments" is a mistranslation). Did he write it when he spent 40 days on Mount Sinai? Did he write it when the Israelites wandered the desert for 40 years? 3,333 years ago -- on the 6th of Sivan 2448 -- G-d spoke to the entire Jewish nation while they encamped near Har (Mount) Sinai. This would have been 1312 BCE (or there abouts). This was seven weeks after the Exodus from Egypt. Even today Jews celebrate this date with the holiday of Shavuot / שָׁבוּעוֹת / Weeks. G-d spoke to the entire nation, not just to Moses. This would have been over 3 million people -- 600,000 of whom were adult men. The people heard G-d and were afraid, so after the first two utterances they begged G-d to speak through Moses from that point forward. What of the written Torah? When did Moses actually write it down? Well, in fact there are many opinions on that subject. We know that he did not write it when he first came down the mountain with the tablets. We also know that he received everything (mitzvot that is) contained in the written Torah in the 40 days he spent on Sinai by himself. So when did he actually put pen to scroll? Gittin 60a says: "Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, as it is stated: “Then I said, behold, I come with the scroll of the book that is written for me” (Psalms 40:8). King David is saying about himself that there is a section of the Torah, “the scroll of the book,” that alludes to him, i.e., “that is written for me.” This indicates that each portion of the Torah constitutes a separate scroll. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was given as a complete book, as it is stated: “Take this scroll of the Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:26), which teaches that from the outset the Torah was given as a complete unit." According to this quote from the Talmud Rabbi Yohanan said that the written Torah was created scroll by scroll as events happened. R' Shimon ben Lakish said that G-d dictated the Torah to Moses at one time, at the end of the forty years in the desert. Two opinions, but both state that the written Torah was created after the events at Mount Sinai itself. One says that Moses wrote the first Torah part by part over the forty years the Jews wandered in the desert, completing it shortly before the Jews entered Israel. Another opinion says that Moses wrote the first Torah all at once, at the end of his life. The Ramban (Nachmanides) reconciled these seemingly differing views in his Introduction to the Commentary of the Torah when he wrote: "It is likely that he wrote it on Mount Sinai for there it was said to him, Come up to Me unto the mount, and be there; and I will give thee the tablets of stone and the Torah and the commandment which I have written, to teach them.' The tablets of stone include the tablets and the writing that are the ten commandments. The commandment includes the number of all the commandments, positive and negative. If so, the expression and the Torah includes the stories from the beginning of Genesis [and is called Torah - teaching] because it teaches people the ways of faith. Upon descending from the mount, he [Moses] wrote the Torah from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the account of the tabernacle. He wrote the conclusion of the Torah at the end of the fortieth year of wandering in the desert when he said [by. command of G-d], Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Eternal your G-d." The Ramban is saying that Moses wrote B'reshit / Genesis and S'hmot / Exodus, through the end of the passages about the Mishkan / tabernacle, on Sinai. Per the Ramban Moses wrote the rest of the Torah at the end of the forty years. There's a tradition that Moses finished writing thirteen Torah scrolls on the day of his death -- one for each of the tribes and one for the ark of the covenant. Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 33:15, Isaiah 4:2, Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12 and Jesus as a sprout or branch?11/15/2020 Someone wrote: "Matthew 2:23 says "And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene."
Don't Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 33:15, Isaiah 4:2, Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12 all use the same word, tzemach ‘sprout’; all referring to the future righteousness of the servant of the LORD, the King from the line of David, who will reign over Israel and the nations? There is another prophecy about the promised Messianic king, which means exactly the same thing, but instead the prophet uses the Hebrew word “netzer”. Isaiah 11:1 says, “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a sprout from his roots shall bear fruit.” A closer look at Isaiah 11:1-4 reveals the “spiritual branches” of the Menorah as attributes of Mashiyach.” A better translation would be, “He came and settled in the town called ‘Natzeret’, which means ‘Sprouttown’, thus fulfilling the word spoken by the prophets, that he will be called a ‘Notzri’, meaning of the village called ‘Sprouttown’.“ It is possible the writer of the Gospel meant this as a figure of speech playing on the Hebrew word nazar, that Jesus lived a consecrated life and was called a Nazarene, not only because he came for Nazareth but that he lived a nazar life. What is very likely is that the writer of Matthew was making a Semitic play on the word ntsr. The ancient Persians used the word ntsr to express the idea of a green plant. The Aramaic word ntsr with the Tzade means sprout. Even the Talmud in Sanhedrin 43a recognizes Isaiah 11:1 as a prophecy of the Messiah and renders the word ntsr as a branch. In other words the writer was making a play on the word and the use of the Tzade in Aramaic and the Zayin in Hebrew to express two thoughts. One is that Jesus was the ntsr spoken of in Isaiah 11:1 and that he also came from the town of nzr. That he was also one who was consecrated for a special task. ********************************************* Did this person actually translate Nazareth as "sprouttown?" LOL. The two acceptable Hebrew names for the town of Nazareth are נָצְרַת / notsrat / nun-tzaddi-resh-tav or נַצֶּרֶת / natseret / nun-tzaddi-resh-tav with a different pronunciation than Notsrat... Both of Hebrew words for Nazareth have the same four consonants נצרת. And "no" it does not mean "sprout" let alone "sprouttown"! There is no connection between נֵ֖צֶר / nétzĕr which means sprout and the Hebrew for Nazareth: נצרת. They don't even share the same root (Hebrew words are based on roots). At first glance those with limited knowledge of Hebrew might assume that they share a root because both נֵ֖צֶר / nétzĕr and natzar / נָצַר (the root for Nazareth) share consonants. The root for the Hebrew word for Nazareth is the verb natzar / נָצַר which means to “guard” or “preserve.” It has nothing to do with sprouting -- and good grief "Sprouttown"???? In Hebrew נֵֽצֶר nétzĕr does NOT mean a branch it means "sprout." The Hebrew words for a “branch” are עָנָף 'anaf, חוֹטֶר ḥoter, סְעִיף s'if, and סְנִיף s'nif. The word נֵֽצֶר nétzĕr appears four times in the entire T'nach: three times in Y'shayahu / Isaiah: 11:1, 14:19 and 60:21) and once in Daniel 11:7. There is no connection between נֵ֖צֶר / nétzĕr (twig, sapling or scion) and the Hebrew for Nazareth: נצרת. They don't even share the same root (Hebrew words are based on roots). The root for the Hebrew word for Nazareth is the verb natzar / נָצַר, a word found 62 times in the Hebrew Bible. It can be translated as “preserve”, “guard”, “keep”, “keeper”, “keeping”, and “watchmen." It is NOT a branch, let alone "spiritual branches" of the menorah as attributes of the messiah! The word in Y'rmiyahu / Jeremiah 33:14 - 17 is not nétzĕr / נֵ֖צֶר it is צֶמַח / TSEmah and it means a sprout or shoot (of a plant that sprouts from the ground). "Behold, days are coming, says the L-rd, and I will establish the good thing that I spoke concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and in that time I will cause to grow for David a plant of righteousness, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days, Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely and this is the name that He shall call it, the Lord is our righteousness. For so said the L-rd: There shall not be cut off from David a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel." Let's examine this -- as none of it happened in the days of Jesus. He did not fulfill this prophecy: Jeremiah's prophecy states G-d will "establish the good thing that I spoke concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah." 2000 years ago there was nothing good for the Jews. Judah was under Roman occupation, it was a time of strife and at least 200,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans. Jesus did not establish good things concerning the house of Israel and Judah in "his days." Jeremiah states that "In those days and in that time I will cause to grow for David a plant of righteousness, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land." Again, this did not happen in the time of Jesus. Jesus was not a judge and there was little justice or righteousness in the land. In the 1st century CE Philo wrote in Legatione ad Caium wrote of Pilate: "He feared they . . . might impeach him (Pilate). . .in respect to the his corruption, his acts of insolence, and his rapine and his habit of insulting people, and his continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity." The prophecy states "In those days, Judah shall be saved." Judah was not saved in the days of Jesus -- it was under Roman domination and by 135 CE the Romans destroyed the land exiling the Jewish people from it. In other words, the opposite of this prophecy happened during the life of Jesus. It goes on to state "Jerusalem shall dwell securely." Jerusalem did not dwell securely under Roman domination and in 68 CE, a mere 30 years after Jesus' supposed death, Jerusalem was burned and the holy Temple was destroyed. Again, Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy. ********************************* Next the missionary mentioned Y'shayahu / Isaiah 4:2 which says : "On that day, the sprout of the L-rd shall be for beauty and for honor, and the fruit of the land for greatness and for glory for the survivors of Israel." Jesus was: * Never a messiah (it means properly anointed as a king or priest with a special oil which was never used on Jesus -- or a person who inherits the anointing in an unbroken and uncontested line -- also not true of Jesus); * Never reigned This is not about Jesus. Note that Y'shayahu / Isaiah 4:2 says that this person reigned -- and Jesus never reigned. Christians may say that Jesus will reign when he comes back (second coming) -- but that means he did not fulfill this prophecy yet. Is this a messianic passage? Some Jewish sages say that this sprout is the messiah to come and others see it as a reference to the Jewish people surviving many tribulations and troubles that have been mentioned by Isaiah in earlier chapters. The next verse mentioned was Z'charyah / Zechariah 3:8 which is about זְרֻבָּבֶ֤ל / Zerubbabel (Z'rubavel). Who was זְרֻבָּבֶ֤ל / Zerubbabel (Z'rubavel)? Zerubbabel (Z'rubavel) was the son of P'daiah (Pedaiah) and the grandson of Sh'altiyel (Shealtiel). He became the governor of Judah under Persian control. He was the great-grandson of Y'konya (Jeconiah) the last king of Judah, who was exiled to Babylon. Zerubbabel (Z'rubavel) was among those who returned from Babylonian exile, and he was selected as the Governor of Judah. He was never a king. But he was a צֶמַח (TSEmah), "a sprout" from the royal line of Kings David and Solomon through Y'konya (Jeconiah / Coniah), the last king of David's line. Zerubbabel (זְרֻבָּבֶ֤ל / Z'rubavel) was in charge of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem after returning from Babylonian Exile. He served as Governor and יְהֹושֻׁ֥עַ בֶּן־יְהֹוצָדָ֖ק / Y'hoshua ben Y'hotzadak / Joshua son of Y'hozadak (a grandson of S'rayah, was the kohein gadol (high priest). He was last kohein gadol / high priest who served in Solomon's Temple - see M'lachim Beit / 2 Kings 25:18 and Yirm'yahu / Jeremiah 52:24). In verse 8 G-d is speaking (through the prophet Zechariah) to the the kohein gadol (high priest) Y'hoshua / Joshua and says: "Hearken, now, O Joshua the High Priest-you and your companions who sit before you, for they are men worthy of a miracle-for, behold! I bring My servant, the צֶמַח (TSEmah) "sprout." Z'charyah / Zechariah 3:8. G-d is speaking to Joshua the high priest who was alive at the time of Zechariah and זְרֻבָּבֶ֤ל / Zerubbabel (Z'rubavel) who lived 500+ years before Jesus. G-d says the Shoot, His servant, will sit before THEM. 500+ years before Jesus. The next verse claimed was Z'charyah / Zechariah 6:12. The prophet Z'charyah / Zechariah in verse 6:12 isn't even speaking of a king -- he is speaking about זְרֻבָּבֶ֤ל / Zerubbabel (Z'rubavel who was a governor, a vassal of Babylon. He was never a king. Then Z'charyah / Zechariah speaks of the kohein gadol (high priest) -- יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Y'hoshu'a {Joshua). It has nothing to do with Jesus. G-d tells Zechariah that he should make crowns for both men and go to the house of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Y'hoshu'a {Joshua) the son of Tzefaniah / Zephaniah, who was already living in Jerusalem. They should tell יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Y'hoshu'a {Joshua) that זְרֻבָּבֶ֤ל / Zerubbabel (Z'rubavel) the “shoot,” will spring up and build the Temple of G-d. Then finally the missionary referenced Sanhedrin 43a in the Talmud saying "Even the Talmud in Sanhedrin 43a recognizes Isaiah 11:1 as a prophecy of the Messiah and renders the word ntsr as a branch. In other words the writer was making a play on the word and the use of the Tzade in Aramaic and the Zayin in Hebrew to express two thoughts. One is that Jesus was the ntsr spoken of in Isaiah 11:1 and that he also came from the town of nzr. That he was also one who was consecrated for a special task." The passage in question is speaking of a Yeshu (not Jesus, the timing is wrong -- this man was executed 80 BCE, before Jesus was even born). He was condemned for sorcery (Jesus was supposedly condemned for blasphemy). The Talmud tells us that this Yeshu was “influential” (literally “connected with the [Roman] authorities”), and was said to have had FIVE students: Mattai, Nakkai, Nétzěr, Buni, and Todah. Jesus was not influential with the Romans... Yeshu had five followers who were executed, too. One of the five was named Nester. Yeshu's execution was deferred for 40 days. Jesus was killed by the Romans (not a Jewish execution) immediately after he was condemned by the Romans... And note that Sanhedrin 43a says that one of Yeshu's 5 followers was named Nétzěr. Jesus didn't have a follower named Nétzěr. Matthew doesn’t claim tachere was a prophecy that “he will have a student named Nétzěr." Matthew claims that it was prophesied that Jesus was going to be called a “Nazarene." So Jesus doesn't "fit" Sanhedrin 43a at all. I suggest you read about it on the website The Real Truth About The Talmud. Missionaries are notorious for throwing out multiple claims (as yours did here) -- probably assuming you won't bother to check them out for yourself. With divine inspiration a very holy man or woman connects to G-d, but it is not a form of direct communication with or from G-d. These first two levels fall under the heading of רֽוּחַ הַקּֽוֹדֶשׁ / ruaḥ hakodesh -- often mistranslated as "holy spirit" (translated it would be a spirit of the holiness), but it means divinely inspired by G-d.
G-d is not speaking to them with a message they are to relay to the then living generation (which is the definition of prophecy). Instead these holy people speak in their own words, inspired by Him. A person so inspired is still their own person and physically is not impacted in any way. All prophets except for Moses had prophetic visions or dreams: "I make Myself known to him in a vision. I speak to him in a dream." (Bamidbar / Numbers 12:6). A prophet receiving prophecy is physically impacted by it (with the exception of Moses). Experiencing prophecy was physically exhausting: their limbs would tremble, they became weak and would lose control of their senses. In this state they would receive prophecy and they would immediately comprehend its meaning: "And a great, dark dread fell over him." (B'reshit / Genesis 15:12). The Rambam lists eleven levels of prophecy -- and the first two are not really prophecy at all, but are rather stepping stones to prophecy. This is what we refer to as being divinely inspired by G-d. The Orthodox Union puts it this way: "However, while they are all degrees of prophecy, not all of these levels necessarily qualified one to be considered a prophet. The lowest two are merely steps on the way to attaining that status.... Imagine a person who goes to medical school and earns an MD but he does not go on have a residency or take his medical board exams. Such a person is a "doctor" but not a doctor.) Just as a prophet could receive more than one form of prophecy during their tenures, they could also receive prophecies on different levels... "The first degree of prophecy is the divine inspiration that a person might receive encouraging him in some noble endeavor. This influence is called "ruach Elohim," "the spirit of G-d." When it comes to people affected by this phenomenon, Scripture commonly uses such expressions as "the spirit of G-d rested on so-and-so," or "G-d was with so-and-so." The Judges, who led the nation before any kings of Israel were anointed, typically enjoyed this level of divine attention. (See, for example, Judges 2:18, 11:29, 14:19, et al.)... "David, Solomon and Daniel belong in the category of people motivated by ruach hakodesh rather than among such full-fledged prophets as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel..." So when David wrote the psalms he was speaking from his heart, his thoughts, his words. He was not prophesying. When Solomon wrote of wisdom he wrote from his heart, his thoughts, his wisdom, his words... In one of my favorite books, The Guide for the Perplexed the Rambam (Maimonides) discusses eleven levels of prophecy, the first two of which are not actually prophecy but are divine inspiration, men who have a spirit of holiness. These first two levels are holy men and women inspired by G-d, but their words are their own. Sometimes people so inspired are referred to as prophets, even though they may not rise to that level. The Rambam opined: "When such a person is occasionally called prophet, the term is used in a wider sense, and is applied to him because he is almost a prophet." With divine inspiration a person gets which encourages him towards a noble end This influence is called "רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים / ru'ah Elohim" -- a spirit from G-d. A prophet must not only receive a message directly from G-d, the message must be for the then living generation and the prophet communicates the message to them. For a person with a spirit of holiness they are driven to perform noble deeds, it may have no message or communication to others. The Rambam writes: "The first degree of prophecy consists in the divine assistance which is given to a person, and induces and encourages him to do something good and grand, e.g., to deliver a congregation of good men from the hands of evildoers; to save one noble person, or to bring happiness to a large number of people; he finds in himself the cause that moves and urges him to this deed." This brings us to the second level -- where the person is also divinely inspired, but this person is overcome with an urge to communicate the message to the people of his generation. This second level may contain visions which are to be given to the living generation -- but the person who has them may not readily understand the meaning (prophets always know the meaning -- it is very clear to them). The Rambam: "The second degree is this: A person feels as if something came upon him, and as if he had received a new power that encourages him to speak. He treats of science, or composes hymns, exhorts his fellow-men, discusses political and theological problems; all this he does while awake, and in the full possession of his senses." There is, however, a difference between the visions experienced by prophets in a dream or vision and those connected with the ru'ah hakodesh -- divine inspiration. A prophet immediately knows (upon regaining his or her senses) that what happened was prophecy. A person who has a vision (as did Daniel) inspired by the holy does not have this realization: "My spirit-I, Daniel-became troubled within its sheath, and the visions of my mind terrified me." Daniel 7:15. The third degree is the lowest level of actual prophecy... Someone wrote "I read a very disturbing book by a very respected Prof Baruch Halpern called David Secret Demons. From the book's Amazon site "....argues that the historical David was a far different person than the one pictured in 1 and 2 Second Samuel. The controversial nature of this study can be seen in the title of one of the chapters: "King David, Serial Killer." Halpern presents a close textual analysis of the stories about David in 1 Samuel 8 through 2 Samuel 1, along with a special study of 2 Samuel 8. He builds his case around the idea that there were two sources, identified here as A and B, which were used for the final versions of 1 and 2 Samuel. While Source A shows some of his faults, Source B is a kind of whitewashing apology for David in order to justify the kingship of Solomon and his successors.
We see that there are many instances where it seems that there are two versions of the same story and that leads us to ask:
The word TaNaCH is actually an acronym for the parts of the Hebrew Bible: "T" is for Torah, "N" is for Nevi'im, and "CH" is for Ketuvim. The Torah is the first part of the TaNaCH. The Christian version of the Jewish bible moves the books around – which changes not only the flow but the logic of many of them. . . The T’nach is comprised of תּוֹרָה (Torah), translates to "instruction." The Torah is often called the “Five Books of Moses” or the Pentateuch. G-d dictated the Torah to Moses and it is the holiest part of the bible. The second part of the bible is נְבִיאִים / Nevi’im (Prophets). נְבִיאִים / Nevi’im (Prophets) records the communication to the Jewish people by the prophets aka a navi. A navi is really a spokesperson for G-d one who speaks to his or her generation on behalf of G-d. These prophets had dreams and visions (not direct communication as did Moses). The works in נְבִיאִים / Nevi’im (Prophets) were saved by the Men of the Great Assembly as their messages were both for their own generation and future generations. The prophets often warned the Jews to follow Torah. There is nothing in Nevi'im that adds to or contradicts the Torah – the books re-enforce the need to be Torah observant. Then we come to כְּתוּבִים / translated as "Writings" is the third section of the T'nach. Ketuvim consists of history, stories, essays, songs and poems. Again, the Men of the Great Assembly compiled Ketuvim. Just as Nevi'im is holy, but not as holy as the Torah, so too is Ketuvim holy, but not as holy as Nevi'im. The Writings were written under the influence of the spirit of G-d, which is a communication with G-d that is a level less than that of prophecy. In prophecy G-d speaks through the prophet. With ruach haKodesh (spirit of holiness) the person is moved by the spirit of G-d. We Jews are not at all bothered if there are a few minor mistakes in the Ketuvim (if there are any -- most have explanations). If there are errors they present no issue for us since Ketuvim was written by men... However, errors do present major problems for missionaries who are convinced that the entire Scriptures are G-d’s perfect “Word” and are completely without error. Which brings us to your point -- is there an error between different stories of "who killed Goliath?" If there are -- is Halpern (by some miracle) the first and only person to ever notice a difference? Baruch Halpern is an archeologist, he is entitled to his opinion -- and that is all it is, an opinion. It is an opinion at odds with the T'nach and our mesorah. As you mentioned (quoting the professor) Shmū'é lBeit / 2 Samuel 21:19 seems to say that Goliath was killed by Ĕlḥanan. There is also Dĭvrei Hayamĭm Alĕf / 1 Chronicles 20:5 which is similar to 2 Samuel 21:19, but it actually refutes this supposed variance: “And there was another war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair smote Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, and the staff of his spear was as [thick as] a weavers' beam.” This verse states that the giant killed by Ĕlḥanan was Goliath of Gittite’s brother Laḥmi. Not Goliath. Do you think he is the first person in history to ever discuss the topic of “who killed Goliath”? It has been discussed by many. David Kimhi aka the Radak (1160–1235CE) discussed it. 21:19כ״א:י״ט אלחנן בן יערי אורגים בית הלחמי את גלית הגתי. ובדברי הימים כתוב אלחנן בן יעור אורגים את לחמי אחי גלית הגתי וקרי יעור ויעיר ויערי אחד ופירו' את גלית אשר אמר הנה את מי שהיה עם גלית והוא אחיו הרגו אלחנן בגוב וגלית הרגו דוד באפס דמים ואלחנן זה מבית לחם היה לפיכך קראו בית הלחמי וכן מ"ש בדברי הימים את לחמי כמו מלחמי כלומר מבני לחמי ר"ל מהגבורים המתיחסים לבית לחם וכן יאמ' שם ומן הגדי נבדלו אל דוד למצד ר"ל מן המתיחסים לגד או פירוש עם בית הלחמי והוא דוד ר"ל כי דוד עזרו וז"ש שם את לחמי עם דוד שהוא לחמי שעזרו והרגו ולדעת יונתן אלחנן זהו דוד וכן תרגם הפסוק וקטל דוד בר In a nutshell, the Radak opines that the Hebrew word את is usually dropped in translation. This omission takes out the concept of "with." Using his reasoning , so that 2 Samuel 21:19 is actually saying that Elhanan killed someone with Goliath –and as per Chronicles that someone was Goliath's brother. He pointed out that Targum Yonatan (supposedly written by Yonatan ben Uziel a student of Hillel about 2000 years ago) says that Elhanan was David (which echoes Rashi’s opinion). David Altschuler of Prague (1687-1769 CE), known as Baal haMetzudot agrees with the Radak. Joseph ben Simeon Kara (1065 - 1135 CE) known as Mahari Kara also wrote about this issue. He said Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. Rashi seems to think there were two men named Goliath – one a Philistine and another a Gittite. Rashi makes this point in his comment to 1 Chronicles 20:5: "Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, and the staff of his spear was as [thick as] a weavers’ beam: like the round stick about which they wrap the cloth while weaving. Jonathan translated that verse in Samuel: And David the son of Jesse, the weaver of the dividing curtain of the Temple, slew. He interprets Jair (יָעִיר) as being similar to the Lebanon forest (יַעַר). He was paid in kind: Let David, whose mother wove the dividing curtain for the Temple with a weavers’ beam, slay Goliath, whose spear staff was as thick as a weavers’ beam. Now why does Scripture call him Elhanan? Because God favored him (ה׳ חֲנָנוֹ). I believe that Goliath the Gittite is not identical with Goliath the Philistine. One reason is that there [I Sam. 17:23] he called him Goliath the Philistine. Another reason is that above it is written: “… then Sibbecai the Hushathite smote Sippai of the sons of Rapha,” and also below it is written: “and he too was born to Raphah.” Since he does not mention that Goliath the Gittite was a son of Rapha, it proves that he [Goliath the Gittite] was not her son." Pointing out a suspected discrepancy or difference does not anoint this professor as somehow knowing more than all of chazal based on nothing more than his opinion. Rashi even opined that Elhanan is simply another name for David… Seems unlikely, but it just goes to show that our sages have discussed these differences for thousands of years… Our tradition tells us that Samuel wrote Sefer Shmuel /Samuel. It covers events from 2830 –2921 (931 – 840 BCE), and it was finished by Nathan and Gad. Divrei HaYamim – Chronicles 1 and 2 were written by Ezra the Scribe around 3448 (313 BCE) – some 500 years later. It was finished by Nehemiah. So “no” this is not some new great revelation discovered by this professor. It has been discussed by many and it does nothing to alter what we know about David. His opinion does not teach us anything new about David’s personality or abilities. It is nothing more than his opinion. Is it possible that there might be errors in the T'nach? There are no errors in the Torah and Nevi'im (Prophets). There are possibly one or two very minor errors in Ketuvim (Writings). For a modern "expert" (Jewish or otherwise) to suddenly think they've discovered something new is an error of its own. We are aware of the few differences and we also know the reasons why they are there. Someone wrote "X'tians connect their concept of their "original sin" to Psalm 58:3 (4 in the T'nach): "The wicked become estranged [even] from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth." How would you answer this?"
The verse in question is T'hillim / Psalm 58:4 (3 in Christian versions which often do not print the first line (or when they do print it it is very small and not counted)... which says "For the conductor, al tashchet (do not destroy); of David a michtam."
Can you see why ignoring the first line is itself deceitful to the reader??? Psalms are poems and prayers, primarily written by King David. They were sung in the Temple and are still a large part of our religious services today. Psalms are found in Ketuvim of the T'nach -- meaning they are written by men. They are inspired by G-d but these are the words of a human being expressing his own thoughts. This is part of the problem with the way the Christians have mashed their version of the Hebrew Bible -- taking it completely out of order and thus misunderstanding the level of holiness. The Torah is the word of G-d. It is directly from Him. The books in Nevi'im (Prophets) are messages from G-d relayed in dreams and visions to His prophets. It is holy, but not has holy as the Torah. The messages in Nevi'im all echo messages found in Torah -- along with histories of the Jewish people. Then we come to Ketuvim. This section contains poems (which are what the psalms happen to be), stories, histories, and even fables (Iyov / Job) -- all written by holy men inspired by G-d, but not a direct communication from G-d. So here, in this psalm, you have it beginning with the plea "do not destroy." So this is King David writing - and he is speaking of his enemies -- those who wanted to kill him. David asks his enemies why suddenly they're so quiet. This is speaking of the incidents in Shmuel Alef / 1 Samuel:26. David's enemies didn't hesitate to speak up to criticize him, but now that it's clear that David is innocent, they don't say a word: why is there silence when you should be speaking righteousness?" They say nothing. They are too corrupt. Then comes the passage the missionaries misuse. David is speaking. This is not G-d. This is not G-d saying all people are born with original sin. It is David. David who is angry at the injustice these people have done to HIM. David says that these people who won't speak the truth, but were happy to disparage and criticize him when he was in danger -- these people are wicked and are distanced from G-d -- they must have been this way even while they're still in the womb they are so disgusting, hypocritical and evil David says. They're poisonous like a snake and they refuse to hear the truth if it doesn't somehow benefit them. David hopes that G-d will render them harmless like one would remove a snake's fangs. In other words: David is a bit peeved at these people! But this is not what G-d tells us about people. G-d tells us we are NOT evil from the womb. Br'eshit / Genesis 8:21 . . . "G-d said to Himself, ". . . the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth." This isn't "Sophiee" telling you something. It is the bible. It is G-d speaking! Man's heart is evil from his youth NOT FROM HIS BIRTH, TAINTED WITH THE IMAGINARY ORIGINAL SIN. Read D'varim / Deuteronomy 30:15: "See! Today I have set before you [a free choice] between life and good [on one side], and death and evil [on the other]. . .30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses! Before you I have placed life and death, the blessing and the curse. You must choose life, so that you and your descendants will survive." We are not born into sin. To sin or not to sin is our choice. Yes, we are inclined to do evil -- to sin. But we are not born evil. We are not born into sin. Sh'mot / Exodus 32:22: "Do not be angry, my lord," Aaron answered. "You know how prone these people are to evil." Aaron doesn't say the people ARE evil. He says they are prone to evil. If we were all condemned to sin (as the concept of original sin asserts) then why would G-d punish us for something we couldn't control? Is the Christian god so cruel that he would let man be so condemned? Throw away your Christian translations -- they are not only full of errors, but the mere fact that they are completely out of order and ignore the level of holiness inherent in Torah-Nevi'im-Ketuvim makes these distortions not only possible but probable! Pointing to T'hillim / Psalm 58:4 where David is speaking of his enemies and ignoring the actual words of G-d in the Torah is done because, in their ignorance, they do not realize the difference between G-d's words and the words of a man in pain (David).... Matthew 2:23 says "And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene."
Would it surprise you to know there is no such prophecy? Nope. Totally false. There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible that even comes close to suggesting the messiah will be called a Nazarene. The Hebrew word נֵ֖צֶר / netzer in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11:1 is a poetic word found three times in the T'nach. It is translated as ‘a scion’, ‘a twig’, and lastly as "a sapling." The Hebrew word נֵ֖צֶר / netzer has three consonants נ-צ-ר / nun-tzaddi-resh. The two acceptable Hebrew names for the town of Nazareth are נָצְרַת / notsrat / nun-tzaddi-resh-tav or נַצֶּרֶת / natseret / nun-tzaddi-resh-tav with a different pronunciation than Notsrat... Both of Hebrew words for Nazareth have the same four consonants נצרת. There is no connection between נֵ֖צֶר / netzer and the Hebrew for Nazareth: נצרת. They don't even share the same root (Hebrew words are based on roots). At first glance those with limited knowledge of Hebrew might assume that they share a root because both נֵ֖צֶר / netzer and natzar / נָצַר (the root for Nazareth) share consonants. However, there are many roots in Hebrew that share consonants but are the roots of completely different words. A perfect example is the word ערב which is the root for erev / עֶרֶב evening, arav / עָרַב a vow, and even arev / עָרֵב -- a co-signer of a loan. The root for the Hebrew word for Nazareth is the verb natzar / נָצַר which means to “guard” or “preserve.” See Sh'mot / Exodus 34:7 where נֹצֵר (it is the first word in that verse). As you can see, it is not the same as the root נֵ֖צֶר / netzer in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11:. English has a similar concept -- where words are spelled alike but are totally different words. Consider the English word "bat" which can refer to the animal or to a baseball bat... Same spelling, different word. When they sound alike (as in bear) it is called a homonym. When they are spelled the same by pronounced differently (as in natzar / נָצַר and נֵ֖צֶר / netzer) in English this is called a homograph. In English you might say that there is wind if it is blowing, and you wind up a clock (same spelling, different pronunciation)... So no, the term in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11 has nothing in common with the name of a town called Nazareth. Then there is the fact that the word, נֵ֖צֶר / netzer, is never used as a "name" for the messiah. There is no such passage in the T'nach. Some missionaries try to tie the "called a Nazarene" claim in Matthew to a נָזִיר / nazir (a person who has taken a “Nazirite” vow of abstinence). This term (נָזִיר / nazir) is specified in B'midbar / Numbers 6:2-21: "Speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: A man or woman who sets himself apart by making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the L-rd." Jesus never took such a vow. So the claim is a non-starter. The second letter of נָזִיר / nazir is ז / zayyin while the second letter of נֹצְרִי / notz'ri is צ / tzaddi. Many Christian translations compound the issue by writing the word “Nazirite” with an "a" instead of an "i" in their transliteration of Nazirite to make it "Nazarite" -- perhaps to try to somehow link it to the "Nazarene" non-existent prophecy in Matthew 2:23. The Hebrew word נָזִיר / nazir is totally unrelated to the word נֹצְרִי / notz'ri (Nazarene). Again, missionaries are making a claim based on a lack of Hebraic understanding. Many missionaries shrug off this "little problem" that there is NO prophecy that the messiah will be from the non-existent town of Nazareth. They say it is a “lost prophecy”— or even funnier -- an "oral one" (they say the oral tradition in Judaism is nonsense -- but here they want to use it as proof??). If this was a "lost prophecy" how would the author of "Matthew" know about it? Why would he expect his readers to know of it, too? And what of the town of Nazareth? Someone asked whether this town even existed in the time of Jesus. Well, it is immaterial to a Jew if it did or it didn't but there seems to be more "proof" for didn't than did. Not that it matters. The earliest historical mention of "Nazareth" comes from the 3rd century CE. There is no mention of Nazareth in the T'nach, nor Talmud, nor Josephus -- and Josephus listed all of them! Even an early reference to Nazareth cited by Eusebius has Julius Africanus locating Nazara in Judea in 200 CE... Archeological discoveries may back up the fact that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. Last year, 2019, an Israeli archeologist found a house dating back to the time in Jesus in what is today called Nazareth. This is actually the first archeological finding that anyone lived there around the time of Jesus -- but one house does not a town make! Link to a page on the Israeli Antiquities site discussing this topic. In it the lead archeologist says "Until now... no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period." This one house may or may not point to the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus. But (again) if it existed or not is immaterial. There is no prophecy that the messiah will live in such a town or that he will be called a "Nazarene." Someone wrote "Shalom Madam, I had a few doubts based on this Talmud - Gitten 56b. I hope you will help me.(This is Sefaria version). It says:
"Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy.... Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages." 1, Is the Jesus mentioned here the Jesus of the New Testament? 2, Does the Torah teach that there are such punishments in gehinom? 3, Does Judaism believe in issues like Necromancy?(or Zohar support this)?" This is Gittin 57a, although it starts in Gittin 56b.... I have no clue why the Sefaria translation would say "Jesus of Nazareth" when the words "of Nazareth" or "the Nazarene" are not found in the Aramaic! Yep, someone inserted it in the translation even though it isn't in the Aramaic: אזל אסקיה [ליש"ו] בנגידא (לפושעי ישראל) א"ל מאן חשיב בההוא עלמא א"ל ישראל מהו לאדבוקי בהו א"ל טובתם דרוש רעתם לא תדרוש כל הנוגע בהן כאילו נוגע בבבת עינו And quite possibly the name Yeshu is not found in this passage either! Yep, one of the passages missionaries love to point to saying Jews say mean things about Jesus in the Talmud may not actually say the name Jesus and certainly doesn't say the name Nazarene or Nazareth! [ליש"ו] appears in the passage. Transliterated this would be L'ysh"u. Let's examine the part in question: "אזל אסקיה [ליש"ו] בנגידא (לפושעי ישראל)." This translates to "He went and raised [L'yesh"u] with necromancy (the sinners of Israel)." Did you notice that the name [L'ysh"u] is in square brackets and that there is a quotation mark (actually two apostrophes) in it? The square brackets are inserted words. Let me repeat that. The square brackets are inserted words. They are not in the Vilna Edition of the Talmud, printed in Vilna (now Vilnius), Lithuania, is by far the most common printed edition of the Talmud still in use today. In other words the name "Yeshu" or "Jesus" is NOT found in this passage in the most common version of the Talmud -- not at all! So why the square brackets and why is it in there at all? Somebody inserted it thinking it pertained to Jesus. It's possible that the name appeared in other copies of the Talmud -- but it might have been put there by Christian copiests (who notoriously destroyed the Talmud and tampered with it). It might have been inserted as a suggestion by some copiest and then others just assumed it was there... Who knows? And did you notice the quote mark between the Hebrew letters of shin and the vav - [ליש"ו]? It's use represents the גֵּרְשַׁ֞יִם / gershayim which is a cantillation mark used in trope. In print two apostrophes represent it. It's use represents acronyms and other multi-letter abbreviations. Let's summarize:
Having discussed all of that: let's just assume (for the sake of argument) that this passage mentions a man whose name we can translate as "Jesus" or "Yeshu." Does that automatically mean it is about Jesus? If it is about Jesus is the Talmud insulting him and saying he is boiling in excrement for eternity as a factual statement? As we often say on this forum: read it in context and understand what is being said, and even more importantly: what is being TAUGHT? Onkelos was a convert to Judaism who lived 2000 years ago. He was the nephew of the Roman Emperor Titus. (His mother was Titus' sister). This story is discussing how he came to convert to Judaism. This is simply a humorous story about the conversion of the Roman Emperor Titus' nephew (Onkelos). In the story he approaches 3 men who are now dead (necromancy) to ask them who is valued in the after life. First he asks his uncle, the Emperor Titus. Titus tells him it is the Jews -- but don't bother converting because you won't be able to observe all the mitzvot! Next he asks Balaam if he should convert, and then he asks what happened to Balaam in the afterlife. Balaam tells him that he is cooked in boiling semen as punishment for encouraging the Jews to engage in licentious behavior with the daughters of Moab. Third he approaches a man identified as [L'ysh"u] if he should convert to Judaism, and then asks what happened to him in the afterlife. This man replies that he is punished with boiling excrement... "The Gemara relates: Onkelos bar Kalonikos, the son of Titus’s sister, wanted to convert to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the grave through necromancy, and said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Titus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them here in this world? Titus said to him: Their commandments are numerous, and you will not be able to fulfill them. It is best that you do as follows: Go out and battle against them in that world, and you will become the chief, as it is written: “Her adversaries [tzareha] have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), which means: Anyone who distresses [meitzer] Israel will become the chief. Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Titus himself, in the next world? Titus said to him: That which he decreed against himself, as he undergoes the following: Every day his ashes are gathered, and they judge him, and they burn him, and they scatter him over the seven seas." He then seeks out Balaam (now dead) and then another man [Yeshu] again in square brackets because it is not in the original... Gittin 57a then says "[Onkelos] went and raised [Yesh"u] with necromancy (the sinners of Israel) [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Yeshu] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good. Do not seek their bad. Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye. [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement. As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement." It is a humorous story. Some people lack a sense of humor! We've already discussed whether or not the third man could be Jesus of the Christian bible. It is certainly possible, but it does not seem to be probable. There are a few men named Yeshu in the Talmud, who may or may not be Jesus. The information in this passage does not "fit" the Christian Jesus.... Remember -- all those words in square brackets [Yeshu] and [Onkelos] are INSERTIONS which do not appear in the passage as is the passage in parentheses... The man supposedly boiling in excrement was a "prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism." Jesus was not a prominent sectarian who lived in the early first century BCE (he was born supposedly in the year 0 of the CE)... R' Gil Student wrote: "Interestingly, if someone were to claim that Yeshu in the passage above is Jesus, then Balaam cannot also refer to Jesus because both Balaam and Yeshu are in the passage together. In other words, it is self-contradicting to claim that the passages above about Balaam's being a harlot or dying young refer to Jesus and to claim that the passage above about Yeshu being punished also refers to Jesus. You can't have it both ways." 2, Does the Torah teach that there are such punishments in gehinom? 3, Does Judaism believe in issues like Necromancy?(or Zohar support this)" To answer your 2nd and 3rd points -- it is a STORY meant to teach a moral point -- it is not literal. Gehenna may or may not exist. If it does exist there is nothing physical there so how could anyone be boiling in excrement??? Our sages tell us that the punishment of Gehenna (again -- if it exists) is that when we die we are faced with seeing the wrongdoings we did in this life and our own shame and horror at our actions disturb us... It would be a place to learn what you did wrong -- not burning hell fire or boiling excrement... Communicating with the dead (necromancy) is considered a sin and is one of the "do nots" forbidden to Jews in the Torah. It may be possible (the T'nach tells us that Saul was able to speak to the deceased prophet Shmuel / Samuel), but it is forbidden. See Shmuel Alef / I Samuel 15:23. He used an Ov. An "Ov" is a medium... We are not permitted to inquire of a medium or a necromancer (an ov or a yidoni – see Avodat Kochavim 6:1 and 6:2), as per D'varim / Deuteronomy 18:10-11, “There shall not be found among you… one who inquires of a medium or a necromancer.” |
Categories
All
|