Sunday, November 30, 2014
The Whole Process
I found this video pointing at 5776 madhim, as it points to the year 5852 also. The whole process of "בן דויד" before us, from 5776 to 5852, using Gematriot. Look at this and this and this.
Hat tip to an anonymous commenter at "years of awe."
Thursday, November 27, 2014
A Six-fold Answer
I was asked why I attach so much importance to day one of Creation, and so little to day six. The answer is six-fold:
1. It was Shim'on Ben Zoma, who held on to the ancient tradition, in the oldest recorded reference to a stylistic problem in the story of Bereshit (Bereshit Rabbah 4: 6). See also Moreh Hanevuchim on this subject, and compare the Talmud Yerushalmi (Chagigah 2: 5) and the Talmud Bavli (Chagiga 14b,15a). In my analysis, after day one, Ben Zoma detects a difference: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים and וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, the way second day starts, is too different from day one. His utterly shocking conclusion was that a different source starts at this point, the source that we know as P. In this way, he questioned scripture as it was and he shook the world, of the "Chachamim," because he had uncovered the secret. Ben Zoma had not gone crazy, as they would have it. He was a Chacham at the highest level, conversing with the Divine.
2. The (traditional) Pasuk says אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם. It mentions a day, and this is the day that HaShem created Eretz V'Shamayim. It thus solves the problem with the Pasuk as it stands, that no day is mentioned. A clear sign of editing.
3. That it is a day follows from the Pasuk itself, the creation of light and darkness leads to morning and evening, one day. The other days don't have this.
4. It says "one day," not "the first day." The first day would be followed by the second, the third, et cetera. One day stands by itself.
5. The one day is a reference to these 24 hours.
6. There is a reference to the words תֹהוּ and מְרַחֶפֶת, in Ha'azinu, verse 10 and 11, which has words of the same stems. Ha'azinu is a very old text. Ergo, the "one day" is very old also. See also Yeshaya 34:11.
Therefore, "one day" is part of the Torah Kedumah, the "one week" is its commentary. The two were combined by the Priestly editor of the Torah.
1. It was Shim'on Ben Zoma, who held on to the ancient tradition, in the oldest recorded reference to a stylistic problem in the story of Bereshit (Bereshit Rabbah 4: 6). See also Moreh Hanevuchim on this subject, and compare the Talmud Yerushalmi (Chagigah 2: 5) and the Talmud Bavli (Chagiga 14b,15a). In my analysis, after day one, Ben Zoma detects a difference: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים and וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, the way second day starts, is too different from day one. His utterly shocking conclusion was that a different source starts at this point, the source that we know as P. In this way, he questioned scripture as it was and he shook the world, of the "Chachamim," because he had uncovered the secret. Ben Zoma had not gone crazy, as they would have it. He was a Chacham at the highest level, conversing with the Divine.
2. The (traditional) Pasuk says אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם. It mentions a day, and this is the day that HaShem created Eretz V'Shamayim. It thus solves the problem with the Pasuk as it stands, that no day is mentioned. A clear sign of editing.
3. That it is a day follows from the Pasuk itself, the creation of light and darkness leads to morning and evening, one day. The other days don't have this.
4. It says "one day," not "the first day." The first day would be followed by the second, the third, et cetera. One day stands by itself.
5. The one day is a reference to these 24 hours.
6. There is a reference to the words תֹהוּ and מְרַחֶפֶת, in Ha'azinu, verse 10 and 11, which has words of the same stems. Ha'azinu is a very old text. Ergo, the "one day" is very old also. See also Yeshaya 34:11.
Therefore, "one day" is part of the Torah Kedumah, the "one week" is its commentary. The two were combined by the Priestly editor of the Torah.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Torah is Truly not Racist
Why does the Torah enter the predicament that we discussed in the first place? Why not delete the whole passage of Bereshit 20. It seems quite superfluous: The Torah has a similar story in Bereshit 26, with the same king, Abimelech.
I suggest that it is kept for the following reason. The big chiddush of E, as opposed by J, is that in E the Akeidah ends differently, dramatically so. See this, for the background. In E, the Yitzchak of Bereshit 26 does not exist, and the story of Bereshit 20 is essential, for the chiddush. But why preserve this chiddush in the Torah, even for the writer of exotic Midrashim, even for the real researcher of the Torah?
Because Bereshit 15, a story of E as well as J, is not only for the physical seed of Abraham. Ayil Meshulash, Ez Meshuleshet, Eglah Meshuleshet, the promise of the land, would also apply if Yitzchak would have died. The Torah is truly not racist. Ayil Meshulash. et cetera, also apply to sparks of altogether different stock. They can be of the promised seed of Abraham, provided that they really listen to the truth. For this message the Torah is going out of its way.
I suggest that it is kept for the following reason. The big chiddush of E, as opposed by J, is that in E the Akeidah ends differently, dramatically so. See this, for the background. In E, the Yitzchak of Bereshit 26 does not exist, and the story of Bereshit 20 is essential, for the chiddush. But why preserve this chiddush in the Torah, even for the writer of exotic Midrashim, even for the real researcher of the Torah?
Because Bereshit 15, a story of E as well as J, is not only for the physical seed of Abraham. Ayil Meshulash, Ez Meshuleshet, Eglah Meshuleshet, the promise of the land, would also apply if Yitzchak would have died. The Torah is truly not racist. Ayil Meshulash. et cetera, also apply to sparks of altogether different stock. They can be of the promised seed of Abraham, provided that they really listen to the truth. For this message the Torah is going out of its way.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Not From Israel
There are two independent stories interwoven in Parshat Toldot. It is beautifully explained here, and it is no doubt true. I think, though, that there is a message behind it.
It starts with the passage of Bereshit 17, the Brit Mila of Avraham, which is an obvious addition and therefore not in the Torah Kedumah. The important message of the story is that Yitzchak, still unborn, is to be the promised seed of Avraham. And Yitzchak includes Edom/Esav.
The next passage is Bereshit 23, also not in the Torah Kedumah. The passage has the purchase of Ma'arat HaMachpela, at the time of the death of Sarah. The seller is Ephron, the Chittite. The important message of the story is that the Chittites are not so bad.
And then we see Esav marrying Chittite women, and we read Bereshit 28:1-9, again not in the Torah Kedumah, at the end of which Esav marries a woman of the seed of Abraham. Edom, we see, is not so bad after all.
During Bayit Sheni there was a merge of Yehudah/Israel and Edom. The above stories seem to come from Edom. They are not from Israel.
It starts with the passage of Bereshit 17, the Brit Mila of Avraham, which is an obvious addition and therefore not in the Torah Kedumah. The important message of the story is that Yitzchak, still unborn, is to be the promised seed of Avraham. And Yitzchak includes Edom/Esav.
The next passage is Bereshit 23, also not in the Torah Kedumah. The passage has the purchase of Ma'arat HaMachpela, at the time of the death of Sarah. The seller is Ephron, the Chittite. The important message of the story is that the Chittites are not so bad.
And then we see Esav marrying Chittite women, and we read Bereshit 28:1-9, again not in the Torah Kedumah, at the end of which Esav marries a woman of the seed of Abraham. Edom, we see, is not so bad after all.
During Bayit Sheni there was a merge of Yehudah/Israel and Edom. The above stories seem to come from Edom. They are not from Israel.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
On The Position of וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם
The "new" commandment וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם is the second one of the ten commandments. Indeed, a description of the Shabbat is preceded by a description of Pesach in Parashat Ki Boshesh. However, in Parshat Mishpatim, Shabbat appears before the three Regalim. Hence, the fourth position should be considered for וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם. It could be that Chet HaEgel had an influence, and it became the second commandment only after the Sin.
Parashat Mishpatim
The question arises, if there is commentary of Bayit Rishon in the ten commandments, is there any commentary of this kind in the rest of the Torah Kedumah? The answer to the question is yes. In the Torah Kedumah, I have marked the commentary of Bayit Rishon with a little smaller font, and 2/3 of parashat Mishpatim is like this.
Friday, November 14, 2014
The Ten Commandments
This is my best guess as to what must have happened. The Torah grew by incorporating what was previously just commentary. The ten commandments started off succinctly:
Subsequently, the commentaries were incorporated in the text, thus producing the version in Parashat Vayechan of the Torah Kedumah. Today's version of the Torah resulted after new commentaries were added to וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם, and to וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית--לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר, תָּמִיד, and were incorporated. The commentaries were very elaborate and were inserted as separate "Parashot," Parashat Teruma for וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם and its commentary, Parashat Tetzavei for וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית--לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד, and its commentary. That left the earlier commentary to וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם, a dangling "orphan" leading to some textual complications. Moreover, Parashat Mishpatim, was moved a bit to "make place" for Parashat Teruma, and Parashat Tetzavei, and to mask the editing. Moreover, the "commentary" of זָכוֹר אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, לְקַדְּשׁוֹ was improved by the addition of a reference to the six days of Creation.
Finally, note that the second commandment has disappeared, to Parshat Teruma. The commentary to the first commandment, or the commentary of the last commandment, is counted instead. It is possible that the first two of the original commandments were counted as one,
Time has come to return to the source, to identify and remove the commentaries of Bayit Sheni, and to remove the commentaries of Bayit Rishon as well. That is why the research of Torah is so important. It reveals the Source.
אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים
וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם
לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לַשָּׁוְא
זָכוֹר אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, לְקַדְּשׁוֹ
כַּבֵּד אֶת-אָבִיךָ, וְאֶת-אִמֶּךָ
לֹא תִרְצָח
לֹא תִנְאָף
לֹא תִגְנֹב
לֹא-תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר
לֹא תַחְמֹד, בֵּית רֵעֶך
וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם
לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לַשָּׁוְא
זָכוֹר אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, לְקַדְּשׁוֹ
כַּבֵּד אֶת-אָבִיךָ, וְאֶת-אִמֶּךָ
לֹא תִרְצָח
לֹא תִנְאָף
לֹא תִגְנֹב
לֹא-תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר
לֹא תַחְמֹד, בֵּית רֵעֶך
Subsequently, the commentaries were incorporated in the text, thus producing the version in Parashat Vayechan of the Torah Kedumah. Today's version of the Torah resulted after new commentaries were added to וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם, and to וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית--לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר, תָּמִיד, and were incorporated. The commentaries were very elaborate and were inserted as separate "Parashot," Parashat Teruma for וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם and its commentary, Parashat Tetzavei for וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית--לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד, and its commentary. That left the earlier commentary to וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם, a dangling "orphan" leading to some textual complications. Moreover, Parashat Mishpatim, was moved a bit to "make place" for Parashat Teruma, and Parashat Tetzavei, and to mask the editing. Moreover, the "commentary" of זָכוֹר אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, לְקַדְּשׁוֹ was improved by the addition of a reference to the six days of Creation.
Finally, note that the second commandment has disappeared, to Parshat Teruma. The commentary to the first commandment, or the commentary of the last commandment, is counted instead. It is possible that the first two of the original commandments were counted as one,
אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם
with the perush that they will make the Mishkan, as slaves. What is then the tenth commandment, one that was actually heard?וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית--לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד
We learn from this what we shall do in the Mishkan.Time has come to return to the source, to identify and remove the commentaries of Bayit Sheni, and to remove the commentaries of Bayit Rishon as well. That is why the research of Torah is so important. It reveals the Source.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Vayechan
Between Yitro and Mishpatim is Vayechan, which contains the ten commandments, in the Torah Kedumah. If P had a predicament in Parshat Lech Lecha, in Vayechan, P created an earthquake.
The bold sections, in my view, are misplaced in our current Torah, to the extent that prominent scholars have suggested that the ten commandments are themselves an insertion. Incorrectly, in my eyes: I see very little wrong with this version of Vayechan. The extra commandment is no problem. It can be "compensated for" by counting the first two commandments, in the conventional count, as one.
In short, if movement of text is not part of one's "research paradigm," one can reach altogether wrong conclusions.
The bold sections, in my view, are misplaced in our current Torah, to the extent that prominent scholars have suggested that the ten commandments are themselves an insertion. Incorrectly, in my eyes: I see very little wrong with this version of Vayechan. The extra commandment is no problem. It can be "compensated for" by counting the first two commandments, in the conventional count, as one.
In short, if movement of text is not part of one's "research paradigm," one can reach altogether wrong conclusions.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
How Beautiful is the Torah Kedumah
Look how beautiful is the Torah Kedumah, how beautiful and how sensitive it says goodbye to two main charactars, to Avraham and Sarah. A few words the Torah needs for each of them. For Sarah it says, וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק, אַחֲרֵי אִמּוֹ, "and Yitzchak was consoled ,after his mother." And a little later, בְּעוֹדֶנּוּ חַי, "while he was still alive," for Avraham.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
A Predicament
When P wanted to insert the text of (Bereshit 17)
What was the problem, P's predicament?
Insertion of וַיְהִי אַבְרָם in between וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם and וְשָׂרַה אֵשֶׁת was impossible because Sarah was young in וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם and old in וַיְהִי אַבְרָם. Insertion of וַיְהִי אַבְרָם after וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם broke the textual connection between the pesukim in which Avraham prays successfully for opening of the wombs in the house of Abimelech, and the opening of Sarah's womb.
Therefore, P had to replace וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם by וַיְהִי אַבְרָם. Where, then. should וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם be put? The solution: after the announcement that Sarah's womb would be opened (Bereshit 18) and before it actually happened (Bereshit 21), and so we find it as Bereshit 20. The announcement regarding Sarah would imply that Sarah became apparently young again! However, this causes another predicament. It brought the opening of Sarah womb very close to her sojourn in Abimelech's house, too close to be confortable. That is why we find in Bereshit 21:1-3 confirmation after confirmation after confirmation, by P, that Yitzchak was indeed the son of Avraham.
וַיְהִי אַבְרָם, בֶּן-תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים
there was a predicament. The Torah text had (Bereshit 20)וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם אַבְרָהָם אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב
directly after (Bereshit 16)וְשָׂרַה אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָהָם לֹא יָלְדָה לוֹ
Note the elegance of the Torah Keduma. Bereshit 20 has the same structure as Bereshit 16, in reverse. Where the latter ends, between Kadesh and Bered, the latter starts, between Kadesh and Shur. Bereshit 16 starts with וְשָׂרַה אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם whereas Bereshit 20 ends with it.What was the problem, P's predicament?
Insertion of וַיְהִי אַבְרָם in between וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם and וְשָׂרַה אֵשֶׁת was impossible because Sarah was young in וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם and old in וַיְהִי אַבְרָם. Insertion of וַיְהִי אַבְרָם after וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם broke the textual connection between the pesukim in which Avraham prays successfully for opening of the wombs in the house of Abimelech, and the opening of Sarah's womb.
Therefore, P had to replace וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם by וַיְהִי אַבְרָם. Where, then. should וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם be put? The solution: after the announcement that Sarah's womb would be opened (Bereshit 18) and before it actually happened (Bereshit 21), and so we find it as Bereshit 20. The announcement regarding Sarah would imply that Sarah became apparently young again! However, this causes another predicament. It brought the opening of Sarah womb very close to her sojourn in Abimelech's house, too close to be confortable. That is why we find in Bereshit 21:1-3 confirmation after confirmation after confirmation, by P, that Yitzchak was indeed the son of Avraham.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
The Protection of HaShem
In Shemot 38:28 we read:
ואת האלף - Rashei Teivot for ואם תמנה ה'אלף - and if you will count 5000
ושבע המאות וחמשה ושבעים - and 775
עשה ווים לעמודים
What could be the message of P, what will happen in the year 5775? I propose that the answer is in this, and this, the priests will (start to) lose power.
The background is that some Jews were outside of the camp, "Shevet Dan", because they preferred their Avoda Zara. After the work of P, this would be Klal Yisrael. Why did Klal Yisrael prefer to be outside of the camp? Because the voice of the prophets is not heard there. They preferred to be independent. However, the independence had a price. The Truth could no longer be accessed. And the enemies of the Jews, Amalek, had an easy prey in the years of Galut. Until P, there were prophets, Klal Yisrael belonged to the Mishkan, and were protected by the Ananei HaKavod.
In 5775, things will change:
The Vavim are missing, as starting letters, in Tehilim 25 and Tehilim 34. These chapters of Tehilim are alpabetically ordered, except for the Vav, and the last pasuk, which starts with Peh, פודה הי נפש עבדיו, in the case of Tehilim 34. This has also gematria 643, just like עושה ווים לעמודים. It is a Remez to the connection.
The question is how P could know what would happen in 5775. The answer is that P is the name of a group of authors. There were prophets among them. A prophet inserted the above pasuk, which can be read, in terms of the above "drasha":
"In 5775, HaShem will save the soul of his servants."
{Inspired by this)
Read what I wrote here and here about the year 5775.
ואת האלף ושבע המאות וחמשה ושבעים עשה ווים לעמודים
We interpret, following Yaak,ואת האלף - Rashei Teivot for ואם תמנה ה'אלף - and if you will count 5000
ושבע המאות וחמשה ושבעים - and 775
עשה ווים לעמודים
What could be the message of P, what will happen in the year 5775? I propose that the answer is in this, and this, the priests will (start to) lose power.
The background is that some Jews were outside of the camp, "Shevet Dan", because they preferred their Avoda Zara. After the work of P, this would be Klal Yisrael. Why did Klal Yisrael prefer to be outside of the camp? Because the voice of the prophets is not heard there. They preferred to be independent. However, the independence had a price. The Truth could no longer be accessed. And the enemies of the Jews, Amalek, had an easy prey in the years of Galut. Until P, there were prophets, Klal Yisrael belonged to the Mishkan, and were protected by the Ananei HaKavod.
In 5775, things will change:
עושה ווים לעמודים - gematria 643
The Vavim are fixed to the Amudim. That is, they will come under the protection of HaShem. The work of P and D has caused Shechichat HaTorah, the Torah came to be "forgotten." But Klal Yisrael is not forgotten.The Vavim are missing, as starting letters, in Tehilim 25 and Tehilim 34. These chapters of Tehilim are alpabetically ordered, except for the Vav, and the last pasuk, which starts with Peh, פודה הי נפש עבדיו, in the case of Tehilim 34. This has also gematria 643, just like עושה ווים לעמודים. It is a Remez to the connection.
The question is how P could know what would happen in 5775. The answer is that P is the name of a group of authors. There were prophets among them. A prophet inserted the above pasuk, which can be read, in terms of the above "drasha":
"In 5775, HaShem will save the soul of his servants."
{Inspired by this)
Read what I wrote here and here about the year 5775.
Monday, November 3, 2014
The Nefilim
The Neanderthals could well be called sons of G-d. They were similar to the sons of Adam, only stronger, and with a larger brain. Obiously, they were G-d's creation, and a special creation at that. The sons of Neanderthals and the daughters of Adam could well have been giants. It happens in hybrid beings. It could also be that the sons, the male children, were sterile. Also that happens in hybrid beings. Hence, it could be apt to call them Nefilim, a variant of the word Nefalim. Their branches fell off. But their sisters would have viable offspring, and that is how their genes stayed with us. According to Science, it happened 50,000 years ago. Likely in the Middle East. It surely fits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)