Thursday, June 25, 2015
Financial Darkness
Almost two years ago, I wrote a call to prepare for the darkness that will start to cover the world at the end of 5775. We now entered the last quarter of 5775. The darkness of financial chaos is almost upon us. That darkness is to temporarily stop the nations of the world, led by the US and Europe, in their track of imposing a "democratic solution" on Israel.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Tikkun of Moshiach
Why does Yishmael exist? To force, through war if needed, Aharon to merge with Moshe. Why does Edom exist? To force, through war if needed, Moshiach ben Yosef to merge with Moshiach ben David. By "merge" we mean self-cancellation in view of the Truth, the Tikkun of Moshiach.
And if one would argue that this would leave us with eight Sephirot, let him count Keter double, and let him count Da'at. Thus, in the world after the Tikkun of Moshiach, Atik Yamim is on top, above Arich Anpin, above Da'at, above Yisrael/Tiferet, above Moshe, above Moshiach ben David. These six sephirot are accompanied by Chochmah and Binah, and by Chesed and Gevurah/Din.
And if one would argue that this would leave us with eight Sephirot, let him count Keter double, and let him count Da'at. Thus, in the world after the Tikkun of Moshiach, Atik Yamim is on top, above Arich Anpin, above Da'at, above Yisrael/Tiferet, above Moshe, above Moshiach ben David. These six sephirot are accompanied by Chochmah and Binah, and by Chesed and Gevurah/Din.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Dangling Berachah
As promised, the dangling Berachah , which is in fact well-known:
וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָהָם, יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי-גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם, וַעֲבָדוּם, וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם--אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה. וְגַם אֶת-הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ, דָּן אָנֹכִי; וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן יֵצְאוּ, בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל. וְאַתָּה תָּבוֹא אֶל-אֲבֹתֶיךָ, בְּשָׁלוֹם: תִּקָּבֵר, בְּשֵׂיבָה טוֹבָה. וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי, יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה: כִּי לֹא-שָׁלֵם עֲוֹן הָאֱמֹרִי, עַד-הֵנָּה
RJE did not want to lose this final Berachah from E, from the account that could not be given, and made it part of J's "promise" of the Brit Bein HaBetarim. The bold italic sentence, a variant of the statement before the "dangling Berachah", seems to be added by RJE.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Teshuva
RJE made a historic document, a divinely inspired document, that is superior to its sources, in particular to J and E, and their sources. A document that is superior to what came after it, to D and P, and anything based on D and P.
Superior, just as Moshe's level of Nevuah in incomparable to the level of Miriam, or of Aharon. This is not a simple matter. If Miriam and Aharon had only appreciated the true greatness of Moshe. But they did not understand. This is not a simple matter at all. Despite the existence of the story of Miriam and Aharon, the story of D and P occurred, later, because D and P did not understand.
And because D and P did not understand what they could not understand, we were exiled from the Land. First, D caused Galut Bavel, like Miriam was exiled for limited time, and then P caused our current exile, Galut Aharon.
At the end of this exile, we need to understand what is the reason for it. Suddenly, it will be clear why it is called Galut Aharon, when Hashem will tell us, and we will be ashamed, so terribly ashamed. And we will do Teshuva, like Miriam, like Aharon.
Not so is my servant Moshe
in all my house he is faithful
Mouth to mouth I shall speak through him
with vision and not in riddles
You can read my version of the document of Moshe, with a translation, once a week, 160 times 160 words, for three years.
Superior, just as Moshe's level of Nevuah in incomparable to the level of Miriam, or of Aharon. This is not a simple matter. If Miriam and Aharon had only appreciated the true greatness of Moshe. But they did not understand. This is not a simple matter at all. Despite the existence of the story of Miriam and Aharon, the story of D and P occurred, later, because D and P did not understand.
And because D and P did not understand what they could not understand, we were exiled from the Land. First, D caused Galut Bavel, like Miriam was exiled for limited time, and then P caused our current exile, Galut Aharon.
At the end of this exile, we need to understand what is the reason for it. Suddenly, it will be clear why it is called Galut Aharon, when Hashem will tell us, and we will be ashamed, so terribly ashamed. And we will do Teshuva, like Miriam, like Aharon.
Not so is my servant Moshe
in all my house he is faithful
Mouth to mouth I shall speak through him
with vision and not in riddles
You can read my version of the document of Moshe, with a translation, once a week, 160 times 160 words, for three years.
משה אמת ותורתו אמת
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
A Story Without End
This is what the sons of Aharon, P, did. They spoke out against the Midianite background of Zipporah, the wife of Moshe. I refer to Bamidbar 25 and Bamidbar 31, where, in the name of Hashem, the Midianites are blamed, rather than Moabites, and destroyed. Further, they demoted Zipporah by splitting up the account of the Brit Milah, effectively replacing it by Bereshit 17. They did all of this to Zipporah, in order to denigrate Moshe, and to elevate themselves. And Moshe, extremely humble, did not utter a word in protest.
And they, "the priests," convinced a great percentage of Jews, that their contributions to "Torah" are Torah. But, yet, the story does not end here. The story did not end just yet. I am not going to say how it will end. If you want to know, E gives an excellent impression, in Bamidbar 12.
Not so is my servant Moshe
in all my house he is faithful
And they, "the priests," convinced a great percentage of Jews, that their contributions to "Torah" are Torah. But, yet, the story does not end here. The story did not end just yet. I am not going to say how it will end. If you want to know, E gives an excellent impression, in Bamidbar 12.
Not so is my servant Moshe
in all my house he is faithful
Monday, June 1, 2015
Moshe's Son(s)
According to J, Moshe had one son, Gershom (see Shemot 2:22). According to E, he had two sons, Gershom and Eliezer (see Shemot 18:4). It says in Shemot 4:20 that Moshe took his wife and sons, plural. As this is from J, it likely originally said son, instead of sons, and it was RJE who made this small change, which is even smaller in Hebrew, בָּנָיו, rather than בָּנָו.
Brit of Zipporah
We let the dangling Berachah dangle for now. Don't worry, it will fall into its place. First, I would like to discuss another editor. Consider the passage Shemot 4:24-26:
It was on the way, in a lodging place, that Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him. So Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to his feet; and she said, "You caused my bridegroom's bloodshed!" So he released him; then she said, "A bridegroom's bloodshed was because of circumcision."
This is very strange indeed. The excessive use of pronouns, with no antecedents, suggest that the passage is not in its proper context. Looking for the proper context, there is only one candidate. It must be after Shemot 2:21-22:
Moses desired to dwell with the man; and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses. She gave birth to a son and he named him Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign land."
and before the phrase "And it was after many days". Therefore, it must be right after "Shemot 2:21-22", yielding:
Moses desired to dwell with the man; and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses. She gave birth to a son and he named him Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign land." It was there, in the land of Midian, that Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to his feet; and she said, "You are being a bloodshed to Me!" And Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him, and He released him; then she said, "A bridegroom's bloodshed was because of circumcision."
In this passage, the antecedent of the pronouns in "It was on the way, in a lodging place, that Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him" must be Gershom, the latest person mentioned by name. As for the editor that created the split, we must suspect that who added P to the Torah, wanted to enhance "his" Bereshit 17, the competing passage of the Brit Milah. By splitting the paragraph, and so introducing many problems of interpretation, the J-passage of the Brit Milah is automatically demoted. And, in the eyes of the editor, Avraham would surely be a better mohel than Zipporah, for the generations. And, for the generations, would the Brit of Abraham not seem to be more elevated than the Brit of Zipporah? But know the truth: the Brit of Zipporah, the Brit of "foreskin for life," of Chatan Damim, is the (much) older one.
The phrase "It was on the way, in a lodging place", was changed to "It was there, in the land of Midian", וַיְהִי שָׁם, בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן in Hebrew. Mutatis Mutandis, and Gershom was named also after the Brit Milah.
It was on the way, in a lodging place, that Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him. So Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to his feet; and she said, "You caused my bridegroom's bloodshed!" So he released him; then she said, "A bridegroom's bloodshed was because of circumcision."
This is very strange indeed. The excessive use of pronouns, with no antecedents, suggest that the passage is not in its proper context. Looking for the proper context, there is only one candidate. It must be after Shemot 2:21-22:
Moses desired to dwell with the man; and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses. She gave birth to a son and he named him Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign land."
and before the phrase "And it was after many days". Therefore, it must be right after "Shemot 2:21-22", yielding:
Moses desired to dwell with the man; and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses. She gave birth to a son and he named him Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign land." It was there, in the land of Midian, that Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to his feet; and she said, "You are being a bloodshed to Me!" And Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him, and He released him; then she said, "A bridegroom's bloodshed was because of circumcision."
In this passage, the antecedent of the pronouns in "It was on the way, in a lodging place, that Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him" must be Gershom, the latest person mentioned by name. As for the editor that created the split, we must suspect that who added P to the Torah, wanted to enhance "his" Bereshit 17, the competing passage of the Brit Milah. By splitting the paragraph, and so introducing many problems of interpretation, the J-passage of the Brit Milah is automatically demoted. And, in the eyes of the editor, Avraham would surely be a better mohel than Zipporah, for the generations. And, for the generations, would the Brit of Abraham not seem to be more elevated than the Brit of Zipporah? But know the truth: the Brit of Zipporah, the Brit of "foreskin for life," of Chatan Damim, is the (much) older one.
The phrase "It was on the way, in a lodging place", was changed to "It was there, in the land of Midian", וַיְהִי שָׁם, בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן in Hebrew. Mutatis Mutandis, and Gershom was named also after the Brit Milah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)