"All conduct should be so straight that you can measure it with a plumb-line." (p. 27)
"Injustice exists in abundance, but evil can never succeed in the long run." (p. 32)
"Punish with principle, teach meaningfully. The act of stopping evil leads to the lasting establishment of virtue." (p. 32)
"The human race never accomplishes anything. It's what God commands that gets done." (p. 41)
"Those whom God guides do not go wrong. Those whose boat He takes away cannot cross." (p. 43)
"Follow your heart all your life, do not commit excess with respect to what has been ordained." (p. 66)
"If you work hard, and if growth takes place as it should in the fields, it is because God has placed abundance in your hands." (p. 74)
"Do not gossip in your neighbourhood, because people respect the silent." (p. 74)
"Listening benefits the listener." (p. 74)
"If he who listens listens fully, then he who listens becomes he who understands." (p. 76)
"He who listens becomes the master of what is profitable." (p. 76)
"To listen is better than anything, thus is born perfect love." (p. 76)
"God loves him who listens. He hates those who do not listen." (p. 76)
"As for the ignorant man who does not listen, he accomplishes nothing. He equates knowledge with ignorance, the useless with the harmful. He does everything which is detestable, so people get angry with him each day." (p. 77)
"A perfect word is hidden more deeply than precious stones. It is to be found near the servants working at the mill-stone." (p. 78)
"Only speak when you have something worth saying." (p. 79)
"As for you, teach your disciple the words of tradition. May he act as a model for the children of the great, that they may find in him the understanding and justice of every heart that speaks to him, since man is not born wise." (p. 85)
"A woman with happy heart brings equilibrium." (p. 107)
"Love your wife with passion." (p. 107)
"As for those who end up continually lusting after women, none of their plans will succeed." (p. 108)
"How wonderful is a son who obeys his father!" (p. 112)
"How happy he is of whom it is said: 'A son is kind-natured when he knows how to listen.'" (p. 112)
"Do not blame those who are childless, do not criticise them for not having any, and do not boast about having them yourself." (p. 113)
"May your heart never be vain because of what you know. Take counsel from the ignorant as well as the wise..." (p. 119)
"So do not place any confidence in your heart in the accumulation of riches, since everything that you have is a gift from God." (p. 126)
"Think of living in peace with what you possess, and whatever the Gods choose to give will come of its own accord." (p. 127)
"Do not repeat a slanderous rumour, do not listen to it." (p. 139)
"He who has a great heart has a gift from God. He who obeys his stomach obeys the enemy." (p. 140)
"Those who[m] the Gods guide cannot get lost. Those they forbid passage will not be able to cross the river of life." (p. 143)
How do you know it's pronounced 'Yahweh' and not, say, 'Yehwah', or 'Yohwih', or 'Yuhwah'? On what nikkud are you basing this assumption (considering the fact that the nikkud for אֲדֹנָ-י and אֱלֹקִים were printed under the consonants י-ה-ו-ה to remind the reader to voice אֲדֹנָ-י or אֱלֹקִים and not attempt to pronounce the Essential Divine Name י-ה-ו-ה)? After all, most theophoric names in Tenach (~500 individual theophoric names) that incorporate the first three letters of the Name (י-ה-ו) begin with 'Yeho' (Yehoram, Yehoachaz, Yehoshafat, Yehoshua). Still, in the oldest Masoretic manuscripts, י-ה-ו-ה is pointed as if it would read 'Yehwah' (not 'Yahweh'). Or, since י-ה-ו-ה is sui generis, perhaps one would need to get past the nikkud and look deeper to a rhyme scheme such as what can be found in B'raishis.
אֲדֹנָ-י — יְ-הֹ-וָ-ה (When י-ה-ו-ה is pointed as אדנ-י there is a שווא under the י, a חולם above the ה, and a קמץ under the ו. Note: under the א in אדנ-י is a חטף סגול, but under the י in י-ה-ו-ה is a שווא. This is because a שווא presents itself as a חטף סגול under a guttural (e.g., א)
אֱלֹקִים — יֱ-הֹ-וִ-ה (This usage is found as a result of י-ה-ו-ה appearing before and after אדנ-י, so as not to repeat אדנ-י where it isn't written this way in the text. So, when davening, we pronounce a standalone י-ה-ו-ה as 'Ad-noi'; but "אֲדֹנָ-ייֱ-הֹ-וִ-ה" becomes 'Ad-noiElokim')
Also, 'I am that I am' is not relevant to י-ה-ו-ה; it is a (mis)translation of the phrase אהיה אשר אהיה. The verb 'to be' in the present tense is not attested to within Biblical Hebrew, and it is grammatically incorrect to render it into English this way. There are but two 'tenses' in Biblical Hebrew, 'perfect' (completed action) and 'imperfect' (incomplete action), whereby 'perfect' and 'imperfect' express not point-in-time but rather the state of an action (complete or incomplete). The word אהיה is a first person common singular `imperfect' conjugation of the third person masculine singular`perfect' verb, היה, and should be rendered thusly: I Shall Be. אהיה, "I Shall Be", is working in conjunction with the relative particle אשר, "what/that which/as". אהיה אשר אהיה, "I Shall Be as I Shall Be" or "I Shall Exist as I Shall Exist".
To prove this point, the first appearance of the word אהיה is found in Shmois 3:12, just two verses prior to the phrase אהיה אשר אהיה (ibid. 3:14), where we see a unanimous reading of 'I shall be' (see also ibid. 4:12, 15). Only in its reference to Hashem in Shmois 3:14 do we find—typically in Xtian texts (traduttore, traditore)—the rendering 'I Am' (even though these same texts use 'I shall be' for אהיה everywhere else) despite there being the same Hebrew word with the same nikkud (אֶהְיֶה; a סגול under the אֶ and the יֶ, and a שוא under the הְ). Those who learn Torah in its original Hebrew can see that we are actually introduced to the word אהיה in verse 12. It is then repeated in verse 14 as a phrase: אהיה אשר אהיה, "I Shall Be as I Shall Be". This connotes Hashem's presence during the Jews' subjugations.
The אהיה in verse 14 is a reassurance of the אהיה seen earlier in verse 12. (And already promised by Yaakov to Yosef in B'raishis 48:21 ("ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הנה אנכי מת והיהאלקים עמכם—And Yisroel said to Yosef, `Behold, I am going to die, but G-dwill bewith you'"). In other words, the name revealed to Moshe in Shmois 3:14 was not a new name as Yaakov had already been familiar with it. It is one of the attributes of Hashem.) In the Torah, אהיה appears only three times in reference to Hashem (3/43), all three in one verse during Hashem's dialogue with Moshe at the burning bush. Perhaps the reason Xtians accept the erroneous 'I Am' is because it affirms their belief in Yoshke being l'hovdil G-d incarnate. This way the 'I Am' here in Torah would comport with the 'I Am' statements found in John.
ויאמר משה אל האלקים מי אנכי כי אלך אל פרעה וכי אוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים. 12 ויאמר כי אהיהעמך וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלקים על ההר הזה. 13 ויאמר משה אל האלקים הנה אנכי בא אל בני ישראל ואמרתי להם אלקי אבותיכם שלחני אליכם ואמרו לי מה שמו מה אמר אלהם. 14 ויאמר אלקים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם
"But Moshe said to G-d, `Who am I that I should go to Paroh, and that I should take B'nai Yisroel out of Mitzroyim?' 12 He (G-d) said, `But I shall bewith you, and this is the sign for you that it was I Who sent you. When you have brought the people out of Mitzroyim, you shall serve G-d on this mountain.' 13 Moshe said to G-d, `If I come to B'nai Yisroel and say to them, "The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?' 14 G-d said to Moshe, `I Will Be [With You] asI Shall Be [With You].' And He said, `Say this to b'nai Yisroel, "I Shall Be[With You] has sent me to you."' (Shmois 3:11-14)
R' Shlomo ben Yitzchok (Rash"i) on Shmois 3:14
The infinitive form of the verb היה is להיות. The participle form of the verb היה, which is rarely used, is הוה. The causative form of the verb היה is מהוה, meaning 'causes to be' or 'causes to exist'. י-ה-ו-ה is not the third person conjugation of 'being' or 'existing' (הוה), it is the third person conjugation of 'causing to be' or 'causing to exist' (מהוה). It is much more powerful than 'He Is' or 'He Exists'; it means 'He Causes to Be' or 'He Causes to Exist'. The first person אהיה is a common singular imperfect `qal'(simple active verb), "I Shall Be" or "I Shall Exist". The third person י-ה-ו-ה is a masculine singular imperfect `hifil' (causative active verb), "He Who Causes Existence to Be" or "He Who Causes Existence to Exist", denoting the repetitive, ongoing context of creation; actions in the process of accomplishment.
When you consider the possibility that the tetragrammaton intentionally leaves out vowels its plausible that its a combination of two names or a misunderstanding of one name.
When you consider the possibility that the tetragrammaton intentionally leaves out vowels its plausible that its a combination of two names or a misunderstanding of one name.
Think of י-ה-ו-ה as a combination of the third person future, present, and past tenses 'will be', 'is', and 'was' (יהיה, הוה, היה). "He that was, is, and will be", signifying Hashem's everlasting eternal existence without beginning and without end.
Think of י-ה-ו-ה as a combination of the third person future, present, and past tenses 'will be', 'is', and 'was' (יהיה, הוה, היה). "He that was, is, and will be", signifying Hashem's everlasting eternal existence without beginning and without end.
h with crescent makes a different sound than h with diacritic dot
can you help clarify this because im not going to pretend to fully understand hebrew or egyptian just looking to understand how this ancient name was pronounced
h with crescent makes a different sound than h with diacritic dot
can you help clarify this because im not going to pretend to fully understand hebrew or egyptian just looking to understand how this ancient name was pronounced
Im perplexed because at first glance it would appear to just be the Egyptian name for the moon but the same marks are often used in front of other deity names that are anglicized starting with an A
Yarikh is the canaanite god of the moon (and patron deity of Jericho)
but the Shasu of Yahu seems to not describe the same Yarikh but rather something different
IE the link I posted for Heh(eternity/flood) represents just a double ḥḥ with diacritical marks Heh (god) - Wikipedia
the pronunciations for this vary: Ḥeḥ (ḥḥ, also Huh, Hah, Hauh, Huah, and Hehu)
perhaps it means spirit which would be consistent with Akhenaten condensed name for the Sun (Re/Ra) jtn - Wiktionary
if the origins of language in Hebrew started in Egypt how did Moses determine the tetragrammaton
The Romans destroyed the Second Temple under Emperor Titus no later than 70 CE. The Western Wall is the western retaining wall of the Temple Mount. It is part of a wall that surrounds the mountain for protection. Behind it is a large open space which is the mountain (Har Ha'Bayis). In the middle of the mountain was a separate structure with its own walls known as the Mikdosh. What you see at the Western Wall is the wall of the mountain, the western wall of Har Ha'Bayis where many go to daven. If a Jew is davening from between the Western Wall and the Dome of the Rock, the Halocho is to daven towards the Dome with his back to the Wall.. (This is because Jews are to face the Kodesh Kodoshim when davening, traditionally and archeologically identified with the site of the Dome of the Rock.)
I should add that there is a source in Chaza"l which expounds on the matter:
The gemora records explicitly that the year 4231 לבה״ע ("reckoned from Creation")—that is 471 CE—was three years later than"four hundred years after the Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed", which means that the destruction of the Bais Hamikdosh must have occurred in 4231 (471 CE) – 403 (3358 BCE) = 3828 (68 CE). Hebrew dates exceed the corresponding civil dates by 3,760 years (currently it is 5781/2021) for dates between the beginning of January and the end of Elul (the difference is 3,761 years from the beginning of Tishrey to the end of December), thus it follows that the Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed in the summer (on Tisha B'av, one month before Elul) of the civil year 3828 – 3760 = 68 CE. The Second Temple was destroyed 9th of Av, 3828 AM (corresponding approximately to July of 68 CE).
The syntactic structure of Hebrew, unlike English, dictates that the noun precede the adjective in an adjectival phrase. As for example, in English we say 'great man'. But in Hebrew, we say 'odom godol', with the noun 'odom' (man) preceding the adjective 'godol' (great). First we express the nature of the thing itself (odom) and then add the adjective which serves as a modifier (godol). But when the Tenach describes Yishmoel, the progenitor of the Arabs, as a 'pir'e' odom' (bestial man), the modifier 'pir'e' appears before the noun 'odom'. The wildness is not simply a modifying feature of Bnai Yishmoel. It is the very core of their being. Thus, in the phrase 'pir'e odom' the word 'pir'e' (untamed) is the noun, the nature of the thing itself; and the word 'odom' (man) is the modifier—a beast in the form of a man.
There is another grammatical anomaly in T'hilim 89:51, a reversal of the normative noun-adjective word-order which places the adjective רבים rabim before the noun עמים 'amim as opposed to afterwards where one would normally expect it to be. This is supported by the 17th-18th-century commentary M'tzudas Tziyyon (which is really just a glossary of difficult words and phrases) where T'hilim's כל רבים עמים kal rabim 'amim is explained as being "כמו כל עמים רבים" k'mo [`like'] kal 'amim rabim. The adjective רבים rabim is the plural form of רב rav ("much") and means "many", while the noun עמים 'amim is the plural form of עם 'am ("[a] people") and means "peoples". In the Tenach עם 'am, invariably rendered as "people", is a singular noun—"a people", that is, a nation. Indeed עם 'am "[a] people" is similar to גוי goy "[a] nation" (גוים goyyim "nations"); however, a person can only belong to an עם 'am (עמי 'ammi "my people"), never to a גוי goy (גוי goyyi "my nation"). There is also גויך goyecha "your nation", which refers to 'am Yisroel as Hashem's possession (see T'hilim 106:5).
@MMS - regarding the number 137 in this past week's parashah, and how it relates to Moshe Rabbeinu and the giving of the Torah.
A פָּרָשָׁה parashah (plural: פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת parashiyyos), occasionally referred to as a סִדְרָא sidra [Aramaic] or סִדְרָה sidrah [Hebrew] (plural: סְדָרִין s'darín [Aramaic] or סִדְרָאוֹת sidra'os [Hebrew]), is one of the sections of the Torah which is read publicly each week, forming a cycle of readings that completes all the five books every year. The 54 weekly divisions of the Torah are called פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת parashiyyos, and each of them is named by its opening word (or words). The ancient practice of בְּנֵי מַעֲרָבָא b'néy ma'aravá (lit. "sons of the west", that is Jews of Eretz Yisroel, which sits to the west of Babylonia) consisted of reading the Torah through once every three years (the so-called "triennial cycle", although in fact the whole Torah was actually completed once every three and a half years, or twice in every שְׁמִטָּה sh'mittah).
This practice, now obsolete and defunct, was based on the shorter סִדְרָא sidra divisions (of which there are 154 in the Torah). Nobody knows for sure exactly when these arrangements were put in place, but it was clearly before the Mishnah was codified—it is commonly held that the practice goes right back to Ezra HaSofér. There are, however, two ancient customs: the second being the Babylonian "annual cycle" (compare with the "triennial cycle" of Eretz Yisroel) whereby each of the 54 divisions (compare with the 154 divisions of the west) corresponds to a calendar week in which it is read aloud three times (מִנְחָה minchah on shabbes afternoon, and at שַׁחֲרִית shacharis on Monday and Thursday morning). All Jewish communities today follow the annual cycle, the ancient custom of the Jews of Bavel.
This past week's Torah portion was מִּשְׁפָּטִים Mishpatim (Sh'mos 21:1–24:18), where we find the word מַצֵּבָֽה matzeivah ("monument")—מַצֵּבָֽה is one of four (!) words in the Tenach with a numerical value of 137. In the parashah we learn that Moshe constructed 12 matzeivos at the giving of the Torah, one matzeivah for each tribe (Sh'mos 24:4). 12 x 137 = 1644. 1644 is the value of one of the most important verses in all of Torah: the verse to love Hashem, the second verse of the שְׁמַע Sh'ma just after we say שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְיָ אֱלֹקֵינוּ יְיָ אֶחָד sh'ma yisroel adonoi eloheinu adonoi echod. The next verse (D'vorim 6:5) וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְיָ אֱלֹקֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶךָ v'ahavto és adonoi elohecho b'chol l'vov'cho u'v'chol nafsh'cho u'v'chol m'odecho is 1644. (Replace יְיָ with the Tetragrammaton and the קֶ in אֱלֹקֶיךָ with הֶ).
why the syncretism? i think there is strong reason to believe in ancient times these were parallel schools of thought with the Jews at Elephantine in the New Kingdom of Egypt
why else would in Isaiah 19 he mention Egypt as his people if he was not satisfied with them in some degree at some juncture
why the syncretism? i think there is strong reason to believe in ancient times these were parallel schools of thought with the Jews at Elephantine in the New Kingdom of Egypt
why else would in Isaiah 19 he mention Egypt as his people if he was not satisfied with them in some degree at some juncture
syncretism has always been around and a problem. That’s the main thing god asked his people to avoid... worshiping other peoples gods and adopting and mixing with their culture/beliefs and practices
At the time Jesus came there was too much syncretism (even until today) among religions, beliefs, cultures, customs, people, etc.... to the point where everything was accepted and mixed together.
At the same time Judaism for most basically was a lost, corrupt religion and had strayed far from their roots, beliefs
they had already been conquered and were still oppressed
Jesus pretty much came threw a wrench in all that and represented the truth
he exposed the false religions/hypocrisy with the Jewish leaders
and he proved he was the figure all religions before him ultimately forshadowed
If the idea of “One God” or one way to God wasn’t clear to people before Jesus then it definitely was after
and he it made it very simple to believe in one man that existed in history with prof instead of imaginary Gods based off ancient myths/stories from cultures we don’t fully understand
the ironic thing about Jesus impact is how people (Muslims) who criticize Christians say they worship 3 Gods or a Trinity
It basically defeats the purpose of God sending him in the first place
syncretism has always been around and a problem. That’s the main thing god asked his people to avoid... worshiping other peoples gods and adopting and mixing with their culture/beliefs and practices
At the time Jesus came there was too much syncretism (even until today) among religions, beliefs, cultures, customs, people, etc.... to the point where everything was accepted and mixed together.
At the same time Judaism for most basically was a lost, corrupt religion and had strayed far from their roots, beliefs
they had already been conquered and were still oppressed
Jesus pretty much came threw a wrench in all that and represented the truth
he exposed the false religions/hypocrisy with the Jewish leaders
and he proved he was the figure all religions before him ultimately forshadowed
If the idea of “One God” or one way to God wasn’t clear to people before Jesus then it definitely was after
and he it made it very simple to believe in one man that existed in history with prof instead of imaginary Gods based off ancient myths/stories from cultures we don’t fully understand
the ironic thing about Jesus impact is how people (Muslims) who criticize Christians say they worship 3 Gods or a Trinity
It basically defeats the purpose of God sending him in the first place
if we are all gods children and someone is born and dies without ever reading or hearing the gospel of Christ are you saying they are damned?
that’s a dangerous position to take. There is a marked difference in the testimony of Moses and other writers of the books of the Bible...an extreme danger is not considering why
if you are lead by the spirit your ways will be blameless
if we are all gods children and someone is born and dies without ever reading or hearing the gospel of Christ are you saying they are damned?
that’s a dangerous position to take. There is a marked difference in the testimony of Moses and other writers of the books of the Bible...an extreme danger is not considering why
if you are lead by the spirit your ways will be blameless
that’s not up to you to figure out or worry about, I’ll let God be the judge ultimately
I figure God can reveal himself to people however he wants individually (like he did with prophets or normal people living before all the different religions) who’s to say what god can or can’t do or how. I wouldn’t put god in a box so I don’t know the answer
but you (and most people alive today) have heard the gospel and have a choice then you are accountable
im sure there’s better scriptures/teaching dealing with answering this topic you can google that to help make more sense to you
what did Moses say that contradicts other parts of the Bible?
Nobody is blameless by how they live. Nobody is perfect
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
