Oral versus Written.

[John D. Brey]

without knowledge of the unspoken part of the Law, much of the written part is tautological. . . Rabbi Hirsch is clear that the entire Law, as written, can't be interpreted without access to an oral element that isn't itself given with the written text.

Careful... I know you haven't read what Rabbi Hirsch actually wrote yet, but, please do not project this into it. The Rabbi says the absolute opposite. ALL of it is spoken. All of it is spoken. All of it.

The subject of the ברית [covenant] between God and Israel is not הדברים [the words], the fixed written words which are visible to the eyes, but פי הדברים [mouth of words], the full living content of the words, which existed in Moshe's mind before the words were fixed in writing, and which even after the words were fixed remains a living thing in the minds and mouths of Israel. The written words are merely a reminder [see Plato's Phaedrus --JB] of their full content. . . A study of phonetic relation brings us to the same idea. כתב [write] is related to קטף (to bend, tear off), קטב (to kill) . . . From this we may infer that although the written word is a bearer of ideas and thus of great benefit, nevertheless, by itself it is incomplete, and it is likely to jeopardize the completeness, the vitality, and the truth of the ideas. . . The precision and conciseness of written expression make the written Word an aid to memory for Torah content, whereas in oral expression these qualities are diminished or lost. On the other hand, the whole meaning and living spirit of Torah content cannot be fixed in writing . . . (Sanhedrin 35a). . . למען תהיה תורת ה׳ בפיך. God's Torah is entrusted to the living word, not to the lifeless letter.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos 34:27-29; 13:10 (brackets and bold emphasis mine).​

​

Rabbi Hirsch's comments above, make it clear that he took St. Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 3:6 to heart: "God's Torah is entrusted to the living word, not to the lifeless letter." Earlier in the quotation he relates "write" כתב to "kill" קטב (part-wise based on phonetic similarity), making it patently clear that Rabbi Hirsch is himself aware that the written word has some problems so far as truth and exacting communication is concerned.​

​

The Protestant emphasis on sola scriptura is an important context for understanding the German Jewish turn to Bible translation, but Eran and Shavit’s contention that the Bible replaced the Talmud as the text that expresses the “spirit of authentic Judaism” is mistaken. Indeed, Eran and Shavit’s use of the term “spirit” is itself instructive, as it recalls the Pauline dichotomy between the “spirit that gives life” and the “letter that kills” (2 Cor 3.6).​

​

Michah Gottlieb, Oral Letter and Written Trace: Samson Raphael Hirsch’s Defense of the Bible and Talmud, p. 317.​

The lecture is being given by God to Moses. God tells Moses precisely which words are written, and explains how each word is expanded ( never reduced, never changed, never added to ). Each and every word that is written corresponds absoutely 100% to the explanation which was given. The explanation was given. spoken. attached. to. each word. that was written. All of it is given at the same time.

The student is attending a lecture and has been given the teacher's personal notes, the syllabus, the formulas, the equations, the rules for the students to follow, all of that is written on a chalk board. Those words written on the chalk board are given to the student. The teacher proceeds to lecture exaplaining each and every word.

The student returns to their elders, and reads them the written copy that they received of the lecture, from the teacher. The elders write, word-for-word, what was written. As the each word is written, the student who heard the lecture, first hand, teaches the elders, what each word means while it is fresh in their mind. Then the elders, when the scroll is complete, they teach it to each other. The student, Moses, is there, supervising, correcting each of the elders. If a single word is mispoken, if a single idea is dropped, it is corrected immediately.

Then the elders teach the officers and judges of the large groups. They do the same things. The elders monitor. Problems/questions are sent up the chain of command eventually reaching Moses if needed. Eventually everyone knows the rules.

That's what we, Jews, were doing for 40 years in the wilderness.

Amen brother. I have no problem with the veracity of any of that. Where a significant issue related to Rabbi Hirsch's understanding comes in is when he explains that when the entire Torah is written down late in Deuteronomy (31:14-29), God tells Moses that he's having him write down the text ---that Israel had learned orally throughout the exodus --- to be a curse on Israel since he, God, knows they're going to "break the covenant" given by word of mouth (the spirit, or oral, Torah)?

What on earth does that mean? God claims ---prophesies --- Israel is going to break the covenant he gave them orally such that to make sure there's an archive to prove what Israel has done (since the oral Torah is hidden away in memory and can remain hidden if need be to protect the guilty), God has Moses write an archive of the oral Torah Israel received so that when they break the covenant they received by "word of mouth" the written word will be there, in every nation of the world, to witness against them:

Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die. Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them.​

​

Deuteronomy 31:26-28.​

Moses calls all the teachers and elders who for forty-years have taught Israel the oral Law (as you laid out above), and he tells them that he's giving a written archive of the oral Law that they taught Israel, and he's putting it down in writing so that when they break or contaminate the oral version taught verbally for forty-years (at some future time after Moses dies), there will be a written archive such that a court of Law will have access to the oral Torah in a written form that will show that Israel's oral version (passed among them exclusively) has been contaminated and is broken.

The factuality of this rendering of Deuteronomy 31 creates a bit of a problem since Moses wrote down the written version of the Law in a manner (no word breaks or vowel points to determine the original reading) that appears to make it just as easy for a rebellious or forgetful Israel to contaminate the written Torah as God claims they will break and contaminate the oral Torah. In point of fact, Israel eventually disobeys God's command never to add or subject from what Moses gave as the string of consonants that form the written text, by using their broken, contaminated, ante-Moses oral tradition, to punctuate, flavor, nail down, the written text, i.e., what has come down to us as the Masoretic Text, so that there doesn't appear to be a court in heaven or earth that can catch Israel in their wayward ways.

Moses claimed in Deuteronomy 31 that he could use the written text to call heaven and earth to witness against Israel? How can he do that if Israel has contaminated the oral Torah, "broken" it, in God's parlance, and then used that broken down version of the oral Torah as the punctuation, the tradition, used to flavor, punctuate, and read, the written Torah? The Masoretic Text takes Israel's broken version of the oral covenant, which God prophesied they would eventually break (and god be damned he was right), and they did in fact break it whether through the ravages of time and tide, or purposely, such that they then use that broken down oral tradition to interpret the written text. Moses wrote it down in such a manner that it requires an oral tradition even to make it work (the undeciphered string of consonants is unreadable without an oral message to decipher it: where does one word stop and another start? Is אדם "Edom" or "Adam").

Israel, because they're "rebellious and stiff-necked" contaminate the oral Law after Moses dies such that they then use the contaminated oral Law/tradition to produce the Masoretic Text that seems to hide their crime from heaven and earth.

Which all segues into Rabbi Hirsch's most important teaching concerning the written Law. In volume V of his Collected Writings, Rabbi Hirsch shows that Moses wrote the written Law in such a manner that it hides the true oral Law right in the middle of the written text. For instance, in the first word --בראשית --- the "head" (or "first" ראש) i.e., the oral Law, is hidden in the womb of the written text, the bedchamber in the "house" of the written text:

ב–ראש–ית

The first (ראש) Law (i.e., the oral Law) is hidden in the second Law (the written text); and that's clearly the case even in first word in the written text. The first word in the written text is a key to the fact that the oral Law (the living spirit of the Law) is in fact hidden in, get this, the dead-letter, the written archive, that's supposed to be merely a "reminder" to Israel of what was taught them for forty-years in the desert.

Do you see the brilliance of God and Rabbi Hirsch? God tricked Israel since he knew not only would they distort his perfect oral Law once Moses wasn't there to keep them in line; he knew they would use their broken down tradition contaminated with their yetzer hara to contaminate the written Law, the Masoretic imposition nailed to the text of the written Law, to make it say what they decided it should say, thinking no one would, could, know the better. But God knew better. He knew they'd think that, such that in his unmatchable wisdom he designed a way for the oral Torah to be hidden in the written text, so that anyone who knows how to find it (Collected Writings V) would be able to use the principles designed to get the oral out of the written to do so and thus show that Israel isn't as righteous and good as they tend to think they are --- they're no better, but also no worse, than any other person on the planet. And when they learn that, only then, having gone through the whole humiliating process, will they rise to the head of the nations and perhaps be what they already think they are.



John

 

[dybmh]

The subject of the ברית [covenant] between God and Israel is not הדברים [the words], the fixed written words which are visible to the eyes, but פי הדברים [mouth of words], the full living content of the words, which existed in Moshe's mind before the words were fixed in writing, and which even after the words were fixed remains a living thing in the minds and mouths of Israel. The written words are merely a reminder [see Plato's Phaedrus --JB] of their full content. . . A study of phonetic relation brings us to the same idea. כתב [write] is related to קטף (to bend, tear off), קטב (to kill) . . . From this we may infer that although the written word is a bearer of ideas and thus of great benefit, nevertheless, by itself it is incomplete, and it is likely to jeopardize the completeness, the vitality, and the truth of the ideas. . . The precision and conciseness of written expression make the written Word an aid to memory for Torah content, whereas in oral expression these qualities are diminished or lost. On the other hand, the whole meaning and living spirit of Torah content cannot be fixed in writing . . . (Sanhedrin 35a). . . למען תהיה תורת ה׳ בפיך. God's Torah is entrusted to the living word, not to the lifeless letter.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos 34:27-29; 13:10 (brackets and bold emphasis mine).​

​

Rabbi Hirsch's comments above, make it clear that he took St. Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 3:6 to heart: "God's Torah is entrusted to the living word, not to the lifeless letter." Earlier in the quotation he relates "write" כתב to "kill" קטב (part-wise based on phonetic similarity), making it patently clear that Rabbi Hirsch is himself aware that the written word has some problems so far as truth and exacting communication is concerned.​

​

The Protestant emphasis on sola scriptura is an important context for understanding the German Jewish turn to Bible translation, but Eran and Shavit’s contention that the Bible replaced the Talmud as the text that expresses the “spirit of authentic Judaism” is mistaken. Indeed, Eran and Shavit’s use of the term “spirit” is itself instructive, as it recalls the Pauline dichotomy between the “spirit that gives life” and the “letter that kills” (2 Cor 3.6).​

​

Michah Gottlieb, Oral Letter and Written Trace: Samson Raphael Hirsch’s Defense of the Bible and Talmud, p. 317.​

Amen brother. I have no problem with the veracity of any of that. Where a significant issue related to Rabbi Hirsch's understanding comes in is when he explains that when the entire Torah is written down late in Deuteronomy (31:14-29), God tells Moses that he's having him write down the text ---that Israel had learned orally through the exodus --- to be a curse on Israel since he, God, knows they're going to "break the covenant" given by word of mouth (the spirit, or oral, Torah)?

What on earth does that mean? God claims ---prophesies --- Israel is going to break the covenant he gave them orally such that to make sure there's an archive to prove what Israel has done (since the oral Torah is hidden away in memory and can remain hidden if need be to protect the guilty), God has Moses write an archive of the oral Torah Israel received so that when they break the covenant they received by "word of mouth" the written word will be there, in every nation of the world, to witness against them:

Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die. Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them.​

​

Deuteronomy 31:26-28.​

Moses calls all the teachers and elders who for forty-years have taught Israel the oral Law (as you laid out above), and he tells them that he's giving a written archive of the oral Law that they taught Israel, and he's putting it down in writing so that when they break or contaminate the oral version taught verbally for forty-years (at some future time after Moses dies), there will be a written archive such that a court of Law will have access to the oral Torah in a written form that will show that Israel's oral version (passed among them exclusively) has been contaminated and is broken.

The factuality of this rendering of Deuteronomy 31 creates a bit of a problem since Moses wrote down the written version of the Law in a manner (no word breaks or vowel points to determine the original reading) that appears to make it just as easy for a rebellious or forgetful Israel to contaminate the written Torah as God claims they will break and contaminate the oral Torah. In point of fact, Israel eventually disobeys God's command never to add or subject from what Moses gave as the string of consonants that form the written text, by using their broken, contaminated, ante-Moses oral tradition, to punctuate, flavor, nail down, the written text, i.e., what has come down to us as the Masoretic Text, so that there doesn't appear to be a court in heaven or earth that can catch Israel in their wayward ways.

Moses claimed in Deuteronomy 31 that he could use the written text to call heaven and earth to witness against Israel? How can he do that if Israel has contaminated the oral Torah, "broken" it, in God's parlance, and then used that broken down version of the oral Torah as the punctuation, the tradition, used to flavor, punctuate, and read, the written Torah? The Masoretic Text takes Israel's broken version of the oral covenant, which God prophesied they would eventually break (and god be damned he was right), and they did in fact break it whether through the ravages of time and tide, or purposely, such that they then use that broken down oral tradition to interpret the written text. Moses wrote it down in such a manner that it requires an oral tradition even to make it work (the undeciphered string of consonants is unreadable without an oral message to decipher it: where does one word stop and another start? Is אדם "Edom" or "Adam").

Israel, because they're "rebellious and stiff-necked" contaminate the oral Law after Moses dies such that they then use the contaminated oral Law/tradition to produce the Masoretic Text that seems to hide their crime from heaven and earth.

Which all segues into Rabbi Hirsch's most important teaching concerning the written Law. In volume V of his Collected Writings, Rabbi Hirsch shows that Moses wrote the written Law in such a manner that it hides the true oral Law right in the middle of the written text. For instance, in the first word --בראשית --- the "head" (or "first" ראש) i.e., the oral Law, is hidden in the womb of the written text, the bedchamber in the "house" of the written text:

ב–ראש–ית

The first ראש Law (the oral Law) is hidden in the second Law, and that in even in the very first word in the written text. The first word in the written text is a key to the fact that the oral Law is in fact hidden in, get this, the dead-letter, the written archive that's supposed to be merely a reminder to Israel of what was taught them for forty-years in the desert.

Do you see the brilliance of God and Rabbi Hirsch? God tricked Israel since he knew not only would they distort his perfect oral Law once Moses wasn't there to keep them in line; he knew they would use their broken down tradition contaminated with their yetzer hara to contaminate the written Law, the Masoretic imposition nailed to the text of the written Law to make it say what they decided it should say, thinking no one would, could, know the better. But God knew better. He knew they'd think that, such that in his unmatchable wisdom he designed a way for the oral Torah to be hidden in the written text, so that anyone who knows how to find it (Collected Writings V) would be able to use the principles designed to get the oral out of the written to do so and thus show that Israel isn't as righteous and good as they tend to think they are --- they're no better, but also no worse, than any other person on the planet. And when they learn that, only then, having gone through the whole humiliating process, they will rise to the head of the nations and perhaps be what they already think they are.



John

I feel like we've discussed all of this before. There were spaces in the text that was written. Spaces weren't added. The way the scribes do their work is verbally pronouncing each word before it is written. No vowels were added. The vowels which were pronoucned were written down. But because the words were spoken, the words had vowels from the beginning until now.

The song "happy-birthday-to-you" has a melody attached even if there is no musical staff and notes written on the page. Everyone knows the melody, because it is sung at birthdays. Have you ever sung in a choir? Do Re Me Fa So La Ti Do. Can you hear it? Have you ever learned the half steps? Di Ri Mi Si... etc? That's how people can learn to sight-read music. It's the same thing. The scribe recites the word, the pronounciation ( and even the melody that goes with it ) are attached to the words. They've always been attached.

Sadly, it doesn't seem that you have read what Rabbi Hirsch actually wrote about about the oral torah and the written torah.

What you're missing is... there's nothing hidden in ב–ראש–ית. Rosh is the beginning. B'reisheet is the beginning. Nothing is being added. There's nothing new being brought. There's no great mystery being revealed. They mean the same thing. And if you keep unpacking the russian dolls, you end up with aleph. Aleph is the beginning. So... as they say... "all sources point to this being the beginning". Which is a "duh" not an "aha!" It's the first word.

Now, the truth is there's many examples of this sort of multi-layered consistency to the text which seems impossible for a human mind to have written without help from a higher consciousness. Some people get spooked out by this and go off the deep end. Aliens... time travelers. Inter-dimensional wildebeasts... what ever. But, it is amazing. That's true.

The point is, being dazzled by these sorts of things is a distraction. There's such a thing as being "blinded by the light." It's truly amazing, but what makes it amazing is that the simple meaning of the words are reflected again, and again, and again, and again... The simple meaning. Listen to Eve. God is asking what happened? Eve is saying HeeSheeAhni! Hee-Shee, just a subtle shift of the tongue hidden in the mouth made all the difference.

It's light, that's true, but it can also be blinding, dazzling, and distracting. It's both. HeeShee. God in the Torah is saying, "no, it's simple. Trust me." No matter how deep you probe, it's always saying the same thing. The serpent's tongue is the one that's split. Jesus agrees with what I'm saying:

Mark 10:15​

​

Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.​

Psalms 91:1-2​

​

He who dwells in the secret place of the most High, who abides under the shadow of the Almighty,​

Will say to the Lord, My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust,​

The secret is simple trust.

 

[John D. Brey]

I feel like we've discussed all of this before. There were spaces in the text that was written. Spaces weren't added. The way the scribes do their work is verbally pronouncing each word before it is written. No vowels were added. The vowels which were pronoucned were written down. But because the words were spoken, the words had vowels from the beginning until now.

Obviously today's sofer is inscribing the word-breaks and punctuation as dictated by the Masorah, i.e., the Jewish tradition for how the words are inscripted (as codified in the Masoretic Text). He's copying a text that's broken and contaminated by the fact that the oral Torah has already been mixed with the written text against the wishes of the Author who gave both. The traditional Masorah (describing how the scribe should read the text) was given along with, beside, the text that Moses gave in Deuteronomy 31-33. What's crucially important is that as Rabbi Hirsch teaches (in his Chumash Deuteronomy 31-33), the "song" שירה in the noted passage of Deuteronomy is not fully infused (mixed) with the written text, but is directly associated with it. One is the cipher (the wife), and the other the key to de-ciphering the text (the husband).

The scribe was never supposed to do anything but write the text as a string of consonants, a cipher. He was only supposed to copy the unbroken consonants ---letter-by-letter ---as though the entire written Torah was one word, one Name of God. The text was then to be read by cantillation, chanting the text, using the song pretty much as you note below.

The song "happy-birthday-to-you" has a melody attached even if there is no musical staff and notes written on the page. Everyone knows the melody, because it is sung at birthdays. Have you ever sung in a choir? Do Re Me Fa So La Ti Do. Can you hear it? Have you ever learned the half steps? Di Ri Mi Si... etc? That's how people can learn to sight-read music. It's the same thing. The scribe recites the word, the pronounciation ( and even the melody that goes with it ) are attached to the words. They've always been attached.

Moses came with Joshua son of Nun and spoke all the words of this the song in the ears of all the people . . . When Moses finished reciting all these words to all Israel, he said to them, "Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this the Torah."​

​

Deuteronomy 32:44-46.​

In the same narrative Moses speaks of "the song" and the "Torah" almost as though they're the same thing. The song is the chant given when Moses claims he's placing the written Torah with the Ark of the Covenant to curse Israel, he parallels the written Torah given as a curses against Israel with the song rendered as the cantillation, chantillation, if you will (a singing of the oral tradition), that'll be used (just as you note above), in order to punctuate the written text so it's readable. But he does so in a manner that "curses" Israel (Deut. 31:16-26) for the prophesied future breaking of the covenant . Professor Moshe Idel, a scholar/Professor at Hebrew University Jerusalem, says:

If we take into consideration that in ancient times the scroll of the Torah was written with consecutive letters not separated into words -- a fact that allows modern scholars of the Bible plenty of room for exegetical imagination -- the later Torah, as it has come down to us, is based on a separation between the words. Thus the ancient manner of writing the text created allowed numerous readings of the same sequence of letters.​

​

Absorbing Perfections, p. 365.​

There's a great mystery here since Moses is giving Israel a cantillation, a chant, a song, an oral tradition (Deut. 31-33), which he knows will be used by Israel to breaks up the cipher-text (the written Torah); and he gives them this cursed Masorah (the oral tradition/song) because of a crime they haven't even committed. It's this problematic cursing ---prior to the crime ---that's the key to Israel's defense, salvation, redemption, in a heavenly or earthly court of law.

But this poses a problem: how can one understand Israel's deliverance in Messianic times if these two witnesses are always present to bring accusations against the Jews? That is why Targum Yonasan speaks of a "new heaven" which will be established then and will not be able to bring accusations. Similarly, the prophet Isaiah declares: For behold! I create new heavens and a new earth, so that the former things shall not be remembered, nor come at all to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create. For behold! I create a Jerusalem of rejoicing, and of her people a source of joy! (65:17-18).​

​

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah, Devarim, 32.​

Rabbi Munk's solution to the two witnesses against Israel (the written text, and the song Moses gives to chantillate it) is a cheap solution: God will simply create a new heaven and earth as though he starts again from scratch. That's not how the Bible works: pure magic, just wipe it away by making a new world. The true solution to the curse is archived in the text itself. It's a new song, not a new heaven and earth. A new song of good news for Israel, not a song of cursing. More importantly it will be used to chantillate the exact same written text, the written Torah, from the same string of consonants, in order to redeem Israel and show who it was who wanted to curse them in the first place, and that (the cursing), for a crime they hadn't even committed when they were given the curse.

No righteous God will curse a person for a crime he guarantees them they will commit, since if they commit it, they justify him as righteous, but if they don't, they break rank with him therein breaking the very covenant he promises they will break; which is a circular prison-cell Israel can't escape: "But this poses a problem: how can one understand Israel's deliverance in Messianic times if these two witnesses are always present to bring accusations against the Jews"?

In his commentary on the "song" found in Deuteronomy 31-33, Rabbi Hirsch explains that the "song" is spoken of as though it's utterly parallel with the written Torah: "The halachah that the entire Torah is included in this mitzvah, even though the wording of the mitzvah refers only to the שירה, is explained by the Rambam (רהל׳ ספר תורה, 7:1) as follows: לפי שאין כותבין את התורה פרשיות פרשיות. . ." ----The song שירה and the written Law are juxtaposed as husband and wife in the Deuteronomy text except that the husband isn't supposed to impregnate the wife with what the pen is in the kind of mixing that inevitably transmits the yetzer hara. The song is never supposed open up the membrane where the string of consonants are found on. The song should never be mixed with the text except in the mind of the reader. The mind of the reader is the only place the song and the written words are authorized to mix.

The scribe is supposed to "mouth" every letter before he writes it. He can do this since he's copying letter-for-letter from a previous copy. And then, when he writes the letters that form a word (according to the chant given as the song שירה) in Deuteronomy 31-33, he's supposed to mouth the word. But he doesn't mouth the word and then begin to write the three or more consonants that form the word. He can only mouth the word once it's written since the halachah is that no letter can be written until the one before it is written, such that there's no written word until it's already written.

R. Judah b. Nahmani the public orator of R. Simeon b. Lakish discoursed as follows: It is written, Write thou these words, and it is written, For according to the mouth of these words. 'What are we to make of this? — It means: The words which are written thou art not at liberty to say by heart, and the words transmitted orally thou art not at liberty to recite from writing. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: [It is written] These: these thou mayest write, but thou mayest not write halachoth [oral Torah]. R. Johanan said: God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that which was transmitted orally, as it says, For by the mouth of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. ​

​

BT, Gittin 60b.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

The simple meaning. Listen to Eve. God is asking what happened? Eve is saying HeeSheeAhni! Hee-Shee, just a subtle shift of the tongue hidden in the mouth made all the difference.

In Elliot K. Ginsburg's commentary on Rabbi Meir ibn Gabbai's Sod Ha-Shabbat, he says: "Although one Rabbinic tradition (recorded in L. Ginzberg, Legends 1:96) states that the snake injected his zohama' into the fruit, other Rabbinic sources speak of his sexual coupling with Eve. This motif is first found in Hellenistic Jewish sources (see Legends 5:123-24 for a list) and is preserved in TB Shab. 146a, Yev. 103b, AZ 22b, et al. In one famous medieval reading, RaSHI (ad Shab. 146a) interprets Eve's plea, `The snake hishi'ani---duped me' as `The snake hissi'ani---married me'! The Edenic sin, in short, was sexual in nature!"

The serpent raped Eve to conceive Cain. And then Eve shared the "fruitfulness" she learned she possessed in her encounter with the spiritual serpent, with Adam's biological serpent, to prove herself Abel to conceive with Adam too.



John

 

[dybmh]

In Elliot K. Ginsburg's commentary on Rabbi Meir ibn Gabbai's Sod Ha-Shabbat, he says: "Although one Rabbinic tradition (recorded in L. Ginzberg, Legends 1:96) states that the snake injected his zohama' into the fruit, other Rabbinic sources speak of his sexual coupling with Eve. this motif is first found in Hellenistic Jewish sources (see Legends 5:123-24 for a list) and is preserved in TB Shab. 146a, Yev. 103b, AZ 22b, et al. In one famous medieval reading, RaSHI (ad Shab. 146a) interprets Eve's plea, `The snake hishi'ani---duped me' as `The snake hissi'ani---married me'! The Edenic sin, in short, was sexual in nature!"

The serpent raped Eve to conceive Cain. And then Eve shared the "fruitfulness" she learned she possessed in her encounter with the spiritual serpent, with Adam's biological serpent, to prove herself Abel to conceive with Adam too.



John

We have talked about this before. What you are describing is not what is written. This is the wiggly-serpentine imaginary version . It is the version which is being influenced by the flesh. I'm not sure why you would choose to listen to the serpent's version, unless you are listening for the purpose to reverse it into something true. You still haven't looked at the actual Hebrew of the prohibition in Gen 2 yet, right? What are you waiting for? I left you a hint. It should be quick and easy.

It's clear in the text that she did not marry the serpent. It speaks to her, rapidly, and poof it's gone. then "When she saw that the tree...". Time had passed. This was not wam-bam-thank-you-ma'am, eve is corrupted, and she goes off with the serpent. And this ignores that Eve actually wasn't fully corrupted, she was legit confused for a few moments, and she never sinned. Neither does Adam.

In order to convert HeeSheeAhni into anything like a marriage, the letters need to be scrambled and reversed. When that is done it is not a marriage. It is an inverted proposal. הִשִּׁיאַנִי compared to נִשּׂוּאִין from the root נשא to lift. In a sneaky inverted warped and corupted way, it tried to carry her away. If it was actually doing it, the word would be written straight! It's not. It's wiggly. If you are choosing to literally read the words backwards, then the meaning MUST be applied in reverse as well. Otherwise, Isaiah 5:20 applies. True is beng flipped into false. If you see something that is false, reversed, warped, etc. That means it is intended to understood as false, reversed, warped, etc. Make sense?

There's nothing at all wrong with seeing the inversion, as long as the inversion is not forgotten. A lot can be learned from the reverse of these stories. But if a person forgets that the reverse is inverted, warped, and false, then the serpent is winning. You have a natural talent for seeing these things. And as I've said, they are deeply spiritual. But HOW they are spiritual is even more important than ID'ing them. If it is corrupt, why are you considering it holy? If it is not written, why are you evalutating its truth as if it is?

The Talmud definitley does NOT claim that it was physical. NOT. There are midrash that do, but that is the opinion of a primitive man, and it is being exaggerated for effect. We've talked about how Cain became infected by this with words, truthful words. And, the there is a lot at stake if this is misunderstood as purely physical. Please. If it is purely physical then the serpent can strike with words, truthful words, with double-meanings and no one would suspect it. Because... well, "it's true so it must be holy". No! It's not that simple. Truth can be warped, inverted, and corrupted in a way that you are not appreciating. On the macro, all propaganda operates this way. On the micro, all advertising operates this way. People can be manipulated to go against their morals, against their values, against their best interests, all using this technique. It is probably the most important concept of occult black magick.

I'm replying out of order, I'll go back and reply to the other post now.

 

[dybmh]

Obviously today's sofer is inscribing the word-breaks and punctuation as dictated by the Masorah,

No. That is not obvious. It doesn't matter the credentials, or heritage of the one who is claiming it. There is NO reason to believe this was the accepted practice. The serpent slurs its words together. That's part of how it tricked Eve.

The oldest version that exists is the DSS. This is from Deuteronomy. I see word breaks. Don't you? The last line is clearest. Maybe some amatuer slurred everything together in some pooly written scroll? I don't know.

He's copying a text that's broken and contaminated by the fact that the oral Torah has already been mixed with the written text against the wishes of the Author who gave both.

Why are you saying this? You agreed with what I wrote before, didn't you? Why have you changed your mind? The scribe says a word, writes a word. Naturally they will have spaces. The oral torah is not being mixed in. The words were heard by God, it said write word 1, write word 2, write word 3, etc... where is the oral torah being mixed in?

The traditional Masorah (describing how the scribe should read the text) was given along with, beside, the text that Moses gave in Deuteronomy 31-33. What's crucially important is that as Rabbi Hirsch teaches (in his Chumash Deuteronomy 31-33), the "song" שירה in the noted passage of Deuteronomy is not fully infused (mixed) with the written text, but is directly associated with it. One is the cipher (the wife), and the other the key to de-ciphering the text (the husband).

Assuming you are rendering this correctly, this would mean that the written words are NOT being mixed with the oral torah. He is confirming that they remained isolated. They were not mixed, but, as you have written they are "directly associated". They are united but not blended. Unity, but not mixed, not converted, not one flowing into another, not one submitting to the other, it is not a dominant masculine/feminine copulation. There is a way for things to be united without it being sexual. There is a higher level to unity. Where both remain distinct, but both are working together. That is Yesod, John. It's teamwork. Is sex a version of teamwork? Yes! But its the fleshy, animalistic, crude version. This is holy, this is pure, this not sex. It's unity.

The scribe was never supposed to do anything but write the text as a string of consonants, a cipher.

No, that is how the serpent speaks. The text says, and you quoted below: Moses came with Joshua son of Nun and spoke all the words.

Words, John. If it were as you are imaging as a cipher, it would be "letters" not words.

Exodus 24:4

ויכתב משה את כל־דברי יהוה וישכם בבקר ויבן מזבח תחת ההר ושתים עשרה מצבה לשנים עשר שבטי ישראל׃

And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Words not letters, not a code for someone to play with.

He was only supposed to copy the unbroken consonants ---letter-by-letter ---as though the entire written Torah was one word, one Name of God. The text was then to be read by cantillation, chanting the text, using the song pretty much as you note below.

It is a name of god. But you're being too literal. Just because it is not a cipher, doesn't mean you cannot have fun with the text. It means you cannot corrupt it, and that is a good thing.

I said "do re me fa so la ti do". not "drmfsltdoeeaoaio". Do you see the code I made? There is NO way a scribe could pronounce a word, then write it in code like that. It would need to be letters pronounced. Not words. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

Moses came with Joshua son of Nun and spoke all the words of this the song in the ears of all the people . . . When Moses finished reciting all these words to all Israel, he said to them, "Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this the Torah."​

​

Deuteronomy 32:44-46.​

In the same narrative Moses speaks of "the song" and the "Torah" almost as though they're the same thing. The song is the chant given when Moses claims he's placing the written Torah with the Ark of the Covenant to curse Israel, he parallels the written Torah given as a curses against Israel with the song rendered as the cantillation, chantillation, if you will (a singing of the oral tradition), that'll be used (just as you note above), in order to punctuate the written text so it's readable. But he does so in a manner that "curses" Israel (Deut. 31:16-26) for the prophesied future breaking of the covenant . Professor Moshe Idel, a scholar/Professor at Hebrew University Jerusalem, says:

A professor cannot be trusted for fidelity. Their desire is to make a discovery. When a person is an academic they hav adopted the academics version of the text. That's how they became a professor. They absorbed the academic ideas and adopted them. They generally, LOVE pagan ideas. Why? Because it's a huge wide open field for making connections and discoveries. Pagan/polytheism is a big pond with lots of fish. All an academic needs to do is put their net in the water for a moment, and they'll catch a bunch of fish to work with.

If we take into consideration that in ancient times the scroll of the Torah was written with consecutive letters not separated into words -- a fact that allows modern scholars of the Bible plenty of room for exegetical imagination -- the later Torah, as it has come down to us, is based on a separation between the words. Thus the ancient manner of writing the text created allowed numerous readings of the same sequence of letters.​

​

Absorbing Perfections, p. 365.​

He is assuming that they were written that way, and he is assuming that this was the intended proper way. Why? he tells you: "that allows modern scholars of the Bible plenty of room for exegetical imagination" IMAGINATION. Didn't I tell you, that the serpent story you're adopting is the imaginary version? Why are you valuing someone's imagination over what is written?

There's a great mystery here since Moses is giving Israel a cantillation, a chant, a song, an oral tradition (Deut. 31-33), which he knows will be used by Israel to breaks up the cipher-text (the written Torah); and he gives them this cursed Masorah (the oral tradition/song) because of a crime they haven't even committed. It's this problematic cursing ---prior to the crime ---that's the key to Israel's defense, salvation, redemption, in a heavenly or earthly court of law.

You're being a considerably literal with this word "song". And none of this is true because Moses wrote the words, not the letters. The text is clear about what was given and what was written.

 

[dybmh]

But this poses a problem: how can one understand Israel's deliverance in Messianic times if these two witnesses are always present to bring accusations against the Jews? That is why Targum Yonasan speaks of a "new heaven" which will be established then and will not be able to bring accusations. Similarly, the prophet Isaiah declares: For behold! I create new heavens and a new earth, so that the former things shall not be remembered, nor come at all to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create. For behold! I create a Jerusalem of rejoicing, and of her people a source of joy! (65:17-18).​

​

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah, Devarim, 32.​

OK. I don't see it as a big issue at all. God is merciful, God forgives. The people repent. They can always return. There's plenty of opportunity. But none of that erases what happens. The desire to erase is coming from a Christian perspective. But as I've been saying, it's a false dilemma.

Rabbi Munk's solution to the two witnesses against Israel (the written text, and the song Moses gives to chantillate it) is a cheap solution: God will simply create a new heaven and earth as though he starts again from scratch. That's not how the Bible works: pure magic, just wipe it away by making a new world. The true solution to the curse is archived in the text itself. It's a new song, not a new heaven and earth. A new song of good news for Israel, not a song of cursing. More importantly it will be used to chantillate the exact same written text, the written Torah, from the same string of consonants, in order to redeem Israel and show who it was who wanted to curse them in the first place, and that (the cursing), for a crime they hadn't even committed when they were given the curse.

Moses explains it simply. Choose life. What was written shows both what to do, and what not to do. It gives positive and negative role models. It gives positive and negative reinforcement. It is inclusive for each and every different type of person.

Doesn't Deut 28 says that bad times will be followed by good times. I'm not sure why this is difficult.

Then there's a complicated answer which agrees with the simple answer.

This is biblical truth. It's true when it's simple, true when it's complex, true in the past, present, and future. True in general, True in particular. No matter deeply a person probes it's true. Even if it's warped and scrambled and read backwards. Those teachings are truly false.

No righteous God will curse a person for a crime he guarantees them they will commit, since if they commit it, they justify him as righteous, but if they don't, they break rank with him therein breaking the very covenant he promises they will break; which is a circular prison-cell Israel can't escape: "But this poses a problem: how can one understand Israel's deliverance in Messianic times if these two witnesses are always present to bring accusations against the Jews"?

No, no, no. John. You are imagining God like a human. God is eternal, none of those before, after, circular, ideas apply to it. And you're not considering all the branches of possiblities that are produced from free-will and chaos. This is a big subject. It's late, I need to go.

In his commentary on the "song" found in Deuteronomy 31-33, Rabbi Hirsch explains that the "song" is spoken of as though it's utterly parallel with the written Torah: "The halachah that the entire Torah is included in this mitzvah, even though the wording of the mitzvah refers only to the שירה, is explained by the Rambam (רהל׳ ספר תורה, 7:1) as follows: לפי שאין כותבין את התורה פרשיות פרשיות. . ." ----The song שירה and the written Law are juxtaposed as husband and wife in the Deuteronomy text except that the husband isn't supposed to impregnate the wife with what the pen is in the kind of mixing that inevitably transmits the yetzer hara. The song is never supposed open up the membrane where the string of consonants are found on. The song should never be mixed with the text except in the mind of the reader. The mind of the reader is the only place the song and the written words are authorized to mix.

I am seeing a slurring of Rabbi-and-John. I cannot see the distinction and that distinction needs to be maintiained. I'll spend ime with this over the next day. I have Rabbi Hirsch's commentary on the bookshelf.

The scribe is supposed to "mouth" every letter before he writes it. He can do this since he's copying letter-for-letter from a previous copy. And then, when he writes the letters that form a word (according to the chant given as the song שירה) in Deuteronomy 31-33, he's supposed to mouth the word. But he doesn't mouth the word and then begin to write the three or more consonants that form the word. He can only mouth the word once it's written since the halachah is that no letter can be written until the one before it is written, such that there's no written word until it's already written.

Great! So why are you imagining all the words slurred to together, and the vowels being some corruption that was added, and that the oral torah is blendd in when everything that is being presented says otherwise?

R. Judah b. Nahmani the public orator of R. Simeon b. Lakish discoursed as follows: It is written, Write thou these words, and it is written, For according to the mouth of these words. 'What are we to make of this? — It means: The words which are written thou art not at liberty to say by heart, and the words transmitted orally thou art not at liberty to recite from writing. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: [It is written] These: these thou mayest write, but thou mayest not write halachoth [oral Torah]. R. Johanan said: God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that which was transmitted orally, as it says, For by the mouth of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. ​

Great! The oral tradition remained distinct, but it was completely united with the written Torah, simultaneaously. What's wrong with that?

 

[John D. Brey]

We have talked about this before. What you are describing is not what is written. This is the wiggly-serpentine imaginary version . It is the version which is being influenced by the flesh. I'm not sure why you would choose to listen to the serpent's version, unless you are listening for the purpose to reverse it into something true. You still haven't looked at the actual Hebrew of the prohibition in Gen 2 yet, right? What are you waiting for? I left you a hint. It should be quick and easy.

It's clear in the text that she did not marry the serpent. It speaks to her, rapidly, and poof it's gone. then "When she saw that the tree...". Time had passed. This was not wam-bam-thank-you-ma'am, eve is corrupted, and she goes off with the serpent. And this ignores that Eve actually wasn't fully corrupted, she was legit confused for a few moments, and she never sinned. Neither does Adam.

In order to convert HeeSheeAhni into anything like a marriage, the letters need to be scrambled and reversed. When that is done it is not a marriage. It is an inverted proposal. הִשִּׁיאַנִי compared to נִשּׂוּאִין from the root נשא to lift. In a sneaky inverted warped and corupted way, it tried to carry her away. If it was actually doing it, the word would be written straight! It's not. It's wiggly. If you are choosing to literally read the words backwards, then the meaning MUST be applied in reverse as well. Otherwise, Isaiah 5:20 applies. True is beng flipped into false. If you see something that is false, reversed, warped, etc. That means it is intended to understood as false, reversed, warped, etc. Make sense?

There's nothing at all wrong with seeing the inversion, as long as the inversion is not forgotten. A lot can be learned from the reverse of these stories. But if a person forgets that the reverse is inverted, warped, and false, then the serpent is winning. You have a natural talent for seeing these things. And as I've said, they are deeply spiritual. But HOW they are spiritual is even more important than ID'ing them. If it is corrupt, why are you considering it holy? If it is not written, why are you evalutating its truth as if it is?

The Talmud definitley does NOT claim that it was physical. NOT. There are midrash that do, but that is the opinion of a primitive man, and it is being exaggerated for effect. We've talked about how Cain became infected by this with words, truthful words. And, the there is a lot at stake if this is misunderstood as purely physical. Please. If it is purely physical then the serpent can strike with words, truthful words, with double-meanings and no one would suspect it. Because... well, "it's true so it must be holy". No! It's not that simple. Truth can be warped, inverted, and corrupted in a way that you are not appreciating. On the macro, all propaganda operates this way. On the micro, all advertising operates this way. People can be manipulated to go against their morals, against their values, against their best interests, all using this technique. It is probably the most important concept of occult black magick.

I'm replying out of order, I'll go back and reply to the other post now.

Your point, as I'm reading it, seems to justify a Christian concept that seems harder to fit into a Jewish context, i.e., the possibility that there's something amiss in the identity of the "OT" god. Is the serpent's speech "true"? Or is it true in a sense, but we must, as you imply, remember it's an inverted sort of truth?

In some Christian contexts (and ironically the Zohar too), the same question applies not only to the serpent, but to the angel of the Lord who is the guardian of Israel. The first of the tablets of the Law given to Moses are given by an angel acting as some kind of agent for God. This would be similar to the serpent in the garden acting as an agent for God (knowingly or otherwise) such that his actions (the serpent and the amanuensis writing God's Laws on the first tablets) are almost like a Gestalt-mechanism whereby the reader should beware or be-aware.

Rabbi Hirsch claims that it goes against Jewish sensibilities to believe that the Law is given to Israel through a mediator. But in the narrative of the giving of the Law, and according to the NT, it appears to be an angel writing on and giving Moses the first set of tablets. He breaks them (bravo!) and writes the second set with his own hand (apparently?). There's lots of midrashim implying the second set of tablets say something different than the first (the first being before Israel's original sin, the golden calf, and the second being a product related to coming after the golden calf fiasco).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

No. That is not obvious. It doesn't matter the credentials, or heritage of the one who is claiming it. There is NO reason to believe this was the accepted practice. The serpent slurs its words together. That's part of how it tricked Eve.

The oldest version that exists is the DSS. This is from Deuteronomy. I see word breaks. Don't you? The last line is clearest. Maybe some amatuer slurred everything together in some pooly written scroll? I don't know.

View attachment 79503

We seem to be talking about different things. I'm talking about the signature text written by Moses in Deuteronomy chapters 31-33. I'm not talking about the oldest example we have of a quasi-contemporary scroll. It's obvious that the oldest example we have is a product whereby the two elements of Moses' Torah ---the song, and the text ----have been, against Moses' wishes and command, combined ---improperly mixed ---so that the oldest text we have has the word-breaks associated with the song of Moses being used as the cantillation to determine the tone and flavor (word breaks, punctuation, reading) of the written text (and that on the written text itself).

He's copying a text that's broken and contaminated by the fact that the oral Torah has already been mixed with the written text against the wishes of the Author who gave both.

Why are you saying this? You agreed with what I wrote before, didn't you? Why have you changed your mind? The scribe says a word, writes a word. Naturally they will have spaces. The oral torah is not being mixed in. The words were heard by God, it said write word 1, write word 2, write word 3, etc... where is the oral torah being mixed in?

Assuming you are rendering this correctly, this would mean that the written words are NOT being mixed with the oral torah. He is confirming that they remained isolated. They were not mixed, but, as you have written they are "directly associated". They are united but not blended. Unity, but not mixed, not converted, not one flowing into another, not one submitting to the other, it is not a dominant masculine/feminine copulation. There is a way for things to be united without it being sexual. There is a higher level to unity. Where both remain distinct, but both are working together. That is Yesod, John. It's teamwork. Is sex a version of teamwork? Yes! But its the fleshy, animalistic, crude version. This is holy, this is pure, this not sex. It's unity.

Right. We're in agreement. Gittin 60b (with Orach Chayim 32) nails down the crux of it (so to say). Rabbi Hirsch says:

No letter may be written if the letter preceding it in the Torah has not been written. So too, no passage may be written if the passage preceding it in the Torah has not be written. . . Also, no letter of the Torah may be written from memory; rather, the scribe must copy from a copy that lies before him.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Devarim 6:9.​

If we take the lawfulness of what Rabbi Hirsch is pointing out, which is true to Gitten 60b (and also Orach Chayim 32), we can use simple and factual logic to form an interesting syllogism since we know that the oral Law can't be written, and the written law can't be memorized. We're told that the written Law is to help with the memory of the unwritten oral Law ---the latter (oral Law) is forbidden to be used to help remember the written Law, such that we must have a previous copy of the written Law, so that we're not relying on memory ---related to the oral Law ---to know how the written text is formed.

Ergo, every letter of the written Law must be seen in an extant copy of the written text, and then transferred to the new copy of the written text. The nature of this scribal process has zero reference to words, phrases, sentences, meanings of words, since the latter (words, phrases, sentences, meaning) are exclusively the domain of the oral, memorized, unwritten, Law. This being the case, the writing of the written text is a cipher process whereby the sofer/scribe isn't allowed to refer to memory, words, sentences, meaning. The latter are all exclusively the domain of the oral Torah such that simply logic makes it clear that the transfer-mechanism is free of word, sentence, meaning, and is thus exclusively the production/transmission of a cipher that's the servant/wife of the "meaning" only ever found in the oral Torah.

Once we understand these rules, it's clear as day that the written text is nothing but a cipher, a body, home, temple, where the true covenant between Israel and God, the oral Law, is archived in such a manner that it acts as a fence, a guard post שמר, to protect the oral Torah from either memory loss, or something more sinister, i.e., someone thinking that the vineyard of the oral Law (since it's merely in memory) can be re-membered in a manner that serves the memorizer but not necessarily the giver of the oral Law. If the oral Law, archived only in memory, is the sole way the cipher can be turned into words, sentences, meaning (and according to Gitten 60b and Orach Chayim 32, as well as Rabbi Hirsch, that's the case), then it doesn't take a genius mentality like the angel of the Lord, or the serpent in the garden, to realize that the Word of God is vulnerable to the minds and memories of those where the oral Torah is archived.

The rules related in Gitten 60 b, et. al., make the written text (the wife) so subordinate to the oral Torah (the husband), that by the rules of Torah transmission, the written text must always obediently spread it's legs and let the husband, the spirit, the male (able to write and speak Torah) do all the impregnation through which transmission, the mission of Israel, can occur, such that should an evil thought enter into the mind of the male (Isa. 14:14) he can transmit that yetzer hara to the female, the written text, without the written text having a say so so to say since in this kind of transmission the ovum, the cipher, is udderly dependent on the male to determine when, where, and how, transmission occurs. Which is a long-winded way to point out that the rules of Gitten 60b and Orach Chayim leave the written consonants completely subordinate to the oral Torah where all "meaning" resides.

Where these concepts are appreciated, and they truly are syllogistic (meaning that sound logic supports each element of the development), the relationship between the written text and the oral Torah is a spiritual version of Eve and Adam. Originally they're supposed to transmit their immortality to their offspring (holy transmission) without the yetzer hara, but after "improperly" mixing the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge, the yetzer hara is passed inevitably to all their offspring such that all of them, the parents and their offspring, are removed from the garden of immortality ---where the kingdom of God was supposed to blossom and bloom ---to await a messianic-age when redemption from the original sin will be freely given.

. . . Btw, fwiw, a thought hit me while I was writing the above. If the written text is like Eve, and the oral Torah like Adam, then the written text naturally has a fixed number of consonants, while the oral Torah is basically infinite since the male can produce millions of his kind of seed (and the memory isn't fixed). So I think to myself, if the biology matches the theology, the written Torah should have a similar number of consonants to the number of eggs a woman will produce in her life-time. So I do a quick check and the first place I come to says a woman produces 300,000 to 600,000 eggs over her mature (after she menstruates) lifetime. The first place I check on the number of consonants in the Pentateuch says the author was originally made to believe there were 600,000 while today they say there are actually closer to 300,000. . . . Interesting simultaneity.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

What you're missing is... there's nothing hidden in ב–ראש–ית. Rosh is the beginning. B'reisheet is the beginning. Nothing is being added. There's nothing new being brought. There's no great mystery being revealed. They mean the same thing. And if you keep unpacking the russian dolls, you end up with aleph. Aleph is the beginning. So... as they say... "all sources point to this being the beginning". Which is a "duh" not an "aha!" It's the first word.

Actually, there is something hidden in בראשית. The rosh ראש is hidden in the beit בית, and the alef א is hidden in the rosh ראש.

א
ר–ש
ב–ר–ש–ית​

Do you see what this pyramid-looking evolution implies? I.e., that what's alleged to be the first word in the written Torah (according to the Masoretic tradition of decipher the text), beresheet בראשית, is a string of consonants that have emanated from the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet ---the alef. The alef is thus the "shetiya stone" the stone of emanation, from whence the written Torah "emanates." The first two letters to emanate from the alef are the reish and the shin, implying, though it's hidden in the traditional reading, that the first word in the Torah is "first" or "rosh," or "head." At this stage of the emanation the letters emanating from the alef form the word "rosh" ר–א–ש. So at this point of the emanation, the first Word, i.e., "rosh" (or "head") is invisible. It's with the alef, and the alef is with it, so that we could say with some factual precision that in the "beginning" בראשית was the first Word (ראש) and that the Word (ראש) was with God (א) (and God was with it) such that at this point in the emanation the Word is God in his pre-manifest schematic form.

Rabbi Hoshaiah Rabbah said (Proverbs 8:30): "I was with him as a master craftsman, and I was his delight day by day." "Master craftsman" means "pedagogue", "covered" means "faithful", "modest" means "subdued", and some say "great pedagogue.". . "Another thing I say, O artist: The Torah says, 'I was the tool of His (God's) artistry,' referring to the fact that the King of Flesh and Blood who builds palaces in this world, does not do so from his own knowledge, but from the knowledge of an artist. And the artist himself does not create from his own knowledge, but rather from his tools and implements, in order to know how to make rooms and carve designs. Similarly, God looked into the Torah and created the world. And the Torah says, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' And there is no beginning except for the Torah. As it says, 'The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way.'" (Proverbs 8:22)​

​

Midrash Rabbah Beresheet, 1:1 (bold emphasis mine).​

The oral Torah, as the "rosh" ראש indwelt by Ein Sof (ר–א–ש), pre-exists the existence of the existing Torah, the visible Torah, the written Torah, where the first word written is beresheet ("in the beginning"). The oral Torah is before the beginning of the written, visible, Torah (there's no "beginning" without the pre-existence that is the oral Torah). The invisible "head" ראש (which represents the oral Torah) exists before the visible beginning, the written Torah, which "written Torah" begins with the word written "beginning" (beresheet בראשית). The alef represents Ein Sof ---the invisible, unknowable God behind it all. The "rosh" (which emanates from Ein Sof) represents the oral Torah, the tool, organ, personage, Word, whatever, through which God creates all that is later see-able, writable, seen (the written Torah). -----"Rosh" is the head, the invisible oral Torah, which is the mediator between Ein Sof and all that becomes visible through further emanation. The "beit" in בראשית --- that is the word "beit" ----which forms the womb for the "head" or "rosh" ----- is the house of beginning בראשית. The word "beresheet" is the temple from whence the oral Torah will eventually be born into the world it has made through and beyond the temple such that we should underline the fact that the rosh, or head, comes, chronologically, logically, theologically, before the first written word, which houses it, so that we can say in all factuality that the oral Torah is hidden in the beginning of the written Torah. So yes. Something is hidden in the word "beginning" that begins the written Torah: the Word, the oral Torah, the organ through which God thought the written text before it was written.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.​

​

John 1:1.​

John

 

[dybmh]

@John D. Brey ,

I'll try to reply to your posts later tonight or tomorrow

 

[dybmh]

Your point, as I'm reading it, seems to justify a Christian concept that seems harder to fit into a Jewish context, i.e., the possibility that there's something amiss in the identity of the "OT" god. Is the serpent's speech "true"? Or is it true in a sense, but we must, as you imply, remember it's an inverted sort of truth?

No. There's no possibility that the ID of the "OT" god is amiss. Any example of twisty-interpretations need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In this case, there is no way it was intended to be a physical encounter for the reasons I previous had given. It's a better story without it. The theme is carried through to the next chapters. And all the elements of the story fit perfectly, cinderella fit, with an intellectual spoken word deception. The manner of the con is laid out. Eve's confusion is justified. She needs to the eat the fruit to figure out waht do next. The confession is perfect and matches the story ideally.

Specifically about the serpent, and what it said. we can talk about it if you want. IF, you'd do me a favor and do a word for word translation OF the commandment given at Gen 2:17. The important word I'm thinking OF has it's own entry on sefaria in the exact form that is in the verse. Then maybe, maybe read the confession when God asks Adam what happened. Then you'll see for sure that neither Adam nor Eve sinned.

No letter may be written if the letter preceding it in the Torah has not been written. So too, no passage may be written if the passage preceding it in the Torah has not be written. . . Also, no letter of the Torah may be written from memory; rather, the scribe must copy from a copy that lies before him.

The important thing here is, it doesn't say anything about not copying words. Let me repeat it doesn't say "don't write words". It's just saying, "not a single letter should be written from memory." I talk like this sometimes. Not even an iota should be written from memory. Not even a single drop of envy should be included in my relationships.. etc.

And there is still no reason to think that the original copy from God on sinai did not have spaces. None. BTW the screenshot of the DSS passage. I'm pretty sure that's chapter 32. So it's the one your focused on.

Once we understand these rules, it's clear as day that the written text is nothing but a cipher, a body, home, temple,

Not if the words were recited before they were copied. They spoke them outloud verbally. There is no mangling the interpretation after the fact, because the words. the sounds. the vowels. were spoken. out loud. from the very beginning. the word breaks. were spoken. out loud. from the. very beginning. the word breaks. were included. in the text. from the very beginning.

There is no reason to believe otherwise. it was never copied letter to letter.

make the written text (the wife) so subordinate to the oral Torah (the husband)

nope. sorry. not jewish. that's not intended. that's JohnDBreyism. I already tried to tell you. There is a form of unity which is not copulation, where two things can work together as a team, but one does not dominate the other. It is a much higher and holier form of unity. It is not one entering the other. Sorry. That's what dogs and cats and animals do. That is not what holy pure divine revelations do.

Is this somehow connected to John 1?

Originally they're supposed to transmit their immortality to their offspring (holy transmission) without the yetzer hara, but after "improperly" mixing the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge, the yetzer hara is passed inevitably to all their offspring such that all of them, the parents and their offspring, are removed from the garden of immortality ---where the kingdom of God was supposed to blossom and bloom ---to await a messianic-age when redemption from the original sin will be freely given.

I have a completely different take on the story. 100% different. I have an entirely different theology than this. I barely no where to begin with this. There is no "they were supposed to but they..." Not even close. God had it all planned. They needed to eat from tree. Its the last chapter in creation. It dovetails into Chapter 1. After they ate and left the garden... THEN God sees it is very good, and rests on the 7th day. The physical world could not be produced until the serpent is cursed. It was God's intention all along to trap the serpent, the k'lipah, which was needed for everything to exist in the material world. And that is the "flesh" of the world. The vessels for everything come from this k'lipah, from the serpent. it obscures everything. All of science comes from it. That's why so many cultures think it's wise. And the serpent is the symbol for medicine. The serpent was known to be magical, and the symbol of knowledge. It is completely governed by laws, completely predictable, and completely obscures evidence of God which is everywhere and in everything. People have been entranced by its beauty and mystery and power since the dawn of creation. But it is off limits. It has a job to do.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361900/jewish/Kelipot-and-Sitra-Achra.htm

Actually, there is something hidden in בראשית. The rosh ראש is hidden in the beit בית, and the alef א is hidden in the rosh ראש.

But all three mean the same thing. So nothing is hidden. It's the same thing repeated. Nothing new is revealed from unpacking the russian dolls. It's all the same doll. No need to unpack them.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

The most important part is at the end. The two are completely united in the beginning to the point where they are indistinguishable. That is before there were any motives, any desire to express any divine will. They are like the potential ideas you will have tomorrow. They're so mixed and integrated with your brain, that thay ARE your brain. And your brain ARE those potential ideas.

Maybe try and settle on that for a bit? Your potential ideas ARE your brain. And Your brain ARE your potential ideas.

John 1 is before anything happened yet.

fast forward to sinai, there is no written text being dominted by the oral tradition. The dominator is the will of God. That's it. Just 1 divine power. There is nothing Jewish about making the oral torah into a god which dominates the written text.

and I still don't see anything special about calling the chapters 31-33 a "song" in dueteronomy or pretending that the melody is a curse.

 

[John D. Brey]

I have a completely different take on the story. 100% different. I have an entirely different theology than this. I barely no where to begin with this.

Why not begin with the question of where you got your theology? What convinced you it was the truth? What confirmed for you it was the truth?



John

 

[dybmh]

Why not begin with the question of where you got your theology? What convinced you it was the truth? What confirmed for you it was the truth?



John

My theology is Deuteronomy 6:4 **in Hebrew**. It is confirmed the same way anyone confirms anything. Observation, test, review, counter-test, review, repeat.

 

[dybmh]

pretending that the melody is a curse.

@John D. Brey Is this idea that the melody is a curse, and that the vowels are evil, some sort of ... I don't know how to say this... some sort of way of i don't know, justifying that Christians, like yourself, don't propoerly know how to pronounce or read Hebrew? Or maybe discouraging Chrstians from reading the text in Hebrew?

Is it just Galatians 3:13? And a way to confirm that the author of galatians was full of something holy and true? if the text IS literally a curse, then Galatians is "proven", in-quotes, to be coming from a divine true source? And then, if so, the whole Torah can be reverse engineered, per , forgive me, your desires?

 

[John D. Brey]

There were spaces in the text that was written. Spaces weren't added. The way the scribes do their work is verbally pronouncing each word before it is written. No vowels were added. The vowels which were pronoucned were written down. But because the words were spoken, the words had vowels from the beginning until now.

You've moved on to some interesting stuff. . . But I'm backtracking a bit since everything in this thread (so far as my argument is concerned) stands or falls with the nature and relationship between the written Torah versus the Oral Torah. You say spaces weren't added, Ramban says they were. You imply the vowels were pronounced before the words were written down. But there's rhyme and reason to believe that's not the case since Gittin 60b says its forbidden to memorize the written Torah (it must be written from an existing text) such that it would difficult to pronounce a word without accessing the memory --related to the oral Torah (which is where the pronunciation is archived). Is "אדם" pronounced "Edom," or "Adam"? The answer to that question is related to the oral Torah, i.e., memory of pronounciation, such that it can't be used to write the written Torah (and the Masoretic punctuation ---which placed the pronunciation right on the written Torah ---clearly didn't preexist the Masoretic text which didn't exist prior to 700 CE).

The oldest complete, or nearly so, codex of the Masoretic Text is Codex Leningrad pictured below (and here on Sefaria). If someone magnifies the image they can see that there are no word breaks. On the first sentence it appears the Masoretes placed a circle after the word "beresheet" and after "bara." Scholars claim dots were used before actual word-breaks were added to the consonantal text. The dots on the codex could also be cantillation marks performing the same thing: marking where a word or idea stops and another starts. In effect, this early Masoretic codex appears to show that though the Masoretes were willing to write their punctuation right on the page of the sacred text, they weren't yet willing to trifle with the sacred string of consonants that had been around, and had been copied, thousands of times for thousands of years prior to placing the memorized tradition for how the text is read right on the written text.

A study of the evolution of the texts, such as is found here, states that:

The Biblical text in the Leningrad Codex is divided into at least three separate strands, including consonants, vowels and accents. Originally, each strand was transmitted separately and only the consonants of each word were actually written on the parchment.​

​

From the evidence of the available documents, we know that the Jewish community preserved that consonants-only text virtually flawlessly for more than a thousand years. However, reading a text consisting of only consonants is harder than it might sound. Consider the Hebrew word shalom (peace, wholeness) which is represented by the three letters sh-l-m (the Hebrew alphabet has a single letter in place of our “sh” sound). These letters, without the help of vowels and other distinguishing marks, could be read as shalom(peace), or shalem (complete), or shillem (he recompensed), or shullam (it was repaid).​

A scribe/sofer must write a shin ש, then a lamed ל, then a mem ם. But without punctuation, without referring to memory, he can't know if he's just written Shalom, Shalem, Shillem, or Shullam? And he can't refer to the Masoretic punctuation (originally it didn't exist) to reveal the traditional reading since that's the oral Law and can be archived only in memory. The scribe is not allowed to use memory in writing the written text (he must refer to a previously written text) such that prior to the development of the Masoretic punctuation it would be impossible for a scribe to pronounce a word before or after he'd written it without referring to memory to tell him whether he is going to write, or just wrote Shalom, Shalem, Shillem, or Shullam.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I feel like we've discussed all of this before. There were spaces in the text that was written. Spaces weren't added.

It would appear that the Torah “written with letters of black fire upon a background of white fire” was in this form we have mentioned, namely, that the writing was contiguous, without break of words, which made it possible for it to be read by way of Divine Names and also by way of our normal reading which makes explicit the Torah and the commandment. It was given to Moses our teacher using the division of words which expresses the commandment, and orally it was transmitted to him in the rendition which consists of the Divine Names. . . the whole Torah is comprised of Names of the Holy One, blessed be He, and that the letters of the words separate themselves into Divine Names when divided in a different manner, as you may imagine by way of example that the verse of Bere****h divides itself into these other words: berosh yithbare Elokim.​

​

Ramban, Foreword to his commentary on Genesis (statement quoted after ellipsis is before ellipsis in Ramban's foreword).​

John

 

[dybmh]

Ramban says they were.

That's the Torah as it existed in heaven before it was brought down. And, I expect that any interpretation Ramban brings from contemplating the Torah in heaven would be 100% consistent with the plain meaning, just as Rabbi Abulafia describes. Again, the serpent is avoided.

Gittin 60b says its forbidden to memorize the written Torah

No. It says it cannot be written from memory. That doesn't mean they don't know or remember how the word is pronounced.

Sadly, I do not have the quadratic equation memorized anymore. But if someone put it in front of me, I would know what its elements meant, and with a written copy in front of me I could teach it accurately.

I do have memorized: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But If I try to write it from memory, I might type out: B'reisheet bara elokim hashamyim v'ha'aretz. And that is 100% wrong. That is why it is not written from memory.

Is "אדם" pronounced "Edom," or "Adam"?

context can be memorized, the story can be memorized, the words can be memorized, but a scribe is required to have a written text to copy from to gaurantee nothing is added or removed. The word was pronounced Ahdahm to Moses, it was taught as Ahdahm to the scribe. Everytime the story is discussed it is Ahdahm.

Ehdohm is a completely different word. Pay attention to what is happening physically in the mouth when the two words are produced. Ahdahm compared to Ehdohm.

Did you know that Rabbi Abulafia taught these lessons himself? The signficance of proper pronounciation? He would not want you to pronounce the letter yud/yuhd as yod/yohd. Those are two totally different words with two totally different spiritual qualities.

memory of pronounciation, such that it can't be used to write the written Torah

That is not what the rule says. Adding restrictions that do not exist, like a rule that a priest must be chaste, can cause all sorts of problems resulting in ... well... you know what resulted.

And. without the oral torah being memorized, there are no grammer rules, there is no alphabet, there is no way to interpret the text in any way. If a prohibtion on memorization is applied in the way you are describing, the scribe is prohibited from knowing the difference between Adam and Edom, then the scribe would be a lawless individual, with no sense of self or their heritage. They would know nothing, they would never keep kosher. They wouldn't even know the days of the week.

Again, this is knowingly or unknowingly, reverse engineering the Torah using the model of a holy spirit possessing the scribe such that the scribe is an empty puppet, whom you seem to consider a female, and the holy spirit is a man, copulating with the empty vessel.

The scribe is not an empty vessel. They know right from wrong. They have been taught what it is. They know the word is Adam when it is Adam. They know the word is Edom when it is Edom. But! because they have a copy in front of them, they won't leave out the *ET* in Et-HaShamyim v'Et-Ha'Aretz. AND they won't flip-flop Ha-Aretz with Ha-Shamyim and mess up the word order. Some people might think, Heaven-Earth, Earth-Heaven, same-difference. No! Not same-difference. "same-difference" is what the serpent says! "same-difference" is Isaiah 5:20! Having that word order correct is vital! It communicates something beyond important about God's absolute eternity. Mess that up, and that beautiful teaching is lost.

codex of the Masoretic Text is Codex Leningrad

a text from 1000CE does not overule the text I brought from 100BCE.

Doing the tiniest bit of research, I found this. It's only 3 pages. Super short read. Not sure if you're familiar with Jstor. It's a great resource. There is no paywall, even though it looks like it. When you click the login button, scroll down and look for the "login with google" button. Anyone with a google account can read 100 articles a month. ( If you don't have an google account, let me know, I'll figure out a way to get you the text. Here's the guts of it: Word divisions were included from the very beginning.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27925416

this early Masoretic codex appears to show that though the Masoretes were willing to write their punctuation right on the page of the sacred text, they weren't yet willing to trifle with the sacred string of consonants that had been around, and had been copied, thousands of times for thousands of years prior to placing the memorized tradition for how the text is read right on the written text.

Respectfully. What you're doing here is choosing what you want to be holy, and flagging it as holy, and choosing what you think is profane and making it profane. When I look at the picture you posted, I don't know precisely why there are no spaces in it. But if you are going to consider the "lack of spaces" authoritative, then you need to consider the vowels authorititative. Otherwise, the authority IS YOU. If so, then , forgive me, you are not making yourself into the vessel that I think you desire to be.

A scribe/sofer must write a shin ש, then a lamed ל, then a mem ם. But without punctuation, without referring to memory, he can't know if he's just written Shalom, Shalem, Shillem, or Shullam?

the scribe is referring to memory. they speak the language. they were taught the language. they know the story. they were taught the story. the language was spoken to moses by God. Gods words, with word breaks were spoken. Moses writes those words.

e=mc^2

anytime you write it you know what it is from memory

anytime you see it you know what it is from memory

they're looking at the text to make sure that no dot or tittle is added or removed as Jesus spoke about. that's it.

There's something important that needs to be said. Judaism is not like the other religions, John. Eventhough there is a singularity that can be observed in many many of the others, it's true. And there are many common elements in Chrstianity, that's also true. But the connection you're seeming to want to introduce into Judaism is a form of shamanism. Spirit channeling. People did it in various ways. The earliest forms were without writing. But there's also "spirit writing". Judaism doesn't do those things. Christianity does. So does satanism. So do almost all "spiritual" traditions and practices. Christianity, in my opinion, when it works, it does it in a (somewhat) healthy positive way. Although it doesn't seem to teach about the dangers and paradoxes that are inherent in the practice.

It is almost undeniable that Christianity incorporates other religious practices and ideas. Not necesariy in a bad way, or in an "unholy" way. It just is. And honestly. I think IT'S GOOD. It's inclusive! Not perfect. But still good. Just like anything, as long as it is not applied in the extreme.

Because so so many other religions do these things, and if a person is sensitive to spiritual content, like I think you are, there is going to be pressure to apply those practices onto Judaism because, the sensitive person sees it with their own eyes, and feels it in their own heart. "everyone else was doing it that way at that time and around the globe" AND/OR "my religion is doing it that way, and I want Judaism to be like my religion." AND/OR "My religion does it that way and it IS True Judaism." But Judaism is, and always will be, the outlier. We don't do what the others do. It drives people crazy. It even drives our own people crazy.

So, please, don't take what you find in your religion, and perhaps what you see in others: the way they and you commune with a holy spirit, and the way that they and you intend to produce scripture, and apply that to the way that Judaism connects with God and the way that Judaism produces scripture. Even if you see it reflected repeatedly in other places, that does not mean that is what Judaism does. Actually, if you see something reflected repeatedly by other religions, it's almost gauranteed Judaism doesn't do it that way.

All of that said: When you begin to engage with Jewish mysticsm, as I know you have done, this is a school of thought that explains the mechanations ( for lack of a better word ) of the divine realms which produce all of those other practices and religions including Judaism. That means a person can and will find support for whatever they want in it. But! What is being described and taught in Jewish mysticsm is not material. It is before material. All of those teachings are "heavenly" teachings. In order to apply those in the here-and-now, the "earthy" aspects of here-and-now need to be reapplied to the teaching. All of those teachings need an anchor! Otherwise they're a reflection of the individual's desire. They will see what ever they want to see in it. (Newton's black mirror) Reflection. Desire. These are vital concepts to understand if a person is engaging with Jewish mysticsm.

So, Ramban, is talking about what is happening with a heavenly torah. When he applies that idea, he syncs it with what is brought in the earthy torah. Same with Rabbi Abulafia. Same with all of the great Jewish thinkers. Why? Because they are on earth, that is where God put them. If God wanted them to float around in heaven reading the torah upside-down-backwards-and-scrambled, God would have put them in heaven and given them a heavenly torah to read in what ever manner they chose per their desire. That's not what happened. God's will for Ramban and all the others and the Jewish people is to read, learn, and study the Torah as it was brought down to Moses and carefully, meticulously preseved, ( Thank-you God ) for all of these years.

This husband/wife copulation model you are imagining between verbal/written torah is not jewish. The "scholars" wolfson, boyarin, scholem, idel, whomever, they are finding what they desire in jewish mysticsm and so are you. It's fine. Be free. But that doesn't make it Jewish. And I know that produces a conflict with who and what Jesus and Christianity actually are. They want to be identified as "True Judaism". And the adherent likes that idea. But... things aren't so black-and-white.

 

[dybmh]

It would appear that the Torah “written with letters of black fire upon a background of white fire” was in this form we have mentioned, namely, that the writing was contiguous, without break of words, which made it possible for it to be read by way of Divine Names and also by way of our normal reading which makes explicit the Torah and the commandment. It was given to Moses our teacher using the division of words which expresses the commandment, and orally it was transmitted to him in the rendition which consists of the Divine Names. . . the whole Torah is comprised of Names of the Holy One, blessed be He, and that the letters of the words separate themselves into Divine Names when divided in a different manner, as you may imagine by way of example that the verse of Bere****h divides itself into these other words: berosh yithbare Elokim.​

​

Ramban, Foreword to his commentary on Genesis (statement quoted after ellipsis is before ellipsis in Ramban's foreword).​

John

Confirmed! as I said. That is the heavenly torah. That is different! You are not reading the heavenly torah here on earth. conflating the two is an error.

 

[dybmh]

It was given to Moses our teacher using the division of words

John, read what Ramban is actually saying ^^^^