Bereishit Rabba 49 Supplementary Texts Use with https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/551132

Chabad

There is an ancient and widespread custom that when the name of Haman is mentioned during the Megillah reading on Purim, the congregation (especially the children) spin gragers (ratchets), bang, shout, stamp their feet and generally make a ruckus.

This custom is recorded in the writings of the Rabbi David Abudraham (14th century, Spain), who writes that there had been an earlier custom for children to draw a picture or write the name of Haman on wood or stones and then bang them together to “erase” Haman’s representation. This is in line with the verse, “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven”1 since Haman was a descendant of Amalek. This custom, he writes, later evolved into the practice of banging and making noise when the name of Haman is read.2 Today, this is often accomplished by spinning gragers.

Some have discouraged this custom,3 but both Rabbi Yosef Caro4 and Rabbi Moses Isserles5 reference it and add that “one should not nullify any custom or belittle it” as there is meaning behind the custom.

Although the basic reason for making noise stems from blotting out the name of Haman, there are additional meanings behind the custom as well:

Harbuna, described in the illustrated scroll of Esther from the city of Ferrara , 1617 . From the collections of the National Library

https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/infinitive_absolute.html

Infinitive Absolute¶

Summary¶

The infinitive absolute is an extremely flexible non-finite verbal form and can function as an adverb, a finite verb, a verbal complement, or a noun. Its most common use is to express intensity or certainty of verbal action.

Article¶

Of all the verbal conjugations in Biblical Hebrew, the Infinitive Absolute is the simplest in form but the most complex in function, demanding the most sensitivity to its context to determine its meaning. The Infinitive Absolute is described as being in the absolute state because it stands on its own as an independent grammatical entity. The form can appear with the conjunction, but it never occurs in any other kind of construction with a prefix or suffix, an attached preposition, or with a noun in a construct chain. The Infinitive Absolute generally has only one form in each stem formation (Qal, Niphal, Piel, etc.), and it does not conjugate according to person, gender, or number like the finite verb forms. Grammatically, the Infinitive Absolute is considered a non-finite verbal form but can function as an adverb, a finite main verb, a verbal complement, or even as a noun. The context must be carefully investigated to discern the precise meaning of an infinitive absolute in each instance.

Expresses intensity or certainty of verbal action¶

In most cases, the Infinitive Absolute is paired with a finite verb of the same root. When used in this way, the infinitive absolute functions adverbially, either certifying or intensifying the action of the main verb, depending on the context. Normally an infinitive absolute precedes the main verb, except with Imperative verbs and with participles; in those cases, an infinitive absolute follows.

The following example shows an infinitive absolute expressing intensity of action.

Functions as a finite main verb¶

The Infinitive Absolute often substitutes for a finite verb. In these cases, an infinitive absolute can carry an emotive sense and should be treated with great sensitivity to the context for precise nuance of meaning. The examples listed below are not comprehensive, but only provide a sampling of potential options for the exact meaning.

Shabbat is a day set apart by Jewish law from the working week. Family time and spiritual pursuits are emphasised and weekday activities associated with work are prohibited.

The Torah prohibits one from transferring an object from a private domain/zone to public domain/zone or vice versa on Shabbat. This prohibition is commonly referred to as carrying. Public and private domains/zones are not defined by their usage or ownership; rather it refers to all areas whether public or private that are/nt surrounded by valid boundaries or enclosure.

An Eruv is a boundary or enclosure recognised by Jewish law, within which carrying is permitted.

In reality most publicly accessible areas are not enclosed. It therefore is essential for the area to be adequately enclosed thereby rendering it a single private domain/zone in which carrying is permitted.

Many of the laws of Eruvin concern the condition and methods of creating this enclosure which can be either actual partitions or the Halachic equivalent.

There are very specific guidelines for these partitions including size and strength requirements. Additionally there are many laws pertaining to partitions that have deficiencies. Deficiencies can usually be corrected by an array or corrective devices defined by either the Torah or by Rabbinic enactments. Some corrective devices are more effective than others.

King Solomon instituted that even after all partitions / boundaries with their corrective devices are in place it is necessary to establish an Eruv Chatzeiros. This means the inhabitants of the domain/zone join to form a single entity. An Eruv Chatzeiros is accomplished by taking food (usually Matzoh) and transferring ownership of it, to all the residents in the enclosed area. This jointly owned food in conjunction with a short recitation effectively merges the multiple residents into a single entity.

The word Eruv literally means a mixture or combination and refers to the Eruv Chatzeiros that combines the multiple residence into a single entity. Since this procedure is the final step in permitting carrying in a domain/zone, the entire process including the complex and technical aspect of enclosing the domain/zone is called making an Eruv. While not linguistically accurate, in common usage, the word “Eruv” refers to the individual corrective devices as well.

An Eruv makes Shabbat observance more pleasant in many ways as it enables many thousands of Jewish people living in the area to enjoy Shabbat to the full.

Eruvin are especially helpful to families with young children who want to use a pram or baby buggy outside their home on Shabbat and to people who use a wheelchair or walking frame. Others will find it useful to be able to carry house keys, reading glasses or books to a Shiur.
Before the Eruv, families with young children were home-bound each Shabbat. Many couples who had children too young to walk to synagogue could not attend a Shabbat service together, nor a Kiddush or Simcha. Grandparents are now able to host their younger grandchildren on Shabbat. Shabbat events are available to all families – young and old, mobile and less mobile.

Everyone can now join in the Shabbat religious and social life of the community.

The Thirty-Six Who Save the World

• By PhilologosMay 22, 2008

Last week’s column ended with the question of where the Hebrew-Yiddish expression Lamed-Vavnik — literally, a “thirty-sixer” — comes from. Why is it that, in Jewish legend, the number of hidden tsadikim — or just men on whom the world depends for its existence — is, in every generation, 36?

The idea that a small number of just or righteous men can save the rest of mankind from destruction is itself as old as the first book of the Bible: We find it in the story of Sodom, in which after bargaining down God, Abraham gets Him to agree that he will not destroy the evil city if 10 righteous men are found in it. They aren’t, of course, but the principle has been established.

And it is to this principle that the second-century Palestinian rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, considered by Jewish tradition to be the author of the seminal kabbalistic text of the Zohar, appeals when he is quoted by the talmudic tractate of Sukkah as declaring: “I [alone] could exonerate the world of [God’s] judgment from the day I was born to the present — and if my son Eliezer were with me, from the day the world was created to the present — and if Yotam the son of Uziahu [a king of Judah who, according to the Bible, “did what is pleasing to the Lord”] were with us, from the day the world was created to the day it ends.” Shimon ben Yohai certainly did not have the modesty attributed by later Jewish legend to a Lamed-Vavnik, but his boast caused the talmudic sage Abbaye, who lived slightly more than 100 years after him, to add to it (Abbaye’s remark is found in the same passage in Sukkah):

“There are never less than 36 just men in the world who greet the Shekhinah [God’s worldly presence] every day, for it is written [in the book of Isaiah 30:18], “Blessed are all who wait for Him” [ashrei kol h.okhei lo], and [the word] lo [“for Him,” spelled Lamed-Vav] is numerically equal to 36.”

Abbaye’s interpretation is in the nature of a numerical pun, since by reading the verse from Isaiah as if there were a comma between “wait” and “for Him,” he gives it the meaning of “Blessed are all who wait, [the] 36.” Although he does not explicitly say that these 36 men keep the world from destruction, his statement, read in the context of Shimon ben Yohai’s declaration, implies that they have the power to ward off the harshness of God’s judgment. This, then, would appear to be the source of the Jewish legend of the Lamed-Vavnik.

But what, in turn, is the source of Abbaye’s statement? It seems highly unlikely that he would have hit on such an interpretation of Isaiah 30:18 had he read it without preconceptions. Rather, he must have been looking to begin with for a biblical verse that could be construed in such a fashion. Why?

This question was addressed by Gershom Scholem, the great scholar of Jewish mysticism, in a short essay published in German in 1962 and in English in 1971, under the title “The Tradition of the Thirty-Six Hidden Just Men.” In this essay, Scholem speculates that the number 36 “originates in ancient astrology, where the 360 degrees of the heavenly circle are divided into thirty-six units of ten, the so-called ‘deans.’” (In astrological literature, these units are more commonly known as “decans.”) And, Scholem continued:

“A dean-divinity ruled over each segment of the thus divided circle of the zodiac, holding sway over ten days of the year…. [In Egyptian Hellenistic sources] the deans were regarded also as watchmen and custodians of the universe, and it is quite conceivable that [in Hellenistic astrology] the number thirty-six, which Abbaye read into Scripture, no longer represented these cosmological powers or forces but rather human figures.”

Abbaye, in other words, either on his own initiative or else on the basis of an older rabbinic tradition, was Judaizing a pagan concept by turning its 36 personified astrological powers that determined the world’s fate into 36 righteous Jews on which the world’s fate depended. In their talmudic version, Scholem observes, these Jews were conceived of as leading rabbis, not as the hidden saints that they were to become in later Jewish legend. This subsequent feature, he speculates, may have accrued under the influence of medieval Islamic mysticism, in which there is a belief that there are in the world 40 (or alternately, 4,000) saints who “live unrecognized by their fellow men while contributing to the continued maintenance of the world through their good deeds.” Yet since the figure of the hidden Lamev-Vavnik is not found in the folklore of Jews living in Islamic lands, and first appears in late medieval times in Eastern Europe, it is also possible, in Scholem’s opinion, that it reflects an independent Jewish development.

It is fitting that this column, which I said last week would be dedicated to the memory of Howard Marblestone, Charles Elliot Professor of Greek and Latin at Lafayette College, should have led us back from the Lamev-Vavnik of popular Yiddish culture to the esoterica of Graeco-Roman astrology. Howard would no doubt have liked that. Ave atque vale!

26+12+13 = 51

Tikkunei Soferim, an Analysis of a Masoretic Phenomenon, Avrohom Lieberman, Hakirah, 2007

https://louisjacobs.org/the-jacobs-affair/primary-sources/defence-tradition-rabbi-jeffrey-m-cohen/

Originally published in 1965 by Hampstead Garden Suburb Synagogue.

In his chapter on “a synthesis of traditional and critical views” Dr. Jacobs seeks to put forward the view that the Bible was not verbally transmitted by G-d to Moses, but that there was “human co-operation with the Divine.”

This position (borrowed by Dr. Jacobs from Will Herberg) he finds very convenient for explaining away certain perplexing passages in the Bible, for example the record that Joshuah, when he captured Hazor, destroyed every soul in the place, according to the Command of G-d (Josh, xi. 10-15).

Dr. Jacobs states:

“If we would be horrified at the suggestion that after a successful war against our enemies we should utterly destroy them, how can we account for a description of such conduct, given with approval in a book in which we are expected to find guidance and inspiration?”

Dr. Jacobs’ conception of Revelation seems to him to account for such a moral difficulty. According to him, “In the Bible we have the Divine message conveyed to us through the activities and the thoughts of Human beings” and thus the command to destroy the inhabitants of Hazor did not originate with G-d (though the Bible tells us it did) but was an expression of the human partner with his human weaknesses. Of course, Dr. Jacobs is the first to admit (together with Jesus) that “Love thy neighbour as thyself” is a lofty enough teaching to deserve to be attributed to G-d himself.

I have no complaint against Dr. Jacobs entertaining such views. As an individual he is surely entitled to either accept or reject traditional Judaism.[1] It is when he claims that “It can be demonstrated that long before the rise of modern criticism some of the Jewish Teachers had a conception of revelation which leaves room for the idea of human co-operation with the Divine,”—it is then that I vehemently object.

Dr. Jacobs proceeds to adduce ten proofs that even our sages of blessed memory believed in a human partnership with the Divine in writing and composing the Torah.

I state emphatically that none of his proofs are valid. The Rabbis never for one moment entertained such a view. The Talmudic view is clearly expressed (Sanhed. 99a): “And even if one asserts that the whole of Torah is from heaven, excepting a particular verse, which (he maintains) was not uttered by G-d but by Moses himself (of his own volition), he is included in ‘because he has despised the word of the Lord’ (Num. xv. 31)”.

Thus even the suggestion that the greatest of our Prophets had a share in the composition of the Torah is decried by our Rabbis.

Dr. Jacobs wishes us to compare the eighth article of Maimonides’ creed and its rigid demand that the Torah has not changed since Sinai, with its poetic presentation in the wellknown Yigdal hymn. We are supposed to find in the less emphatic statement of the creed as found in Yigdal ‘room for permissibility of textual criticism.’ (Page 65.)

The Credal Form

I believe with perfect faith that the whole Torah, now in our possession, is the same that was given to Moses our teacher, peace be unto him.

The Yigdal Form

Through him (Moses) the faithful in his house the Lord the law of truth to Israel did accord.

Dr. Jacobs must have a very vivid imagination to see in this simple poetic line any trace that Bible emendation is permitted. Anyone who has read a little poetry knows that stark bold details are left to prose. Poetry, fettered as it is by meter, rhyme, etc., must be content by a general, often vague allusion to the spirit of the idea which prose can express with unambiguity and full detail.

The absurdity of Dr. Jacobs’ so called “proof” becomes apparent if we compare the sixth article of Maimonides’ creed with its counterpart in the Yigdal poem. If we adopt Dr. Jacobs’ argument, such a comparison would show that we are not expected to believe that all the words of the prophets are true!

Let us compare the two:

The Creedal Form

I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true.

The Yigdal Form

The rich gift of his prophecy he gave unto the men of his choice in whom he glorified.

Is there any indication in the “less emphatic” Yigdal form that we must believe in ‘all’ the words of the prophets? Indeed there is not!

Of course the method of comparing verse with prose is absurd, and the author of Yigdal (Daniel ben Judah Dayyan 14-15th cent.) certainly believed that all the words of the prophets were true—just as he believed with Maimonides that the Torah we have is the one given to Moses and We have no right to tamper or interfere with it.

A reading of ‘WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE’ gives one the impression that there is a definite standpoint and position maintained by the Higher and lower critics, and that the old dogmatic Rabbinic Judaism is in difficulty, to say the least, to face and match the ‘truths’ that modern scholarship has unearthed.[4] Nothing could be further from the truth. There is hardly a book of the Bible about which Scholars agree unanimously as to its date of composition. Conjecture and hypothesis, as well as recklessness, are the basic elements that form the substratum of their researches. To such an extent is this so that “Nearly every book of the Old Testament has been stigmatised as a literary forgery by at least one Scholar.” (W. Albright, From stone-age to Christianity, 2nd Ed., p. 78.)

"The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses" by Richard Elliott Friedman -

The purposes of this book, therefore, are: 1.​To present the largest collection of evidence ever assembled in one place concerning this hypothesis. 2.​To make it possible to read each of the source texts individually, to see their artistry, their views of God, Israel, and humankind, and their connection to their moment in history. 3.​To make it possible to see the steps in the Bible’s formation out of these sources. 4.​To help readers appreciate that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The Bible is a rich, complex, beautiful work as a result of the extraordinary way in which it was created.

The basic hypothesis is: These biblical books were assembled from sources. The historical context in which these sources were written and then edited together was as follows: For two centuries (from 922 to 722 BCE) the biblical promised land was divided into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south. A text known as J was composed during this period. It is called J because, from its very first sentence, it refers to God by the proper name of YHWH (Jahwe in German, which was the language of many of the founding works in this field). It includes the famous biblical stories of the garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, the flood, the tower of Babylon (“Babel”), plus stories of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as stories of Joseph and then of Moses, the exodus from Egypt, the revelation at Mount Sinai, and Israel’s travels through the wilderness to the promised land. J was composed by an author living in the southern kingdom of Judah.

A second text, known as E, was composed during this same period. E was composed by a priest living in the northern kingdom of Israel. It is called E because it refers to the deity simply as God, which in the original Hebrew is Elohim, or by the divine name El in its stories until the time of Moses. That is, unlike J, the E text developed the idea that the proper name of God, YHWH, was not known on earth until God chose to reveal it to Moses. E does not include any stories of the earth’s early history, such as creation or the flood. Its first part appears to be missing. It begins in the middle of the story of Abraham. It then includes stories of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the plagues and exodus, the revelation at the mountain, and the wilderness travels. Some of these stories have parallels in the J stories, and some of them are different. For example, E includes the stories of the near sacrifice of Isaac and of the golden calf, which do not appear in J. J includes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which does not appear in E. And both J and E have the story of Joseph’s being sold into slavery, but the details of how it happened differ. E also includes a law code (Exodus 21–23), which has no parallel in J.

In the year 722 BCE, the Assyrian empire destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. J and E were then no longer separated by a border. These two versions of the people’s history now existed side by side in the kingdom of Judah. In the years that followed, someone assembled a history that used both J and E as sources. The editor/historian who combined J and E into a single work is known as the Redactor of JE, or RJE for short.

The third main source is known as P because one of its central concerns is the priesthood. In critical scholarship, there are two main views of when it was composed. One view is that P was the latest of the sources, composed in the sixth or fifth century BCE. The other view is that P was composed not long after J and E were combined—specifically, that it was produced by the Jerusalem priesthood as an alternative to the history told in JE. Linguistic evidence now supports the latter view and virtually rules out the late date for P.3 P, like E, involves both stories and laws. The P laws and instructions take up half of the books of Exodus and Numbers and practically all of the book of Leviticus. The P stories parallel the JE stories to a large extent in both content and order, including stories of creation, the flood, the divine covenant with Abraham, accounts of Isaac and Jacob, the enslavement, exodus, Sinai, and wilderness. Also like E, the P stories follow the idea that the divine name YHWH was not known until the time of Moses.

The final main source is known as D because it takes up most of the book of Deuteronomy. More specifically, Deuteronomy comprises: (1) a law code that takes up chapters 12–26, known as Dtn; (2) an introductory text that precedes this law code and casts the book as the farewell speech of Moses before his death, taking up chapters 1–11, and then a continuation of this text following the law code, taking up chapters 27–30; (3) two old poems that are included as a parting message from Moses for the future (chapters 32 and 33); and (4) reports of the last acts of Moses, bringing together portions from all the sources (J, E, P, and D). D is part of a longer work, known as the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr), which includes the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings. Dtr contains sources that are as old as J and E or possibly even older, but the formation of the work took place in the reign of King Josiah of Judah, circa 622 BCE. It was later extended into a slightly longer second edition; this took place during the exile that followed the destruction of the southern kingdom of Judah by Babylon in 587 BCE. The original, Josianic edition of the Deuteronomistic history is called Dtr1; and the second, exilic edition is called Dtr2.

All these sources and editions were put together by an editor into the final five-book work. This final editor is known as the Redactor, or for short: R.

Fiscus Judaicus

A coin issued by Nerva reads fisci Judaici calumnia sublata, "abolition of malicious prosecution in connection with the Jewish tax"^[1]

The fiscus Iudaicus or Judaicus (Latin for "Jewish tax") was a tax imposed on Jews in the Roman Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in AD 70.^[2] Revenues were directed to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome.^[2]

The tax measure improved Rome's finances and also worked as a deterrent against proselytizing.^[2] Those who paid the tax did not have to sacrifice to Roman gods.^[2]

The tax was initially imposed by Roman emperor Vespasian as one of the measures against Jews as a result of the First Roman-Jewish War, or first Jewish revolt of AD 66–73.^{[citation needed]} The tax was imposed on all Jews throughout the empire, not just on those who took part in the revolt against Rome. The tax was imposed after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 in place of the levy (or tithe) payable by Jews towards the upkeep of the Temple. The amount levied was two denarii, equivalent to the one-half of a shekel that observant Jews had previously paid for the upkeep of the Temple of Jerusalem.^{[citation needed]} The tax was to go instead to the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter, the major center of ancient Roman religion. The fiscus Iudaicus was a humiliation for the Jews.^[4] In Rome, a special procurator known as procurator ad capitularia Iudaeorum was responsible for the collection of the tax.^[5] Only those who had abandoned Judaism were exempt from paying it.

While the tax paid for the Temple of Jerusalem was payable only by adult men between the ages of 20 and 50, the fiscus Iudaicus was imposed on all Jews, including women, children, and elderly^[6]—and even Jewish slaves.^[7] In Egypt, the documentary evidence (in the form of receipts) confirms the payment of the tax by women and children. The oldest person known from these receipts to have paid the fiscus Iudaicus was a 61-year-old woman, which led Sherman LeRoy Wallace to conjecture that the tax was levied only until the age of 62, as was the regular Roman poll tax paid by individuals throughout the Empire.^[8]

The tax was continued even after the completion of the reconstruction of the Capitoline temple for its upkeep.

Domitian[edit]

Domitian, who ruled between 81 and 96 AD, expanded the fiscus Iudaicus to include not only born Jews and converts to Judaism, but also those who concealed the fact that they were Jews or observed Jewish customs. Suetonius relates that when he was young, an old man of 90 was examined to see whether he was circumcised, which shows that during this period the tax was levied even on those above the age of 62.^[5] Louis Feldman argues that the increased harshness was caused by the success of the Jewish (and possibly Christian) proselytism.^[9]

Domitian applied the tax even to those who merely "lived like Jews":^[10]

Besides other taxes, that on the Jews [A tax of two drachmas a head, imposed by Vespasian; see Josephus, Bell. Jud. 7.218] was levied with the utmost rigor, and those were prosecuted who, without publicly acknowledging that faith, yet lived as Jews, as well as those who concealed their origin and did not pay the tribute levied upon their people [These may have been Christians, whom the Romans commonly assumed were Jews]. I recall being present in my youth when the person of a man ninety years old was examined before the procurator and a very crowded court, to see whether he was circumcised. [c. 90]

American Bible Society

The Romans made contracts with local people in order to collect taxes. These local tax collectors (publicans) would often collect much more than the amount they were supposed to turn over to the Romans. They kept the rest. In Palestine, this led to bad feelings between the Jewish people and their neighbors who agreed to collect taxes for the Romans. Tax collectors were often seen as traitors by the Jewish religious leaders. Some called them sinners, and said they were not welcome to be part of the Jewish people or to worship with them. When Jesus ate with tax collectors and welcomed them (Luke 5.27-32; 19.1-10), he offended those who wanted to keep the tax collectors apart from Jewish social life.

Luke 5

²⁷ After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, ²⁸ and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

²⁹ Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. ³⁰ But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

³¹ Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

In Roman mythology, Romulus and Remus (Latin: [ˈroːmʊlʊs], [ˈrɛmʊs]) are twin brothers whose story tells of the events that led to the founding of the city of Rome and the Roman Kingdom by Romulus, following his fratricide of Remus. The image of a she-wolf suckling the twins in their infancy has been a symbol of the city of Rome and the ancient Romans since at least the 3rd century BC. Although the tale takes place before the founding of Rome around 750 BC, the earliest known written account of the myth is from the late 3rd century BC. Possible historical bases for the story, and interpretations of its local variants, are subjects of ongoing debate.

Overview[edit]

Romulus and Remus were born in Alba Longa, one of the many ancient Latin cities near the Seven hills of Rome. Their mother Rhea Silvia was a Vestal Virgin and the daughter of former king Numitor, who had been displaced by his brother Amulius. In some sources, Rhea Silvia conceived them when the god Mars visited her in a sacred grove dedicated to him.^[2]

Seeing them as a possible threat to his rule, King Amulius ordered them to be killed and they were abandoned on the bank of the river Tiber to die. They were saved by the god Tiberinus, Father of the River, and survived with the care of others at the site of future Rome. In the most well-known episode, the twins were suckled by a she-wolf in a cave now known as the Lupercal.^[3] Eventually, they were adopted by Faustulus, a shepherd. They grew up tending flocks, unaware of their true identities. Over time, they became natural leaders and attracted a company of supporters from the community.

Romulus and Remus on the House of the She-wolf at the Grand-Place of Brussels

When they were young adults, they became involved in a dispute between supporters of Numitor and Amulius. As a result, Remus was taken prisoner and brought to Alba Longa. Both his grandfather and the king suspected his true identity. Romulus, meanwhile, had organized an effort to free his brother and set out with help for the city. During this time, they learned of their past and joined forces with their grandfather to restore him to the throne. Amulius was killed and Numitor was reinstated as king of Alba. The twins set out to build a city of their own.

After arriving back in the area of the seven hills, they disagreed about the hill upon which to build. Romulus preferred the Palatine Hill, above the Lupercal; Remus preferred the Aventine Hill. When they could not resolve the dispute, they agreed to seek the gods' approval through a contest of augury. Remus saw 6 auspicious birds, but Romulus saw 12 and claimed to have won divine approval. They disputed the result; Remus insulted Romulus' new city and was killed, either by Romulus or by one of his supporters.^[4] Romulus then went on to found the city of Rome, its institutions, government, military, and religious traditions. He reigned for many years as its first king.

https://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.com/2024/07/thoughts-on-no-longer-being-parent-of.html

There is the classic Rabbinic idea that God felt somehow desperately alone in God’s absolute perfect power and so sought to create this world so God would have something with which to relate – something to point to as an achievement in life. And the thing that God decides to create – you, me, all us humans – is not some kind of blind automaton, that robotically does exactly what God wants, precisely as God wants it. The thing that God decides to create – you, me, all us humans – is a creature endowed with a certain freedom of choice, a certain jumble of competing instincts and inclinations, a being that grows from immaturity towards maturity, but sometimes – let it be admitted – not always perfectly moving from one to the other in a uniform straight line.

The thing that God decides to create – you, me, all us humans – is a being who is not minutely controlled by God – not a computer game avatar toggling left or right depending on which key is pressed, but somehow makes up our own mind to love God, and follow in all the paths that God sets out for us without being moved about pixel by pixel.

And yet there is this paradox at the heart of the creation of the first human being and every human being since. You can’t have a human being with freedom of choice who does exactly the thing we want them to do.

That’s just not how it works.

And the thing that God has to learn to do, and it takes some of the greatest leaders of our tradition to help God into this relationship with us, all of human creation, …

The thing God has to learn to do is find a way to allow us space to explore a bit, fail a bit, fail badly sometimes, maybe even many times. The thing God needs to learn to do is not bring Mot TaMut – thou shalt surely die – retribution on God’s creation every time they – we – trip up and eat of the fruit or bottle it and fail to realise of course we can take the land, or pass the exam or succeed in any journey to which we apply ourselves seriously.

Yochanan Muffs: Who Will Stand in the Breach - from Love and Joy

A clear subjective definition is found in Ezekiel. God is looking for a true prophet but does not find one. Exactly what is a true prophet like? "And I searched [among the candidates for prophecy] for a man, a fence- mender, somebody who would stand in the breach against Me on behalf of the land, that I not destroy the land. But I did not find one, and I poured out My wrath upon them" (Ezek 22:30-31).

We have here a profoundly subjective definition. The first function of the prophet is to announce the punishment and to call on the people to repent. In this role, the prophet acts as the messenger of the Lord. But if the people does not heed the prophet's words and does not mend the "fence" of its moral being, the Lord will come as an enemy through the "breach." The function of the prophet is now to go up in the breach, to build a protective wall, and to prepare for the battle against the Lord. The prophet is like a mighty warrior, but his only strength is his elo- quence, the strength of the prayer, which may deflect the Lord from destroying His people.

The notion in Ezekiel 22 is spelled out in Ezekiel 13, which is similar to it both in form and content. "Like foxes in the ruins were your prophets, Israel; you did not rise in the fortifications to create a protective wall on behalf of the house of Israel, and to be ready for the battle on the day of the Lord" (13:4-5). Here, most of the commentators obfuscate and do not see the image in all its clarity. The breach, as in chapter 22, is the breach of sin. The enemy is not the army of the gentiles that is placing a siege around Jerusalem. The Lord Himself is the enemy, the warrior who is setting His face against Jerusalem to destroy it.

Ahem Me Again!

It’s a brilliant article. It suggests, among other things, why God is so unimpressed with Jonah even when Jonah eventually turns up in Ninevah and tells everyone they are going to die. God wants Jonah to understand mercy and show compassion and not just relay a destructive message. It speaks of God, as so much of Rabbinic Judaism does, as having two sides, a side of strictness and anger and destruction – in the Hebrew Din, and a side of love, of mercy and of forgiveness - in the Hebrew Hesed.

It portrays God in terms that feel profoundly human. We all, don’t we, feel a rush to be fierce, sometimes, to want to do something destructive. We all, don’t we, find it easy to justify at a certain level the destructive behaviour that wells up inside.

And yet, tonight, and into tomorrow, we pray to God that God’s strict side, the side of Din, is overpowered by God’s aspects of mercy, Hesed. We sing of a God erech apaiyim slow to anger, willing to nosei avonot amo, bear the sins of God’s people and not act destructively towards us, even if we might deserve rebuke or punishment, even if the aspect of struct justice would insist we deserve it.

And when our prayers are not enough, when the conflicting tugs of God’s Din and Hesed don’t promise to absolve us of our sins, we ask for prophetic intervention. We recite the tales of brave ancestors to stand up and advocate for mercy.

Can we be the thing we want from our Creator?

Can we take our rush to stand in judgement on others and quieten that voice?

Can we catch the destructive aspect of our personality and soften it with mercy, before we hurt another?

Can we listen to a challenging reminder from a brave soul in our own lives who will stand up to us even in our moments of destructive behaviour when they tell us we should be gentler, can we create spaces where that’s not so hard for others to do?

Prologue in Heaven

chapters 1&2

Job's opening speech

Chapter 3

Cycle 1

• Eliphaz—chapters 4 & 5 Job—chapters 6 & 7
• Bildad—chapter 8 Job —chapters 9 & 10
• Zophar—chapter 11 Job—chapters 12-14

Cycle 2

• Eliphaz—chapter 15 Job—chapters 16&17
• Bildad—chapter 18 Job—chapter 19
• Zophar—chapter 20 Job—chapter 21

Cycle 3

• Eliphaz—chapter 22 Job—chapters 23 & 24
• Bildad—chapter 25 Job—chapters 26–31
• Zophar—(silence)

After Job wraps up his final defence in chapter 31, the cycles are over. And part III begins which focuses on the responses to Job’s arguments given by a mysterious new character named Elihu who speaks in chapters 32-37. Finally, the Lord Himself arrives and addresses Job (and Job responds) in chapters 38-42:6. Part III closes with an epilogue in 42:7-17

בַּד (n-m) heb

1. • alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone
     • separation, alone, by itself
       • only (adv)
       • apart from, besides (prep)
     • part
     • parts (eg limbs, shoots), bars

In the Hebrew Bible, Amraphel /ˈæmrəˌfɛl/ (Hebrew: אַמְרָפֶל, romanized: ’Amrāp̄el; Greek: Ἀμαρφάλ, romanized: Amarphál; Latin: Amraphel) was a king of Shinar (Hebrew for Sumer) in Book of Genesis Chapter 14,^[1] who invaded Canaan along with other kings under the leadership of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam. Chedorlaomer's coalition defeated Sodom and the other cities in the Battle of the Vale of Siddim.

Modern identifications

[edit]

Illustration from the Jewish Encyclopedia, Showing Ḫammurabi on one of his steles as Amraphel

Beginning with E. Schrader in 1888,^[2] Amraphel was usually associated with Ḫammurabi, who ruled Babylonia from 1792 BC until his death in 1750 BC. This view has been largely abandoned in recent decades.^[3][4]

https://www.history-of-physics.com/2017/08/ancient-greece-water-clock-clepsydra-of_14.html

Wikipedia

Babylon

[edit]

In Babylon, water clocks were of the outflow type and were cylindrical in shape. Use of the water clock as an aid to astronomical calculations dates back to the Old Babylonian period (c. 2000 – c. 1600 BC).^[6] While there are no surviving water clocks from the Mesopotamian region, most evidence of their existence comes from writings on clay tablets. Two collections of tablets, for example, are the Enuma Anu Enlil (1600–1200 BC) and the MUL.APIN (7th century BC).^[7] In these tablets, water clocks are used in reference to payment of the night and day watches (guards).^[8]

These clocks were unique, as they did not have an indicator such as hands (as are typically used today) or grooved notches (as were used in Egypt). Instead, these clocks measured time "by the weight of water flowing from" it.^[9] The volume was measured in capacity units called qa. The weight, mana or mina (the Greek unit for about one pound), is the weight of water in a water clock.^{[citation needed]}

In Babylonian times, time was measured with temporal hours. So, as seasons changed, so did the length of a day. "To define the length of a 'night watch' at the summer solstice, one had to pour two mana of water into a cylindrical clepsydra; its emptying indicated the end of the watch. One-sixth of mana had to be added each succeeding half-month. At the equinox, three mana had to be emptied in order to correspond to one watch, and four mana was emptied for each watch of the winter solstitial night."^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot%27s_daughters#:~:text=Only%20two%20daughters%20are%20explicitly,against%20giving%20charity%20to%20foreigners.

The daughters of the biblical patriarch Lot appear in chapter 19 of the Book of Genesis, in two connected stories. In the first, Lot offers his daughters to a Sodomite mob; in the second, his daughters have sex with Lot without his knowledge to bear him children.

Only two daughters are explicitly mentioned in Genesis, both unnamed. However, the Hebrew midrash (interpretation) The Book of Jasher describes another daughter by the name of Paltith, who is burned to death by the Sodomites for breaking their law against giving charity to foreigners.^[1]

The story of Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites is also found in surahs 11 and 15 of the Quran, although there is no mention of the rape of Lot.

The Book of Jasher, also called Pseudo-Jasher, is an eighteenth-century literary forgery by Jacob Ilive.^[1] It purports to be an English translation by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus of the lost Book of Jasher. It is sometimes called Pseudo-Jasher to distinguish it from the midrashic Sefer haYashar (Book of the Upright, Naples, 1552), which incorporates genuine Jewish legend.^[2]

Details

[edit]

Published in November 1750, the title page of the book says: "translated into English by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, of Britain, Abbot of Canterbury, who went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land and Persia, where he discovered this volume in the city of Gazna." The book claims to be written by Jasher, son of Caleb, one of Moses's lieutenants, who later judged Israel at Shiloh. The book covers biblical history from the creation down to Jasher's own day and was represented as the Lost Book of Jasher mentioned in the Bible.

The Book of Jasher contained naturalistic explanations for the miracles of the Old Testament.^[3]

The provenance of the text was immediately suspect: the eighth-century cleric Alcuin could not have produced a translation in the English of the King James Bible. There is an introductory account by Alcuin of his discovery of the manuscript in Persia and its history since the time of Jasher, and a commendation by John Wycliffe.

Reception

[edit]

The supposed lost book was declared an obvious hoax by the Monthly Review in the December of the year of publication.^[4]

The printer Jacob Ilive was sentenced in 1756 to three years' imprisonment with hard labour in the House of Correction at Clerkenwell, for writing, printing, and publishing the anonymous pamphlet Some Remarks on the excellent Discourses lately published by a very worthy Prelate by a Searcher after Religious Truth (1754). The pamphlet was declared to be "a most blasphemous book", for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ and revealed religion. Ilive remained in gaol until 1758, spending time writing.^[5]

In 1829, a slightly revised and enlarged edition of the Book of Jasher was published in Bristol, provoking attacks against it. Photographic reproduction of this 1829 edition was published in 1934 by the Rosicrucians in San Jose, California,^[6] who declared it an inspired work.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8_(%D7%90%D7%92%D7%93%D7%94)?fbclid=IwY2xjawEe5ndleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbEqkHsWjgCI3c554P1-1y58oKcmzU6CNO_tQFgVO1uTzZsnJ7jh4zNzLA_aem_9AKcMBd1jZASy5AJMk3QYw

Sefer Haysher is a composition from the Middle Ages whose author is unknown. The book reviews the history of the people of Israel from the time of the patriarchs to the time of the judges . Most of the chapters in the book correspond to the chapters in the book of Genesis , and other chapters deal with the periods corresponding to the books of Exodus , the wilderness , Deuteronomy , Joshua and Judges .

The book is written in biblical language and in a popular style. In terms of the genre, the book belongs to the genre known as a rewritten Bible , since it rewrites the stories of the Bible with expansions, abbreviations. Sources for this book were the legends of the Talmud , the Midrashim from the book of Josephus and Arab folk tales . The importance of this essay is in the material cited in it and will not be preserved elsewhere.

In the introduction to the book, it is presented as if it was published for the first time in Naples , but this edition is not known. As far as is known, it was first printed in Venice in 1625 by Rabbi Yosef the Younger . Rabbi Yosef writes that he first printed the book based on a manuscript sent to him by Moshe Hasan, which he received from his father, Rabbi Shmuel the Younger from the city of Fez , from the copy of Rabbi Jacob ben Atiya, however, in the same edition, the preface of the printers from Naples is given, the numbers that printed the book based on several manuscripts, and therefore the question of the printing of the book occupied the researchers.^[1]Since then, the book has been printed in dozens of editions based on the Venice edition, and has even been translated into Ladino and English .

The Venetian book continued to be printed in the printing houses of Poland throughout the 19th century^[2]and the beginning of the 20th century^[3]The book was identified with Rabbinic Judaism and not with the secular national current.^[4]

In 1923 , Eliezer Goldschmidt published a glossed edition of the book. In the year 5766 Hadir Yosef revised the book and added an introduction to it.

Another adaptation of the book was edited in 1923 by Aharon Libushitsky , and intended for the youth (the full name of the book: "Sefer Hasher and it is a collection of stories of the Torah and its legends adapted for the youth and the people", Barkai publishing house, Warsaw , 1923 .^[5]

It is stated in the book of the great men that after the Holocaust they found an old man hiding and he had books and this is one of them, and some doubted this, but evidence for his words is the fact that the Hilkot book brought him and so did our Rabbi in my life bring him in his commentary on Parashat Vaishlach . It is true that the Ramban was content with the reliability of the book and wrote in reference to the book "And if we believe in the book of the wars of the sons of Jacob", but it is possible that these Rashonim were referring to the midrash Wisya and the Chronicles of Moses , and not to the true book.

At the beginning of the book, an introduction was printed , in which the antiquity of the book is described and how it came into the hands of the printers in Naples . This preface was severely criticized by Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh of Modena, who testified that even though he removed "hallucinations and writings" from the book that identify the book with the biblical Book of Righteousness , there were still people at the time who believed that the book was found after the destruction, and all this because there is no supervision over the printers who write as much whatever comes to their mind.^[6]

Yosef Dan believed that this composition was created in Italy during the Renaissance .^[7]

Emanuel Ben Gurion defines "The Righteous Book" as a composition that unites the biblical style with the midrashic style.^[8][9]

https://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.com/2019/08/on-women-leading-prayers-services.html