General Category > General Discussion

please need some help with the Torah/Bible

<< < (9/9)

muman613:
Shalom,

Here is more about Esau and Yaakov regarding our tradition of the Scapegoat on Yom Kippur:


--- Quote ---
http://www.aish.com/hhYomK/hhYomKDefault/Goat_for_Azazel.asp
TWIN GOATS

Other details of the service of Yom Kippur also take on new meaning when seen in contrast to the actions of Nadav and Avihu. The central worship of the day involved two goats -- one offered in the Sanctuary, the other sent into the desert.

This practice would seem to be a response to the different types of worship -- in the Sanctuary, for God, and the other that had no place in the Sanctuary, or even among the living at all, sent to a place of desolation.

This worship is quite bizarre. Why would we take a goat simply to reject it and send it away? The law seems to teach us about the stark difference between service of God which is accepted and beloved by God, versus the "scapegoat" which represents that which has been rejected by God. Yet there is more:

    The two goats on Yom Kippur; the mitzvah is for them to be identical in appearance, size, and value, the two shall be chosen together. (Talmud - Yoma 62a)

The Talmud teaches that these two goats should look identical -- like twins. This seems strange. Why would the goats need to be identical, especially when their purpose is so different?

The idea of twins -- twins who are opposites -- is a familiar theme in the Torah. The most famous twins in the Torah are, of course, Jacob and Esau. They were complete opposites, one good, the other evil. No one could ever confuse them. On the other hand, perhaps they did possess some similarities. Rashi (Genesis 25:27) tells us that until the age of 13 they were indistinguishable, as does the Midrash:

    Esau was worthy to be called Jacob and Jacob was worthy to be called Esau. (Midrash Zuta Shir HaShirim 1:15)

They were so similar that at times their similarity caused confusion. One dressed as the other, one spoke like the other.

It is strange that the divine plan required twins? Perhaps just being siblings would have been enough? Evidently the Torah wanted these two, Jacob and Esau, to be almost the same. Perhaps their similarity represents the thin line between acceptable behavior and idolatry, between good an evil.

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner noted this parallel, and suggested that when things look alike from the exterior, it is a sign that one must look within -- at the essence -- in order to discern the difference (Pachad Yitzchak, Purim, p.43).

The idea of the two goats is intrinsically related to the personalities of Jacob and Esau, identical on the outside but so different in terms of their essence. The reason that we need to offer the second goat -- the scapegoat -- is that so often we find ourselves dressing up like Esau instead of behaving like the Jacob/Israel that we are.

The origin of the two goats themselves may very well be found in that famous episode when Jacob is persuaded by his mother to dress up like his brother. Rebecca instructs him:

    "Go now to the herd and bring me two good goats..." (Genesis 27:9)

The Midrash expands on this idea:

    How do we know that it was in the merit of Jacob [that we take the two goats]? These are the goats that his mother referred to "Go now to the herd and bring me two good goats..." Why are they called "good"?

    Rabbi Brechia said in the name of Rabbi Chelbo: "They are good for you and good for your children. They are good for you when you enter, and take the blessings from your father, and they are good for your children, when they soil themselves in sin all year round. Then they will bring these two goats, and offer them and be cleansed." (Pesikta Rabbati 47)

Jacob's entrance to his father may be paralleled with the once-yearly entrance of the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest, into the Holy of Holies. Jacob prepared for this appearance with the two goats, as his descendents would in the future.

--- End quote ---

AisheDina, I say that it is not a Jewish belief because it was not taught by the Sages. One can have any opinion one wants, but it is not always right. Torah Scholars have read and investigated and written much on these things. It is one thing to say "I think this is so" and another to be able to say "Rabbi X said this is so, and Rabbi Y said it is so, but Rabbi Z says it is not". In order to be able to argue your point you should find some basis for your statement. This is what I have been trying to do in backing up my statements with articles, midrash, Torah, any supporting material for my position.

I quoted in my previous posting the Midrash which links Esau with Rome, not the Arabs. Once again :


--- Quote ---
"The great kingdom of Rome was built by Zepho, son of Eliphaz, son of Esau. Tirtat of the land of Elisha attacked him and killed him (Yelamdeinu, Batei Midrashos 160)."

--- End quote ---

Also, I have checked the interpretation of Malachi you have provided and it differs somewhat from the translation which I have. Specifically line 1:3 according to http://bible.ort.org it reads:

1:3 but I hated Esau; I destroyed his mountains and gave his heritage to the jackals of the desert.
1:3 Ve'et-Esav saneti va'asim et-harav shmamah ve'et-nachalato letanot midbar.

This would imply that Esaus mountain was destroyed and his heritage given to the jackals of the desert. Once again this implies Rome to me as we can see in our day that Europe is being overrun by the arabs {assuming jackals of the desert refers to the arabs}. This is my own new understanding of this verse.





I don't quite know what you have brought up the story of Caine and Abel for as it is a bit different. That {Cain/Abel} is a very interesting story in its own right. Our Torah has many stories of brothers who are at odds {Something I know a little about :) } .


muman613

PS: Here are some other interesting links which contain aspects of my point...

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/587261/jewish/Haftorah-in-a-Nutshell.htm

http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/solomon/archives/vayish63.htm

--- Quote ---...
Obviously, as the Midrash (Tanhuma Yashan 6) relates, Jacob used all means to protect himself and his family from a fatal attack by Esau and his entourage. Yet had Esau really intended to murder Esau, he would have been unlikely to succumb to flattery - even in the form of presents. He was not short of worldly goods - as he said to Easu - "I have plenty" (33:9). Indeed, Jacob's attempts to appease him would have been counterproductive. His anger over Jacob's having deprived him of the birthright and the blessings would have been compounded by Jacob's insulting his intelligence in this way - in the same spirit as Chaim felt patronized by Uncle Shloymie.

This difficulty may be resolved as follows. Jacob's behavior was not flattery, but genuine. For Esau did have positive qualities. The Torah he relates that while Jacob was a 'simple man who lived in tents', Esau was 'a hunter, a man of the field' (25:27) - a person who took care that there would be good food in the household, and he used his skills to provide for his father Isaac in his old age. Indeed the Talmud in Hullin brings the tradition that Esau could use a bow and arrow with such accuracy that he could slaughter birds in flight. In this way, Esau was Jacob's master.
...

--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246619/jewish/Jacob-Receives-Isaacs-Blessing.htm
Although Jacob had gone to the academy of Shem and Eber to study the teachings of G-d, Esau refused to do anything of the sort. He led his life in his own way, and became more estranged from his father’s teachings. Yet, he honored his father and tried to appear an obedient and loving son, ready to comply with his father’s every wish, as long as it did not involve him in studying and learning. Isaac could not and did not see Esau’s G-dless behavior, for his eyes were dim with age, and he was confined to his tent.

Rebekah, however, saw everything. She observed the quiet and pleasing ways of Jacob, and watched with alarm the true nature of her first-born son Esau. For her there could be no doubt as to which of her children had chosen the right way.

After the death of Shem, Jacob returned to his father’s house, and Esau, too, came home from Seir. Isaac had grown old and weak and felt that the time had come for him to give his sons his last blessings.

Still believing that he could entrust Esau with the task of carrying on Abraham’s tradition, Isaac told Esau to hunt some deer meat, prepare a meal for him, and receive his blessings. Gladly, Esau took his bow and quiver and went out into the field.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---http://www.meaningfullife.com/currentevents/israel/Esau_Ishmael_AND_Sinai.php
The nations continue to appeal by asking what evidence is there that the Jewish people were meticulous in their observance of Torah. After a series of back and forth arguments, the evidence finally comes from the nations themselves who bear witness to the Jews’ commitment. Nimrod bears witness that Abraham was G-d fearing, Laban bears witness that Jacob was ethical, etc.

Finally, the Talmud concludes that the nations request that G-d give them another chance to accept G-d’s commandments. And G-d gives them the chance. And adds, that it is only through your effort and preparation today that you can merit reward tomorrow. “If you do not prepare food before Shabbat, what will you have to eat?”

The relevance of this narrative today is powerfully evident. We are witnessing today the struggle of nations stemming from Esau – the Roman/Christian/Western world, and Ishmael – the Arab/Muslim world, and their confrontations are deeply related to Israel and the Jews, children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This struggle can truly be understood only by retracing its roots. The story of Abraham and his children, and then the story of Sinai seven generations later tells us how these battles all began.


--- End quote ---

AsheDina:
  I know- my sister I have problems with, CONSTANT at odds.  She does what is evil in the sight of G-d, I have tried to do what is right.  I am not always right, of course NOT, but I SINCERELY TRY to do what is right. 
  I dont know why I brought up Cain.  He had a mark right? What was that mark? Do u know?
  LOL--- by now, this kid has his paper done.  :::D

muman613:

--- Quote from: AsheDina on October 19, 2008, 02:19:02 PM ---  I know- my sister I have problems with, CONSTANT at odds.  She does what is evil in the sight of G-d, I have tried to do what is right.  I am not always right, of course NOT, but I SINCERELY TRY to do what is right. 
  I dont know why I brought up Cain.  He had a mark right? What was that mark? Do u know?
  LOL--- by now, this kid has his paper done.  :::D

--- End quote ---

Shalom AsheDina,

Here is the portion from Bereshit which we are discussing:

Verse 9: Ad-noy then said to Kayin, "Where is your brother, Hevel?" [Kayin] said, "I know not, am I my brother's keeper?"
Verse 10: He said [to Kayin], "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
Verse 11: Now you are cursed from the ground that had to open its mouth to accept your brother's blood from your hand.
Verse 12: When you work the ground, it will no longer give you of its strength. You will be unsettled, and a wanderer on the earth."
Verse 13: Kayin said to Ad-noy, "My sin is greater than I can bear."
Verse 14: Behold, today You have banished me from the face of the earth, and from Your face I am to be hidden. I am to be unsettled and a wanderer on the earth; whoever finds me, will kill me."
Verse 15: Ad-noy said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Kayin, revenge will be taken on him [Kayin] sevenfold." Ad-noy placed a mark on Kayin, so that whoever would find him would not kill him.

A quick search on 4torah.com came up with a good simple answer.

From http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/162/Q2/ the Ohr Somayach web site:

Yaakov from Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada wrote:

    Dear Rabbi,

    Is there any reference - Talmudic or otherwise - that tells us what the mark was that Hashem placed upon Cain to protect him (Genesis 4:15)?

Dear Yaakov,

Here are a number of opinions from Midrashic sources:

    * Cain became a leper so people would avoid him.
    * G-d gave him a dog to guard him.
    * A horn grew out of his forehead for protection.
    * G-d engraved a letter of His Name on Cain's forehead. This would remind people that G-d commanded not to kill him.

Sources:

    * Bereishet Rabbah 22:28, Tifferet Tziyon
    * Midrash Aggadah 4:15

According to our great sage Rashi the following is written:

Ad-noy placed a mark on Kayin.

He inscribed a letter from His Divine Name on his forehead. (Other editions of Rashi add: Another interpretation:] [The statement] "Whoever finds me will kill me" [refers to:] the animals and beasts. But there were not yet any humans from whom he had to fear except for his father and mother, and he had no fear that they would kill him. But, he said: "Until now the fear of me was upon all the animals as it is said: 'And your fear, etc.'263 And, now, as a result of this sin the beasts will not fear me and they will kill me." Immediately: "G-d placed a mark on Kayin" and fear of him reverted to all.)

This site is also interesting : http://www.jewishmag.com/parsha/oldparshas/tzav.htm

Sacrifice and Repentance.

by Michael Chessen

     In general terms, Western Civilization has a misguided notion regarding the Torah's approach to individuals who have committed a sin. The popular understanding of "the mark of Cain" is the marking of an individual who was "branded" as the prototype first sinner. A simple reading of the text, however, reveals that God only marked Cain in order to protect him and help him to survive his punishment, not to shame him. His spiritual debt was exclusively a matter between him and God.

     It is important to note that today's prayer liturgy, a continuation of the rites of sacrifice described in the book of Leviticus, treats sin and repentance as a collective rather than a private concern. Our recital of words of contrition is in the plural, rather than in the singular; for whatever an individual needs to seek specific individual forgiveness, he or she does so by way of silent additional thought and concentration.

     We find the antecedents of the sinner's right to anonymous repentance in this week's Torah reading, Tzav. The book of Leviticus initially describes the procedure for bringing the burnt offering sacrifice. In Tzav, the Torah gives further elaboration concerning the sin offering, stressing that it is to be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt offering, thus ensuring that sin of deed need not be recognized or distinguished from sin of thought.

     An apparent contradiction to this principle could be discerned in the language of the commandment concerning the offering for the priests' anointment. In the wake of the sin of the Golden Calf, Aaron explained to Moses that "this"(molten image) had emerged from the gold he had thrown into the fire. God now declares that "this" is the offering of Aaron (Leviticus 5:13) and demonstrates a very important principle in Judaism. By using Aaron's language God changes it and shows us how sincere repentance retroactively transforms misdeeds into positive commandments. Because of the need to convey this message, and because Aaron's repentance was really the repentance of the Jewish people as a whole, God necessarily made it public.

     In our time, diligent study of the sacrifices serves to strengthen our intention in prayer and helps bring us closer to Aaron's level of complete repentance.

I hope that this information is useful in your search for answers to your Torah questions. It is very wonderful you have such an interest in studying the Torah of Emet.

muman613

Tzvi Ben Roshel1:
Pauletta- Traditionally the spiritual culture and influence of Esav passed down to Rome, then those who took over Rome would be Catholicism, and from their the different branches of the Western World.
 With Ishmael- tradition says Islam (even the lunatic (Mohammed) was a direct descendent of Kedar one of the sons of Ishmael).
  Talmud, Zohar and other sources all speak of this- expecially the world being dominated by 2 forces (actually more, but they are at the forfront) - Esav- Western civilization and Ishmael- Islam.
  Maybe I will bring you some sources to back what I am saying (some later time B'H).
- Also dont forget history didn't start today, or at 9/11 or something, traditionally Esav did a lot more harm to the nation of Israel, that is not to say that the physical descentents have to be on the same path (and their are even writings which speak of some of his descendents saying how foolish their father was- but I think they were the one's who converted to Judaism).
- Also unlike Ishmael- those of European descent are not necessarily from Esav, its just the spiritual/ cultural influence (they are more likly to be descendents of Yefet- one of Noah's sons.

- Also I just remembered something from the Talmud- speaking of the future and Esav's descendents (even saying the name- Germany). Ill post it in a minute.

Tzvi Ben Roshel1:
ESAU [GERMANY] WANTS TO DESTROY THE WORLD
IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TALMUD (MEGILLAH 5)
And Rabbi Yitzchak said: “What is the meaning of that which it is written: “Grant not Hashem the desires of the wicked one, do not remove his nose ring, that they should be exalted, selah” (Psalms 140:9) Yaakov said before the Holy One Blessed be He: “Master of the World: Do not grant Esau the evil one the desire of his heart – Do not remove his nose ring- This refers to Germania of Edom, who if they would go forth, they would destroy the entire world. And Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said: “There are 300 crowned princes in Germania of Edom.”
The Maharsha commented to this verse that the preoccupation of Germania of appointing a leader prevented them from going forth and destroying the world and this is the nose ring that the verse above talks about.
NOW LOOK WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOUT THE HISTORY OF GERMANY
This volume is one in a continuing series of books prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress under the Country Studies/Area Handbook Program sponsored by the Department of the Army. The last two pages of this book list the other published studies:
TO HAVE MORE FAITH IN G-D AND HIS TORAH 14
French occupation authorities also allowed many smaller states, ecclesiastical entities, and free cities to be incorporated into their larger neighbors. Approximately 300 states had existed within the Holy Roman Empire in 1789; only about forty remained by 1814. The empire ceased to exist in 1806 when Francis II of Austria gave up his imperial title. In its place, Napoleon had created the Confederation of the Rhine, made up of the states of western and southern Germany, under French direction. Austria and Prussia were not members. The confederation was to provide Napoleon with troops for his military campaigns. After his defeat, the confederation was dissolved.
In its long history, Germany has rarely been united. For most of the two millennia that central Europe has been inhabited by German-speaking peoples, the area called Germany was divided into hundreds of states, many quite small, including duchies, principalities, free cities, and ecclesiastical states. Not even the Romans united Germany under one government; they managed to occupy only its southern and western portions. At the beginning of the ninth century, Charlemagne established an empire, but within a generation its existence was more symbolic than real. Medieval Germany was marked by division. As France and England began their centuries-long evolution into united nation-states, Germany was racked by a ceaseless series of wars among local rulers. The Habsburg Dynasty's long monopoly of the crown of the Holy Roman Empire provided only the semblance of German unity. Within the empire, German princes warred against one another as before. The Protestant Reformation deprived Germany of even its religious unity, leaving its population Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist. These religious divisions gave military strife an added ferocity in the Thirty Years' War (1618-48), during which Germany was ravaged to a degree not seen again until World War II.
LYCOS
The Habsburgs muddled on until the devastating Thirty Years War (1618-48), sparked by ongoing religious and nationalist conflicts. Europe had been simmering ever since 1517 when Martin Luther tacked 95 suggestions for improved service to his local church door in Wittenburg. It took a bloody good stoush to settle everyone down and secure the rights of both Protestants and Catholics. Germany lost a third of its population in the process. Local princes assumed complete sovereignty over a patchwork of some 300 states, which made it all too easy for Napoleon to come along in the early 19th century and start adding them to his scrapbook.
TO HAVE MORE FAITH IN G-D AND HIS TORAH 15
Pbs.org
“During the American Revolution, Germany was divided into over 300 principalities. Many of these tiny countries supplied soldiers to the British army in its fight against America, but by far the largest group came from Hesse-Cassel. As a consequence, during the war and ever since, all of the Germans fighting with the British were lumped together and called Hessians.”
Schiller institute.org
A comprehensive political strategy for rebuilding Europe and Germany did not exist. The devastated German empire had turned into a veritable monster composed of 300 petty principalities, most of which had been ruined by the particular interests of the houses of Hapsburg and Brandenburg, and which in the West were threatened by France, in the East by the Turkish Empire.
National academy press
Remember that as late as 1800 there were still over 300 different principalities and powers in the German area.
HOW COULD THE RABBIS KNOW MORE THAN 1500 YEARS AGO THAT A NATION CALLED GERMANY WOULD BE MADE UP OF 300 PRINCIPALITIES AND THAT IF THEY UNITED THEY WOULD WANT TO GO FORTH AND DESTROY AS THEY ACTUALLY DID?
 
 Israel613.com

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page