You are on page 1of 29

Scroll to Scroll:

Todays Parsha #27: Tazria (When she gives birth)


Member Q&A:
Some of you have written me and asked about the connection I made between Amos 8 and
Yshuas death date as recorded in the Gospels. Specifically, several of you wanted to know
if any other ancient authorities, eastern or western, ever made the same connection. Before
answering, let me just bring up a quick and easy comparison chart:
Amos 8
And it shall be in that day, declares the
Master , that I shall cause the sun to go
down at noon, and shall darken the earth on a
day of brightness.
(Amos 8:9, The Scriptures 1998)

Gospels
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness
over all the land until the ninth hour. And
about the ninth hour, Y'shua cried out with a
loud voice and said, "My El! My El!
[Lemana shabakthani] Why have you spared
me?" (Matt. 27:45-46 AENT)

And shall turn your festivals into mourning,


(Amos 8:10-a, The Scriptures 1998)

Now on the first day of the Feast of


Unleavened Bread, the disciples drew near to
Y'shua and said to him, "Where do you want
us to prepare for you to eat the Paskha?"
(Matt. 26:17 AENT)
And Y'shua turned and said to them,
"Daughters of Urishlim, do not cry for me
but cry for yourselves and for your children.
For behold the days are coming in which
they say, 'Blessed are the barren and the
wombs that have not given birth and the
breasts that have not nursed.' Then you will
begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall upon us!'
and to the heights, 'Cover us!' For if to the
green wood they do these things, what will
happen to the dry?" (Lk. 23:28-31 AENT)
And Y'shua cried out in a loud voice, and he
died. And the curtain of the door of the
temple was rent in two from the top to the
bottom. And when the centurion who was
standing near him saw that he cried out thus
and died, he said, "Truly this man was the
Son of Elohim!" (Mk. 15:37-39 AENT)
And immediately, the curtains at the door of
the temple were torn in two from the top to
the bottom. And the earth was shaken and the
rocks were split. (Matt. 27:51 AENT)

and all your songs into lamentation, and


bring sackcloth on all loins, and baldness on
every head(Amos 8:10-b, The Scriptures
1998)

and shall make it like mourning for an


only son, and its end like a day of bitterness.
(Amos 8:10-c, The Scriptures 1998)

Shall the land not tremble for this, and


everyone mourn who dwells in it? And all of
it shall swell like the River, heave and
subside like the River of Mitsrayim. (Amos
8:8, The Scriptures 1998)
1|Page

See, days are coming, declares the Master


, that I shall send a hunger in the land,
not a hunger for bread, nor a thirst for water,
but for hearing the Words of . And they
shall wander from sea to sea, and from north
to east they shall diligently search, seeking
the Word of , but they shall not find it.
(Amos 8:11-12, The Scriptures 1998)

And Y'shua said, "A little time again I am


with you, and I will go to Him who sent me.
And you will seek me and you will not find
me, and where I am you are not able to
come." And the Yehudeans said among
themselves, "Where is this man about to go
that we cannot find him? Why indeed is he
about to go to the countries of the Gentiles
and teach the pagans? What is this teaching
which he said that "You will seek me and
you will not find me, and where I am you are
not able to come?" (Yochanan 7:33-36
AENT)

So has this concordance been noticed before, in ancient times? The answer is YES. In about
360 CE, the Aramaic speaking saint Mar Ephrem did a commentary on the original Aramaic
Diatessaron. In recent years, the original Aramaic version of Ephrems commentary was
recovered and translated by Oxford scholar Carmel McCarthy:
This is like the text: Hungering but not for bread and thirsting, but not for water, but
rather for listening unto the utterance of the Lord.-Saint Ephrems Commentary on
Tatians Diatessaron, p. 108.
However, there is an even more ancient and more direct use of Amos along the lines we have
been discussing, and it comes from late 2nd century, from the church father Irenaeus:
Those, moreover, who said, "In that day, says the Lord, the sun shall go down at
noon, and there shall be darkness over the earth in the clear day; and I will turn your
feast days into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation," plainly announced
that obscuration of the sun which at the time of His crucifixion took place from the
sixth hour onwards, and that after this event, those days which were their festivals
according to the law, and their songs, should be changed into grief and lamentation
when they were handed over to the Gentiles. Jeremiah, too, makes this point still
clearer, when he thus speaks concerning Jerusalem: "She that hath born [seven]
languishes; her soul has become weary; her sun has gone down while it was yet noon;
she hath been confounded, and suffered reproach: the remainder of them will I give to
the sword in the sight of their enemies."-Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 12 (180
CE)
Writing about ten years later, Tertullian says:
For that which happened at His passion, that mid-day grew dark, the prophet Amos
announces, saying, And it shall be, he says, in that day, saith the Lord, the sun
shall set at mid-day, and the day of light shall grow dark over the land: and I will
convert your festive days into grief, and all your canticles into lamentation; and I will
2|Page

lay upon your loins sackcloth, and upon every head baldness; and I will make the
grief like that for a beloved (son), and them that are with him like a day of
mourning. For that you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your
new (years) even Moses prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community
of the sons of Israel was to immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat this solemn
sacrifice of this day (that is, of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness;
and added that it was the passover of the Lord, that is, the passion of Christ. Which
prediction was thus also fulfilled, that on the first day of unleavened bread
and (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an
eventide,that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day; and thus
your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into
lamentation. Tertullian, Answers to the Jews, Chapter 10 (190 CE)
This raises the possibility that perhaps at least some in the early Church also understood how
those at the torture stake might have thought one day was ending early at sunset, another day
began in the total darkness, and that second day began ending as the sun was seen to keep
declining after it returned in the 9th hour.
PART 1: THE LAST AND CURRENT TORAH PORTIONS
ANSWERS TO LAST WEEKS STUDY QUESTIONS (Shemini):
1) Why does the prophet Nathan appear to jump the gun and get a little overly zealous?
Nathan means well clearly. His affection for David is very evident and he rejoices that
David is in general Abba YHWHs chosen king. In that sense, yes, Abba YHWH is with
him. Abba YHWH has said through Nathan and others that He will not withdraw His
favor in the broadest sense from David. But that doesnt mean David can do no wrong.
And it doesnt mean that Abba YHWH intends for David to build His House right now, if
he ever was going to be allowed to build it at all.
We also have to allow for the fact that Abba YHWH looks into the future and knows
what David is about to do and how Nathan will rebuke David for taking the woman
Bathsheba and having her husband Uriah killed (2 Samuel 12). So while Nathan in
general is correct about Davids overall favored status, he has not accounted for the idea
that Abba YHWH might delay some honors or inflict punishment when David goes
astray, which as it turns out he is about to do in the worst way.
2) If Genesis 49:11 and the scepter will not depart from Judah is in fact a prophecy that
only Judah can sit on the throne of Israel, why did Abba YHWH allow the first king
(Saul) to be from Benjamin?
For this and the following question, the challenge is in trying to figure out history that did
NOT unfold how it might have under this scenario or that. The best I can say is that Saul
was selected to be king based on the people of Israel begging for a king and not waiting
for Abba YHWH to decide when to provide one.
Time and time again, Abba YHWH through His priest Samuel discouraged Israel from
taking a king. In fact, Israels reason for wanting a king in the first place proved they
3|Page

were not ready for one. They said, for we want to be like other nations when Abba
YHWH clearly told them they were NOT to be like the pagans around them!
And so Abba YHWH gave them what they asked for, but it was not according to His
timing, perhaps because there was no one in Judah that He desired to be king in this
period. Abba YHWH was probably just waiting for David to come of age.
3) Was Saul doomed to failure because he was of the wrong tribe or did he bring disaster
upon himself?
When we look at Sauls failings its easy to lose sight of the greater tragedy of his son
Jonathan who, through no fault of his own, also had the crown taken from him and died
alongside his father.
If we were able to ask the major players (Saul, David, leaders of Israel at that time, the
people at large) if they would like to see Jonathan as king, almost everyone would have
cheered YESincluding David cheering the loudest. Jonathan was a good man from day
one and he did not do anything wrong that was worthy of having him die and have the
crown taken from him. Its a shame then that HIS FATHER did this to him.
So, if Saul had not sinned, then it is entirely possible I believe that his dynasty could have
continued for a time under Good King Jonathan, and Jonathan would have done a
wonderful job based on what we have seen about him.
However, the Benjaminites were NOT the intended tribe to rule Israel over the long term.
The pattern is that individuals can choose to be wise and rule well or be evil and rule for
a short time. When they choose wrongly, if they are NOT from the intended house, Abba
YHWH simply switches to the house He wanted all along.
The problem of course is that Abba YHWH can also be stuck with the intended house
even when they also sin greatly. David does some horrific things and yet YHWH will
say, I will NOT remove My favor from you as I did from Saul whom I set aside for
you.
So maybe the Benjaminites could have had a few generations on the throne if they
behaved. But, sooner or later, they would have gotten a bad apple and Abba YHWH
would then switch them out for Judah, from whom the scepter will not depart.
4) How is the name of one of Davids sons foretold in 2 Samuel 7:11-12 through words
that are SYNONYMS to the real name?
There are two words that are used as synonyms: NOACH (rest, comfort) and MALEH
(complete, perfected, accomplished) have meanings the same as SHALOM (peace,
completion) and the sons name SHALOM-on (Solomon)!
5) In this portion two sons of Aaron die for disobeying Abba YHWH. But my question is,
how did YHWH also punish the two surviving sons and why, when they had not
disobeyed?
4|Page

Abba YHWH punishes the two surviving sons by commanding that they do not mourn
for their brothers. This is a necessary sacrifice on their part because the loyalty of the
entire priesthood is in question. YHWH is so determined that the bad apples be rooted
out of Aarons line that He refuses to see any sympathy for the slain brothers that could
develop into a rival religion.
It is from the viewpoint of the sons themselves, very harsh. But at the macro-level it is
necessary to do an immediate purge in the nation so that the examples of Nadab and
Abihu are never followed.
AND NOW FOR THIS WEEKS PORTION
1) Meaning of this weeks Torah portion and summary of contents:
Tazria means to bring seed, give birth. It begins with the niddah rules, or how a
woman is unclean for a certain period after giving birth. The rest of the portion then
deals with how lepers are to be isolated and ultimately pronounced clean by the priests
before being allowed to rejoin Israel. What is perhaps though most interesting about this
weeks portion is that, when combined with the Haftorah this week, we also get a kind
systematic biography about Yshuas ministry! (I will show it to you.)
Read Parsha (English-Leviticus 12:1-13:59). This week, we will read the entire portion
together.
1) Play by Play commentary where appropriate.
2) Point out key Hebrew words/terms. Color Commentary:
NIDDAH (12:2) = impurity or separation, but technically menstruation. The cycling of
the blood out of the woman is in a sense likened to waste but we also must bear in mind
that blood itself is a forbidden substance unless it is offered on the altarso in a sense
also the menstruation makes the woman clean after a while.
MAQOR (12:7) = flow, but more precisely, like a spring or fountain of water. This
imagery suggests both the life that is in the womans blood as well as her role in bringing
life to humanity. Proverbs 10:11 uses this same word to great effect, the mouth of the
righteous is as a FOUNTAIN (maqor) of life! Psalm 68:26 also uses this word calling
Abba YHWH the FOUNTAIN (maqor) of Israel. Obviously this shows how important
women are to Abba YHWH even if in the process they go through periods of NIDDAH.
Uncleanness periods are also important here. For a boy the women is unclean from the
birth for 7 days and then in the blood for 33 days. The initial uncleanness ends just
before the circumcision of the boy, but she cannot be in the Temple. 33 + 7 = 40, and 40
is the number of restoration.

5|Page

For a female birth, the mother in a sense gets clean from her birth almost as if she could
menstruate for the two of them though of course that is not happening. So she is unclean
from the birth 14 days and then in the blood 66 days. This adds up to 80 (40 x 2) or a
double cycle to restore the mother.
NEGA (13:2) = mark of disease, but more literally stroke, suggesting an attack on the
body. This word is also used by Isaiah when talking about Yshua being stricken for
our iniquities, for the transgression of my people to whom the STROKE (disease mark)
was due.
Note on 13:4: Moon language, Part 1there are two terms here that relate specifically
also to describing the phases of the moon. The first is LEBONAH- describing the milkwhite appearance also of the skin and therefore referring to a WHITE BRIGHT FULL
MOON that is ALSO compared to the shining complexion of a woman (Song of Songs
6:10).
Some authorities translate what we call quarantine as the priest will encircle the nega
(plague mark), meaning that they draw a circle around it and then track if it spreads
outside of that circle later.
VERAAH KOHEN OTO BAYOM HA-SHVII SHENIT VE-HINEH KEHAH HANEGA VE-LO FASA HA-NEGA BAOR VE-TIHARO HA-KOHEN MISPACHAT HI
VE-CHIBES BE-GADAV VE-TAHER (13:6) = the priest will examine (him again) on
the seventh day and if the mark has faded or it has not spread, the priest shall declare
(him) clean, since it is merely a discoloration. The person must immerse (his body and)
clothing and then he will be clean. This is probably a form of what we now call psoriasis.
A few interesting things are going on here. First, the use of OR here indicates that if it no
longer white enough to be considered leprosy, then even if it spreads, the person is
considered clean. Also we see here why Yshua commanded the lepers he cleansed to
show themselves to the priests, because the priest would then pronounce them clean but
the process would not be completed until AFTER the affected person immersed
themselves. Also see Leviticus 13:28.
Note on 13:12: Moon language, Part 2--The opposite of a FULL MOON though is a
COVERED or hidden moon, and this same word is used in this portion in 13:12 talking
about leprosy COVERING OVER, OBSCURING the skin. Other uses of the word
KASSA (in other places same word pronounced KISSA) involve the covering of the
heavens with clouds (Psalm 147:8), a garment over skin (Ezekiel 16:10) and coverings of
the sacred tabernacle and tent (Exodus 26:13), among many other references I could give.
The end result is that when Psalm 81:3 talks about blowing the shofar at the KISSA, it
can either mean at the COVERED MOON (new, in darkness) or it can mean its Aramaic
term, KISSA appointed time but NOT full moon. It would read one of two ways:
blow the shofar at the new moon, the COVERED moon, on our feast day or blow the
shofar at the new moon AT THE APPOINTED TIME on our feast day.
UVE-YOM HERAOT BO BASAR CHAY YITMA (13:14) = but on the day the
healthy skin appears he is unclean. When the leprous infection covered the persons body
6|Page

entirely, the infection was viewed to have run its course and the person was clean
(13:13). However, when the leprous skin began flaking off and the healthy skin began
appearing again, there was a risk of re-infection of the disease, so now that person is
unclean again, until the rest of the leprous skin is shed. These instructions show a very
sophisticated understanding of human biology and infectious disease. It was imperative
not to end quarantine too quickly, lest the returned person relapses too quickly for
isolation to prevent an outbreak.
VEHAYAH BIMEKOM HA-SHCHIN SET LEVANAH O VA-HERET LEVANAH
ADAMDEMET VENIRAH EL-HA-KOHEN (13:19) = if a white blotch or a bright pink
spot then develops where the infection was, it must be shown to the priest. The mixture of
pink indicates that blood has gone into the infection site and that needs to be carefully
monitored. The Rabbis compare the ratio of pink to 3% blood mixture in a glass of milk,
though the whiteness does not come from milk. I believe this is partly inspired by the
commandment to not boil a goat in its mothers milk, because there the Rabbis say it is a
mixture of life (milk) and death (blood). That consideration might also be part of the
tradition of separating milk and meat as well, though such a practice is clearly not
enjoined in Torah.
NETHEK (13:30) = bald mark. This must be something beyond the normal male pattern
baldness. While the Rabbis debate a lot of these details as to what exactly a nethek
consists of, the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the OT may have the best answer.
They translate nethek as thrausma which indicates an area where hair has been broken
off. The root of this Greek word means destruction and its nominal use is talking about
a breech or a break in the skin. I will take the Septuagints word for it in this case as it is
the most ancient source on this subject.
BOHAK (13:39) = rash, which is defined as a mark that is not all white but dulled.
This is a sure sign that the wound is not leprous.
VEHATUSARUA ASHER-BO HANEGA BEGADAV YIHYU FRUMIM
VEROSHO YIHYEH FARUA VEAL SAFAM YATEH VETAME YIKRA
KOL YEMEY ASHER HANEGA BO YITMA TAME HU BADAD YESHEV
MICHUTS LAMACHANEH MOSHAVO (13:45-46) = When a person has the
stroke mark of the leprosy curse, his clothing must be torn and he must let his hair
grow long and he must cover his head down to his lips. And he must shout
Unclean! Unclean! As long as he has the mark, he shall remain alone and outside
of the camp.
Compare this requirement to Matthew 26:6-7, where lepers in Greek are having
dinner parties that Jews attend. In Aramaic GARBA (leper) was confused for
GARABA (jar maker).
Some will say the leper is cured there, but the text doesnt say that and moreover,
someone cured could NOT be called a leper once pronounced clean by the priests as
this would hinder their ability to do business in Israel!

7|Page

ZOT TORAH (13:59) = This is the Torah/instruction, regarding___. The rabbis teach
that this phrase, whenever it occurs, indicates this is the sole place the Torah discusses
the subject.
Torah Question of the Week:
How did the purity rituals here and elsewhere help save a European country from a
deadly epidemic in the 19th century?
END PART 1

8|Page

PART 2: THE HAFTORAH


Torah Question of the Week:
How did the purity rituals here and elsewhere help save a European country from a
deadly epidemic in the 19th century?
In the 1840s Great Britain was stricken with an outbreak of what they called Indian
Cholera, which spread from waste infected water. Tens of thousands had died from this
illness seemingly overnight and there was no cure for it. Desperate to save their country, a
group of people including members of the Anglican clergy petitioned Parliament to
completely re-do the sewer systems so that waste water didnt flow in the streets. They
presented scientific evidence that this was how Cholera spread and why it affected both rich
and poor populations equally (both had waste water around them from chamber pits and so
on). But the final push to get Parliament to spend the money was based on a ministers
reading part of Leviticus to show how human waste and animal dung were buried outside the
camp! So maybe that Torah thing didnt quite pass away into irrelevance after all. Then,
after the sewers were built, the cases of Cholera declined 95% almost overnight. I guess
Abba YHWH knows what He is doing!
1) Haftorah portion (English- 2 Kings 4:42-5:19) and discuss common themes with the
Torah portion.
2) Our linguistic commentary
BAAL SHALISHA = Lord of Shalisha. While the meaning of this word is uncertain,
Shalisha was a town near King Sauls home in the territory of Benjamin and he passed
through there once to retrieve his fathers sheep (1 Samuel 9:1-4). As far as I can tell,
there is no other lord or significant Israelite anywhere near Shalisha or associated with
Shalisha other than Saul, so in a way it could be a veiled reference to him.
NAAMAN = means pleasantness in Hebrew. A synonym for this word is ADEN, from
where we get EDEN, the Pleasant Garden. By restoring Naaman by ridding him of
leprosy we therefore have a deep remez since Hebrew thought also associates
ADEN/EDEN with the world to come, a kind of Jewish heaven that goes back to the
beginning when things were purelike Naamans skin before he contracted leprosy.
ELISHA = El is my salvation, a synonym for another leper curing guy YshuaYHWH
is salvation!
ABANA = dialectically is actually believed to be aspirated as AMANA, and means
constant, ever flowing, perennial stream. In this it reminds us of the name for
JORDAN, which means flowing.
PHARPAR = swift. For me these two rivers and the man associated with them spell out
a kind of message. When Elishas instructions are SWIFTLY followed, the other man is
cured FOREVER and his skin reverts to its PLEASANTNESS!

9|Page

BERAKA = present is literally blessing. Naaman is so grateful for his healing that he
wants to bless Elisha materially, not just say some nice words of appreciation!
3) Renewed Covenant portion: (English) Matthew 8:1-4 and Luke 17:11-19 (all the way
through with applicable footnotes.)
4) Highlight common themes in Aramaic:
ETDEKA = be cleansed. Imperative from derived from DAKA, to clean or be ritually
pure, cognate of Hebrew TAHOR. So this is referencing the highest form of purity in the
Torah, physically and spiritually. It is also very closely associated with bathing, washing
and immersion. Interesting use is in Yochanan 13:10 when Yshua says, He who has
bathed does not need to wash only his feet for all of him is clean (ritually). Every one of
you is also clean (spiritually), but not all of you!
TISHBOKHTA = praise in v. 18, but actually derived from SHUBKHA (glory). The
lepers did not give GLORY to YHWH for their healing. This word is used in the Slotha
dMaran (Masters Prayer): met-il ddlakh-hay (for Yours is) malkootha (the kingdom)
wuh-hai-lah (and the power) wuh-TISHBOAKHTA (and the GLORY), lah-lam, all-meen
aw mayn (forever and ever amen).
PERYSH = separate. Will explain when reading the footnote for Luke.
Luke 17:14
By calling upon Y'shua as their "Master" in advance of the healing, the lepers earned
their new lives. The Ruach haKodesh puts belief within us, but then we are required to
"act upon" or exercise faith in what we believe. See Mat_9:29.
Luke 17:18
Y'shua asks about the nine who did not return, "For what did they separate...?" The word
perysh, is the same root word for the name of the "Pharisees" who claim to be "separated"
unto YHWH. In one way, Y'shua is not referring only to the lepers, but points out that a
Samaritan (Gentile) chose to "be separate" and give thanks to YHWH, even while the
Pharisees claim to be "separate" but reject Mashiyach! Nine men did not return to give
thanks to YHWH; they were one short of a Pharisee "minyan" required for prayer. The
action of the one Samaritan showed himself as one who is truly "separate!"
Luke 17:19
Not "made you well" as most Greek translations read, instead faith has given you "life";
the healing was not the goal, just a bonus.
5) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (We need to
remember that cleanliness of the body was not something taken for granted in the
ancient world. It was a conscious discipline to have the body and objects around it
clean both physically and ritually. But nowadays, this is at least physically and at
10 | P a g e

least for most of us, par for the course. We regularly immerse ourselves with water in
our showers, for example. So for our cleanliness that we will be most in need of
comes from what we say and what we do with respect to YHWH and our fellow
man.)
6) Relate to all or part of an Appendix portion of AENT or footnotes from a portion
(Read Immerser, p. 865-867).
:
NO STUDY QUESTIONS FOR THIS PARSHASEE METZORA

11 | P a g e

Torah Thought for the Week (Tazria):


The People v. Yshua of Nazareth, Part 1
Introduction
Although our familys Pesach has concluded, its still that time of the year for many of you
out there My early Shavuot timing questions have started coming in like the first fruits of the
wheat and those on Rabbinic timing are writing me about their Pesach coming up too.
I say these things as the furthest thing from complaining; this kind of Q&A is core to what I
believe Father Yah wants me to do and I am happy to do it. But what is remarkable about all
of it is that we are also hitting all kinds of anniversaries for important events depending on
how we are counting time.
For example, March 23-30 was our time for both Pesach and remembering for lack of a
better term Passion Week and Resurrection Day. This year I heard from a greater
number of Christians who werent sure when their own Easter was because it was not
agreeing with the Rabbinic calendar for Pesach, which put me in the odd position of
reassuring them that they and their church were right about March 27th and it was the rabbis,
not them, who were out of step. This time out also, the entirety of Passion Week fell on the
exact days of the week that the events took place on in 30 CE. That occurrence, while not
super rare, is still not a yearly occurrence and was worth remarking on to my Christian
friends as a way to productively dialogue.
And now we reach the anniversary of the death and resurrection of the Messiah in yet another
calendar form: solar. Today as I write these words is April 4th, otherwise known as the day
Yshua was crucified. His resurrection day falls on April 7th which, in a very odd twist, is
also my birthday. As I have commented on often, when I found out about this I actually
complained to Father Yah and said something like, Great! Now no one is going to believe
me; they will think I am promoting my birthday! Still not happy after praying on it, I
checked the data ten more times to make absolutely sure that was the correct time and found
out there was no doubt about the matter. So ironically when others tell me they have issue
with my dates I actually can retort that I did at first as well.
As a result of all these calendar patterns, I would have been inclined to do a Torah Thought
for the Week about some aspect of this time of year anyway, but it was the events of this past
weekend that sealed the deal on exactly what to talk about. But first a little more
background.
When Jaye and I made the decision to move from the Philadelphia area to Georgia, we also
found an assembly we really liked that was run by a good friend of ours and so we went
nearly every Shabbat to this place. Then in January 2015 the assembly closed and we lost
touch with a number of their former members. However, last weekend, three of those former
members were enjoying Shabbat with us in our house.
Naturally with the passage of so much time there was a lot of catching up to do on what was
going on personally in our lives and then the conversation shifted to a wide variety of topics,
one of which was the movement to conduct a re-trial of Yshua in Jerusalem with the current
12 | P a g e

Sanhedrin. One of my guests was working with a man who calls himself an Orthodox
Messianic believer who was actually trying to bring this about and because he thought I
might be willing or able to participate in such an endeavor, my friend handed me a two paged
proposal about how they were going to bring this re-trial about.
I looked at the paper briefly and simply asked, Is this for real? I have heard of efforts like
this before. Indeed I hadboth times I was in Israel rumors of this re-trial idea were in the
air, as alleged under the table negotiations were said to be underway between those on the
Sanhedrin and various Christian and Messianic leaders. Of course though it was all quite
hush-hush and nothing definitive ever seemed to come out of itsort of like a meeting of
Bigfoot investigators, with the final evidence just out of reach but we know what we saw
My friend assured me that it was serious and that the person involved is well aware that he is
at the very beginning of the preliminary stages of the process but he believes it can happen if
enough qualified people get on board. And then he said that he thought I was one of those
qualified people because I can talk Talmud as well as Nazarene-Hebrew Roots history.
So I gave my usual answer of Well see, if I can work it in with all my other projects
without committing to anything, but I knew also he wanted me to research the matter of retrial at the very least to see where things might stand. I read the proposal then a day later and
found it intriguing but incomplete on some process points, which I suppose is what my friend
wanted because he knew I couldnt help but offer a response, which is what you are all
hearing now.
Defining Our Sources
The first thing I noticed in the proposal was a heavy emphasis on consulting the Talmud in
order to showcase problems with the first trial of Yshua. While this is both admirable and
understandable, I think we need to be careful and use the right parts of the Talmud in that
discovery process.
The obvious reason of course is that the earliest parts of what we call the Mishnah did not
begin to get written down until the time of Shimon bar Yonai ca. 180 CE. No doubt that
much of what they began writing down existed in oral form in Yshuas day and far earlier,
but a lot of other parts of the Talmud came centuries later and would not have had any
standing in the original decision making actions of Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin, so it cant be
used as original witness material.
However, fortunately, this filtering process is very easy to do. We know all of the rabbis
who existed before 180 CE; luminaries like Hillel the Elder, Shammai, Gamliel I, Gamliel II,
Akiba, Tarphon and others. Therefore we confine ourselves to those resources we will do far
better and we should also consult the tractate appropriately called Sanhedrin which is very
reliable and helpful in this matter.
The other part to making sure this is done properly though is going to be harder for many
Orthodox rabbis and current Sanhedrin members to accept, because we need to also add
eyewitness sources to confirm what parts of the Oral Law were absolutely in force in
Yshuas day and unfortunately for them these are sources they are usually against, namely
13 | P a g e

the historians Josephus and Philo and, most difficult of all, the New Testament itself. There is
also a fourth source that I will get to later. For now, lets move on to Josephus.
Josephus has long been reviled by the rabbis because he surrendered to the Romans and acted
as a translator for them to negotiate the subjugation of the Jewish Revolt. However, to be
fair, many rabbis now are beginning to realize things are not quite that simple.
For one thing, an argument can be made that if Josephus did not surrender to the Romans that
certain concessions for the Jews to continue their learning traditions would not have been
agreed to and that the faith would have been far worse off had Josephus not also secured
permission to take Torah scrolls out of the burning city. And if that didnt happen Josephus
would never have gone to Rome and never wrote his history books which remain the most
important sources for Jewish history to have survived those times.
For another matter, the father of Rabbinic Judaism, Yochanan ben Zakkai, secured a very
similar arrangement with the Romans, so why is it okay for old Yochanan to negotiate with
Rome and not Josephus? Would it be better if all made a Custer like last stand and Judaism
perish from the earth? I dont think so.
And finally on this point the rabbis would be well to remember that when war did break out
with Rome in 66 CE it was Josephus who immediately took up arms against them and
became the general of all forces in the Galilee, winning several major victories in the
process. And Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was about the same age as Josephus, what was he
doing? Answer: He was begging the Jews not to fight Rome! So the only difference is that
Yochanan wanted to surrender to Rome before the conflict escalated and Josephus, who
fought them bravely, wanted to surrender after it was clear his nation would go extinct
otherwise. Again, why is surrendering to Rome okay for one man and not the other? Lets be
consistent now.
And these reasons are why, I am happy to say, that many Jewish groups are being more
accepting of Josephus now as one of their own. www.bible.ort.org for example incorporates
Josephus writings into their Bar/Bat Mitzvah tutor, where he stands right alongside
Rambam, Radak and other great sages of blessed memory, and I look forward when more
groups do the same.
As for Philo, the knock against him is two-fold, first that he wrote only in Greek and
second that he lived all his life outside of Israel, in Alexandria, Egypt. As a result, some have
described his writings as syncretistic, or a blending of pagan and Jewish sensibilities and the
fact that he appears to anticipate some Christian themes like what he called the Logos doesnt
help matters.
However Philo too is beginning to get a bit of a scholarly makeover of sorts. I and others
have argued for many years that Philo was not a syncretist but instead a Jewish apologist who
was in effect evangelizing his faith and Torah in terms that the Greek speaking Alexandrians
living in Egypt could understand.
In fact, some Jewish authorities became surprised when they found out Philo basically
taught that the Hebrews invented what others call the Greek sciences, logic, math and so on.
Then Philo encouraged these same Gentiles to return to the original sourcethe Torahthat
14 | P a g e

all their understanding came from. In other words, Philo taught that paganism was the
corruption that ran away with original Hebrew ideas.
But when the fountain of wisdom, that is to say, Elohim, gives knowledge of the
sciences to the race of mankind, he gives it to them without any limitation of time.
But they, as being disciples of the only wise Being, and being competent by nature,
quickly accomplish the discovery of the things which they seek to understand.
(Sacrifices of Abel and Cain, 1:64)
Philo also, while writing in Greek, literally taught hundreds and hundreds of Hebrew words
and terms to his audience by way of example and metaphor in their cultural vernacular. And
Philo also was responsible for averting a huge disaster upon the Jewish people every bit as
courageous and important as Josephus exploits as a general in the Jewish Revolt. Its a very
long story that is told in Philos own writings and by Josephus (Antiquities, 18:259-306), but
the headlines are as follows.
1) The Emperor Gaius, also known as Caligula, ordered that a golden statue of himself
as Jupiter be erected in the innermost area of the Temple.
2) Philo was then chosen to head an embassy of the leading Jews in the empire to treat
with Caligula and he wrote a very eloquent speech that he desired to give to Caligula
in Greek.
3) However, when the day to deliver that speech came, Caligula refused to see Philo and
he never got to speak before the king. Although bitterly disappointed, Philos great
contribution was in persuading the majority of his people not to act rashlyat least
not while the statue was not yet put into placebecause he believed Father Yah had
placed a judgment on Caligula. Because the Jews listened to Philo, as it would turn
out, the city did not get destroyed in 40 CE although it would be destroyed thirty
years later.
4) Philos essay, though not heard by Caligula, was communicated to other lower
authorities. Pilate having been dismissed in disgrace, the new Roman governor of
Judea was a man named Marullus, and apparently Caligula thought he wasnt up for
the difficult task of installing that statue, so he sent word to Petronius, the governor of
Syria, who had a much larger army, commanding him to do the deed.
5) At first Petronius, who was no friend of the Jews, was eager to get the job done and
put the protestors in their place. But when these same Jews made it clear they would
rather die by the thousands than live to see a pagan statue in their Temple, Petronius
found it harder and harder to obey that command. And in all likelihood, the text of
Philos essay which was also backed by other leading Jewish authorities who had
gathered together to protest the statue, was also known by the Syrian governor.
6) In any case, Petronius was so impressed by the resolve of the Jews that he switched
sides and refused to obey the emperors command. He then gave a conciliatory
speech to his Jewish subjects and immediately after speaking the land that had been
besieged by months of terrible drought suddenly was drenched in a sudden
thunderstorm that appeared to come out of nowhere. It was at that point Petronius
knew that Elohim protected his subjects, so he delayed sending his refusal to the
emperor and hoped to buy more time.

15 | P a g e

7) Its at this point that the troubles with the statue reached King Agrippa, a son of
Herod the Great who enjoyed a great friendship with Caligula. Josephus doesnt tell
us if Petronius communicated with him, but I have little doubt that at least some of
these matters must have made it to his attention. He was the grandson of Herod the
Great and was very pro-Torah, but he also had the first of the 12 (Yaakov bar
Zawdee, Yochanans brother) beheaded in 44 CE according to Acts 12:1-2.
8) In any case, Agrippa I held a great feast for Caligula and while the emperor was
drunk he told his Jewish friend that he would grant him any favor he wished, and
Agrippa chose for Caligula to not go forward with installing his statue in the Temple.
9) Reluctantly, Caligula agreed and sent word to Petronius that If you have not already
installed and dedicated my statue to please forget about it. Some months later
Caligula was dead and the new emperor, Claudius, wisely backed out of the whole
affair because he knew his nephew was a mad man anyway.
The point is, had Philo not begun the first wave of official protest and had he not persuaded
his people to have more patience, disaster and holocaust would have certainly come early,
and the fact that it only came about a generation later was clearly not his fault. In any case,
Philo could not have been more authentically Hebrew and more pro-Torah than he was when
turning back the pagan tide which I think exonerates him from all charges of syncretism,
because if he did want to combine Judaism and Greco-Roman ideals he certainly would not
have risked his life in this endeavor.
The next source though that the Orthodox will have difficulty incorporating into their
database is of course the New Testament itself and yet, in a very ironic twist, it is the NT
that contains the earliest written account of some of the Oral Law that Yshua debated with
the Pharisees, the Orthodox rabbis of the day!
Therefore, for any Jewish authorities considering a re-trial of Yshua, they need to be
carefully but firmly informed that the NT is being used as a midrashic witness from a sect of
Judaism that followed Messiah; it was not being used to convert them to Messiah. Instead,
like the Talmud, the NT records the differing halachic views of the main Jewish sects of the
time, including the contingent that followed Yochanan the Immerser and later Yshua.
For example, Yshua asks If an animal falls into a pit on the Shabbat will you not pull it
out? He said this because he knew all too well that the Pharisees WOULD pull the animal
out of the pit on the Shabbatboth Hillel and Shammai schools agreed on this pointbut
the Essenes in the desert would not have. Nevertheless, it is clear that Yshua knew well the
mainstream halachic arguments of the day and sometimes he agreed with majority opinion
and sometimes he did not. In any case, since the Talmud records all sorts of passionate
disagreements among various sects of Jews why should the NT which has even older
information not be looked at the same way as a historical resource?
And finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls also have valuable information in them that need to be
taken into account, although granted this must be done with great care. The Essenes who
wrote them, by definition, were a breakaway sect, almost a cult, and they had many
disagreements with all the other Jewish schools to the degree that Yshua and his apostles
had greater agreements with the Pharisees than the Essenes did! The Essenes also kept a
different calendar and had some other eccentricities that were both serious and numerous. As
16 | P a g e

a result, one needs to be selective in choosing what halacha is applicable. Generally, if the
Essenes can be shown to agree with halacha that is well attested to in later sources, it should
be seen as reliable.
From all these sources a kind of master list should be compiled including all the known
halachic rulings that can be definitively traced to the first or second centuries CE as even
written sources from a century after Yshua are very likely to have oral roots in some
previous generations but certainly nothing later than the second century CE. In any case, this
master list should be what is used to determine the guilt or innocence of the 1st century
Sanhedrin.
Next in Part 2...is there a curse on the 1st century Sanhedrin and what are the ways and
ramifications if such a curse could be removed? Coming soon to a parsha near you!

17 | P a g e

Scroll to Scroll:
Todays Parsha #28: Metzora (The Leper)
PART 1: THE LAST AND CURRENT TORAH PORTIONS
AND NOW FOR THIS WEEKS PORTION
2) Meaning of this weeks Torah portion and summary of contents:
Metzora or more precisely Ha Metzora means The Leper, and the portion concerns
primarily how a leper gets pronounced clean by the priests, how he demonstrates he has
been cleansed from the disease. The previous Torah portion (Tazria) concerned states of
impurity and isolation for women who have just given birth and lepers. This portion
deals with how to get the lepers clean again. It then takes an interesting turn to discuss
what happens when a whole house becomes unclean before ending with other purity rules
for men and women.
Read Parsha (English-Leviticus 14:1-15:32). This week, we will read the entire portion
together.
3) Play by Play commentary where appropriate.
4) Point out key Hebrew words/terms. Color Commentary:
ZOT TIHYEH TORAH HA-METZORA (14:2) = This is the torah for the leper.
TORAH = This usage proves the torah as opposed to THE TORAH, the former
being an instruction to a particular group, in this case, lepers. As with the Tazria, the
phrase, ZOT TORAH indicates this the only place the topic is discussed, according
to the rabbis. Also in 14:32.
VEATSA HA-KOHEN EL-MINCHUTS LE-MACHANEH (14:3) = and the priest
shall go outside the camp. This confirms the instruction in Leviticus 13:45-46. The
lepers must live outside the camp and therefore the priests must go outside the camp
to treat them. The priest is in effect taking on the possibility of infection in an errand
of mercy.
VETZIVAH HA- KOHEN VE-SHACHAT HA-TZIPPOR HA-ECHAT ET-KICHERES AL-MAYIM CHAYIM (14:5) = and the priest will give orders that one
bird be slaughtered over living waters. This is part of the purification process that
returns a leper to normal, done over living waters just like our High Priest Yshua
is the living waters who cures lepers.
VEYASHAV MICHUTS LEAHOLO SHIVAT YAMIM (14:8) = but he will have
to remain outside his tent for another seven days. Even though the leper returns to
the overall camp, he is still kept from his tent for another week, so that he cannot
have intimate relations with his wife for 2 weeks from the time the infection was
18 | P a g e

pronounced clean. This is a very serious inconvenience even after being cured, which
is why false charges of leprosy were vigorously opposed.
PETECH OHEL MOED (14:13) = opening of the Tent of Meeting. The leper in this
case may enter the outer-most area of the Tent of Meeting, but the inner sanctuary
grounds are still off limits to him or her.
LIFNEY YAHWEH (14:16) = face of or presence of Yahweh. Since Abba YHWH
is everywhere at once, there is no one direction that is exclusive to Him. This then is
a reference for the direction of the Kadosh Kadoshim, where the Ark of the Covenant
was.
(14:21) One-tenth an ephah is equivalent to about 2 quarts.
Note on Leviticus 14:25-27: 25 "Next he shall slaughter the lamb of the guilt offering;
and the priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of
the right ear of the one to be cleansed and on the thumb of his right hand and on the big
toe of his right foot. 26 "The priest shall also pour some of the oil into his left palm; 27 and
with his right-hand finger the priest shall sprinkle some of the oil that is in his left palm
seven times before YHWH. (Lev 14:25-27 NAU)
Look at this process for slaughtering the lamb
Blood on the right earreminds us of Keefa cutting off the ear of Malchus, the
high priests servant and Yshua restoring it as he is arrested.
Then we see the hands and feet bloodya prophetic hint about the crucifixion
(they have pierced my hands and my feet-Ps. 22:16).
The oil is sprinkled seven times before YHWH. Oil here is SHEMEN, where we
get the garden of GET-SHEMEN-E where Yshua is arrested. Another word for
oil is also anoint mashia
Yshua is then on the stake for six hours after which, the seventh, he gets a
Shabbat and dies!
In Rabbinic literature, the suffering servant of Messiah is compared to a diseased
one/leper or one crushed by disease (Isaiah 53). This is because the righteous
servant becomes infected with the sins of others that he bears.
NEGHA (14:34) = plague mark. Following from our discussion last week, we see an
even more direct link between Mashiyach bearing the disease or stroke mark of plague
or leprosy by pouring out his life.
5886 [ 5887] (Hebrew) (page 619) (Strong 5061)
:78

n.m.:Gn 12:17 stroke, plague, mark, plague-spot; absolute Ex 11:1 +, Lv


13:13 +; cstr. Dt 24:8 +; sf. Psalm 38:12; 39:11; Lv 13:44, 2 Ch 6:29; pl.
Gn 12:17, Psalm 89:33; cstr. 2 S 7:14; 1. stroke, wound, inflicted by man on
man Dt 17:8, 21:5 (||, Pr 6:33. 2. stroke, metaph., esp. of a disease, regarded as sent by
a divine chastisement, Gn 12:17 (J), Ex 11:1 (E), 2 S 7:14 ( , || , i.e.
customary, ordinary), 1 K 8:37 = 2 Ch 6:28 (both || ;) 1 K 8:38 ( = 2 Ch 6:29
19 | P a g e

( ;) Psalm 91:10 (||;)


of Israel 38:12, 39:11 (||) , 89:33 (|| ;) v. also Is 53:8
(of suffering servant of , ) . 3. mark (60 t. Lv 13, 14), indeterm. Lv 13:5, 13:6
() ,
v:17; v:29; v:30; v:32; v:43; v:44; of leprosy, regarded as the heavy touch or
stroke of a disease, Lv 13:2 +; v:51 () , v:59, 14:3, 14:32, 14:54, Dt
24:8; also Lv 13:31; v:42; identif. with person having it 13:4, 13:12,
13:13, 13:17, 13:31; in garment, etc. v:47 + 15 t. Lv 13 ; in house 14:34, 14:35, 14:36,
14:43, 14:44, 14:48, 14:48; i.e. house-wall v:37, v:37, v:39; in stones of wall v:40; =
garment, etc., with plague-spot 13:50.
VESHAV HA-KOHEN BA-YOM HA-SHVII VERAAH VEHINEH PASA HA-NEGA
BE-KIROT HA-BAYIT (14:39) = and the priest will return on the seventh day and see
whether or not the mark has expanded on the wall and the house. Like with the leprous
marks on people, this suggests the priest initially marked the boundaries of the mark and
then checked a week later to see if that mark expanded beyond those lines that he drew.
Otherwise, it makes little sense to expect the priest to remember the exact dimensions of
every plague mark he has seen, quarantined and then subsequently examines a week later.
RAQAQ (15:8) = spits. The act of spitting can render an innocent party unclean. Yshua
uses this word in Matthew 5:22 that even the threat of such an act, is condemned to the
assembly. It is interesting because in this case Yshua is even STRICTER than the
Torah that simply says the spitting renders both parties unclean until evening (15:8)!
'Now when the man with the discharge becomes cleansed from his discharge, then he
shall count off for himself seven days for his cleansing; he shall then wash his clothes and
bathe his body in running water and will become clean. (Lev 15:13)
The word for running is actual CHAI = LIVING WATER! Isnt it interesting that
LIVING WATER makes one clean? What about the one who gave living water? This
tells us that immersion was required by flowing water, not sprinkling and not in wells.
VERACHATS BAMAYIM ET-KOL BESARO (15:16) = and bathe his entire body in
water. Since this command involves the washing of the entire body as opposed to
sprinkling or dunking in a small container, the Rabbis have derived the approximate
amount of water needed for each man to get clean: 40 saah or 80 gallons. From this
calculation mikveh pools in and around the Temple were constructed.
NIDDAH (15:20) = menstruation; however Rashi interprets this word as technically
referring to a womans SEPARATION as a result of her menstrual cycle and so
separation has become the predominant meaning in modern Hebrews.
VEIM TAHARAH MIZOVAH VE-SAFRAH LAH SHIVAT YAMIM VEACHAR
TITHAR (15:28) = when the woman is rid of her discharge she must count seven days
for herself and only then can she undergo purification. The Torah makes no distinction
between menstruation and any other kind of bloody discharge that a woman may have.
Therefore, the woman in the Gospels who had a bloody discharge for 12 years
(Matthew 9:20) was considered ritually unclean for all that period and was therefore
ostracized. Even after Yshua healed her she still had to wait a week by Torah law
before the priests would consider making her clean again. This is again also understood
20 | P a g e

by Rashi that NIDDAH is separation due to the blood flow and not just the menstrual
period itself. Also see 15:30.
VEHIZARTEM ET-BENEY YISRAEL MITUM-ATAM VE-LO YAMUTU BETUM
ATAM ET-MISKANI ASHER BETOCHAM (15:31) = you must warn the Israelites
about their impurity and not cause them to die if they defile the Tabernacle I have
placed before them. So without a Tabernacle or Temple standing, these Niddah rules
are relaxed. Some Rabbis hold however that one ritually unclean cannot enter the
Temple Mount area, though that is probably unenforceable it may not matter anyway
because the Temple was not under the mosque in the first place.
Torah Question of the Week:
What detail in this portion might suggest a reason why glass could be a sacred material
in ancient Israel?
END PART 1

21 | P a g e

PART 2: THE HAFTORAH


Torah Question of the Week:
What detail in this portion might suggest a reason why glass could be a sacred material
in ancient Israel?
Answer: We are told that any clay or earthenware or other type vessel that comes in contact
with unclean materials must be broken because it absorbs part of that substance and it cant
be taken out again. Glass however can never absorb such impurities, and is looked at with
reverence in rabbinic tradition in part because of this. New evidence is emerging in fact that
glass may have been invented in Israel, not Egypt as was previously thought, but time will
tell if that becomes the consensus historical view.
In watching a program called The Naked Archaeologist, the Jewish archaeologist Simcha
Jacobovichi suggested the reason a group of special rabbis were buried in a site that had the
largest slab of ancient glass ever found was that it was a remnant from the Second Temple
building! It was literally a slab of glass that was not applied for the building and was given a
kind of sacred burial. Because of that, when the Temple was destroyed, this glass was
preserved, and now it was the last remnant. In ages past aristocrats would have been buried
near the Temple so this was the next best thing. Buried right near this glass is Judah ha
Nasithe compiler of the Mishnah.
7) Haftorah portion (English- 2 Kings 7:3-20) and discuss common themes with the
Torah portion.
8) Our linguistic commentary
NESHEPH (7:5) = twilight. The last hour of the day, or more specifically the last hour
of BEYN HA ERUVIM (between the evenings), when the Pesach lamb is slaughtered.
The historian Josephus defines the longer period of BEYN HA ERUVIM as between the
9th and 11th hour of the daylight, 3-5 PM. Yshua died at 3 PM. This is the majority
usage of the word. There are only two instances where it refers to morning twilight in
Tanakh:
n.m. twilight (prop. twilight-breeze, cf. Gn 3:8; NH id.; Targum ,
; abs. 1 S 30:17 +, Je. 13:16; cstr. Is 21:4; sf. Jb 3:9; 1. evening
twilight 2 K 7:5, 7:7 (cf. v:12); opp. Is 5:11; time of concealment Jb 24:15, Pr
7:9 (+ , , to emphasize sin that shuns the day); of refreshing Is 21:4
( ;) of stumbling, in dim light Is 59:10 (opp. ) , so Je 13:16 (both fig.);
Jb 3:9 the stars of its twilight (i.e. of night of Job's birth).so
1 S 30 Klo Kit HPS (rd. for , We Kit Bu); Th, after Luth, sub so
Buhl:Kex SS; Lhr allows either. 2. morning twilight Jb 7:4 (opp. ). appar. also Psalm
119:147.

22 | P a g e

The priests and others would assist the nation with slaughtering the lambs and then the
last hour of the day, NESHEPH, they would do it for themselves and their households. At
that time, on the 14th day of the first lunar month, the full moon would RISE during
NESHEPH, the final marker that the time to have slaughtered or to be slaughtering the
Paschal lamb is at hand.
423

So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the Passover,
when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a
company not less than ten {c} belong to every sacrifice, (for it is not lawful for them
to feast singly by themselves,) and many of us are twenty in a company, 424 found the
number of sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred; 425 which,
upon the allowance of no more than ten that feast together, amounts to two million
seven hundred thousand and two hundred persons that were pure and holy (The
Jewish War, 6:423-425)
GECHAZI = Elishas servants name means valley of vision, which could be said to apply
to where Elisha had his prophecy! While Gechazi isnt directly mentioned in this portion, he
goes everywhere Elisha does.
18

It happened just as the man of Elohim had spoken to the king, saying, "Two
measures of barley for a shekel and a 1measure of fine flour for a shekel, will be sold
tomorrow about this time at the gate of Samaria." (2 Kings 7:18)
Compare this passage to Revelation 6:6 which is the OPPOSITE situation. Here the Syrians
would have normally burned the produce of the land so that Israel couldnt benefit from it as
they conquered. This time however, they abandoned the crop, leaving so much of it for
Israelite consumption that the prices dropped dramatically.
9) Renewed Covenant portion: (English) Mark 5:24-34 (all the way through with
applicable footnotes.)
10) Highlight common themes in Aramaic:
The woman who has a flow of blood (MARDIYTA) for 12 years would have, according
to our Torah portion this week, been considered unclean the whole time, as if added to
her menstrual period.
MEINYA (Mark 5:29) means both flow and fountain. It is related to the
FOUNTAIN of life connections we taught last week. The Hebrew cognate is
EINYA/AYIN (see Genesis 33:28).
Thematically, Daughter, your faith has given you Life is related to the fact that
FLOWING waters are called alive. She is cleansed from a flow of death (blood) into a
flow of life (eternal life).
The same root- ayin-yodh-noon- means in Hebrew and Aramaic eye, as if to suggest
she could now SEE with the EYES of faith after her healing from the BAD FLOW.

23 | P a g e

11) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (What I just said
above is key to our modern practice. Faith is the belief in that which is unseen and
incomplete as Rav Shaul says. But we see with the EYES of faith first to get a
FOUNTAIN of eternal life to make us well. In other words, now we see darkly, but
then on that Great Day we shall see complete.)
12) Relate to all or part of an Appendix portion of AENT or footnotes from a portion
(Read Ger Toshav, p. 836-839).
STUDY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED NEXT WEEK:
1) I have heard in the past some teachers equate the leper or menstruating womans bed
that makes all who lay on it unclean to the bed of Jezebel in Revelation 2:22. Why
is this wrong?
2) In a broader sense, who do these lepers signify in our modern times?
3) We saw the word RAQAQ discussed as spit and used that way by Yshua. But this
word in Aramaic has another interesting meaning that might also fit. What is it?
4) We saw the measured barley (SEORA) mentioned in this portionbut this word has
another interesting meaning that relates to something else we cut seasonally (most of
us). What is it and how does it lead to deeper meanings for us?
5) What are these images of clean and unclean meant to teach us about the spiritual
realm?

24 | P a g e

Torah Thought for the Week (Metzora):


The People v. Yshua of Nazareth, Part 2
Previously on The People v. Yshua of Nazareth
We talked about how there is a growing movement in Israel and elsewhere to get the
current Sanhedrin to conduct a retrial of Yshua of Nazareth, on the basis of due
process that may have been denied by the standards of that time.
And we also went into great detail how first and second century CE sources should be
the primary basis of determining if said violations occurred. These included the
writings of Josephus and Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, an early Talmud tractate known
as Sanhedrin and most surprising of all, the New Testament itself, but only as a
halachic and historical witness, not a tool for conversion.
And finally, we addressed some common misconceptions about Josephus and Philo in
particular to hopefully pave a path of acceptance of their testimony which in reality
has been underway for some time.
And now, the conclusion, where we deal with one of the most sensitive issues of them
all
Is There a Curse to Remove?
My friend told me that one of the goals these people have is removing a curse from the
Jewish people because of the false arrest, trial and execution of Yshua, even though he
knows well that it was the Romans who actually killed him.
I pointed out that IF a curse existed, it was only on the Sanhedrin elite and those who
followed in their leadership PERHAPS and not on the Jewish people as a whole. Nor does
the Sanhedrins failure to follow proper due process justify millennia of anti-Semitic based
persecution.
He agreed with me, but a kernel of his point remained, which is to say that if the sins of the
fathers are passed on to the fourth generation that the curse can continue past that fourth
generation if denials of the crime persist and lies about what happened are propagated. I
agreed with that assessment even though, to be fair to my friend, he said none of this directly.
How this manifests though is of critical importance to move forward properly. What I mean
is this: There are only two ways to remove this sin if in fact it is established that wrong was
committed against Yshua, as I believe it was.
The first way is for the Sanhedrin to acknowledge that Yshua of Nazareth is their Messiah
and in fact the Son of YHWHand of course while that may happen on an individual basis it
is not likely to happen in the numbers required to rectify this situation corporately, even
though individual forgiveness is always available. Therefore, if there is to be real positive
and lasting change we cannot overly evangelize the Sanhedrin.
That leaves one other remedy available which may be to many as unsettling as it is
surprising. If it can be shown that the Sanhedrin violated Torah principles during the period
25 | P a g e

that the Second Temple was still standing and the priesthood was functioning, then the
requirements for atoning for an innocent persons death must also come from Torah, and that
means following these guidelines in Deuteronomy 21:1-8:
When anyone is found slain, lying in the field in the land which your Elohim is
giving you to possess, and it is not known who smote him, then your elders and your
judges shall go out, and they shall measure the distance from the slain man to the
cities round about.
And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer
which has not been worked and which has not pulled with a yoke, and the elders of
that city shall bring the heifer down to a wadi with flowing water, which is neither
ploughed nor sown, and they shall break the heifers neck there in the wadi.
And the priests, the sons of Lwi, shall come near, for your Elohim has chosen
them to serve Him and to bless in the Name of , and by their mouth every strife
and every stroke is tried. And let all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man
wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the wadi. And they
shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes
seen it. O , forgive Your people Yisral, whom You have redeemed, and do
not allow innocent blood in the midst of Your people Yisral. And the bloodguilt shall be pardoned to them. (The Scriptures 1998)
Now granted, there is no priesthood today to perform the function described here, but notice
the priests in this passage are not required to do sacrificesonly the elders areand so it
may be that descendants of the priests could be found to act as witnesses while the elders
utter the repentance prayer. Such might even pave the way eventually to the full restoration
of the priesthood, but in this instance they only need be witnesses.
To me there is no middle ground. The remedy can only be in Messiah or in Torah and the
traditions of men in the intervening centuries will not help anyone lose this curse if in fact it
exists.
Witnesses for the Prosecution (Against the 1st Century Sanhedrin)
In Numbers 20:22-29, Father Yah Himself directly appointed Aarons successor as high
priest, that of his eldest surviving son, Eleazar. Father Yah also had selected Eleazars son
Phinehas to follow after him in a perpetual priesthood for his bravery (Numbers 25:11-18).
After Phinehas however the appointments of the high priesthood seemed to have rested
solely with the current one choosing a successor from among his sons (1 Chronicles 6:4-15;
Ezra 7:1-5).
What these references prove is that for the entirety of the Tanakh period we know the high
priests were legitimate sons of Aaron and had the proper training and righteousness befitting
their high office. The remainder of the high priests after Tanakh times and up to the

26 | P a g e

destruction of the Second Temple is recorded in varying degrees of completeness by


Josephus, the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the New Testament.
These same sources though also tell us something very troubling happened to the priesthood
both in the years just prior to and after the Maccabean Revolt. In around 171 BCE, Antiochus
Epiphanes, the same Antiochus who is our Hanukkah villain, was directly involved in
appointing a wicked man named Menelaus to be high priest. Menelaus wanted nothing short
of abolishing all Torah ritual from Israel, and he stole from the Temple treasury to pay off
Antiochus for giving him the position. In addition to these things, Menelaus was not even a
Levite according to 2nd Maccabees although other scholars dispute this. In any case, the point
is that a pagan king appointed him and that pagan kings son, Antiochus V, had him executed
and replaced him with a man named Alcimus.
Then, as the Hasmonean Kingdom took hold, they declared themselves worthy of being both
priests and kings, though they were neither from Judah to be eligible to rule nor from
Aarons line to be priests. In fairness they were of broader Levitical stock, though still
illegitimate.
The trend of civilian or even external powers appointing and removing high priests at will
continued when the Romans conquered in 63 BCE and when half-Arab kings like Herod the
Great ruled and promoted only men he thought he could control.
Into this mix we must add this general prohibition:
When you come to the land which your Elohim is giving you, and shall possess
it and shall dwell in it, and you shall say, Let me set a sovereign over me like all the
gentiles that are around me, you shall certainly set a sovereign over you whom
your Elohim shall choose. Set a sovereign over you from among your brothers,
you are not allowed to set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
(Deuteronomy 17:14-15, The Scriptures 1998)
Now while some may make an argument that Israel had no choice to submit to Roman rule
and no control over the fact the Roman Senate confirmed a half-Arab like Herod the Great to
be their king, I would counter that if Israel was righteous all along to this rule and others
perhaps the captivities and foreign dominations would have been prevented altogether by
Father Yah (Deuteronomy 30:1-7).
And the fact is also, Roman domination particularly in the area of appointing high priests
would have, by Torah law, made any such priesthood illegitimate even if the priest was a
descendant of Aaron which, in many cases, they were not. If the priesthood is illegitimate
then, how legal can the Sanhedrin headed by the high priest actually be?
So this is the first overarching pointthe entire Jewish legal system itself may have been unkosher and therefore its rulings at this time in history may be viewed as illegitimate.
On the other hand, perhaps these problems could be mitigated if it could be shown that the
Sanhedrin, however it originated and was constituted, nevertheless held themselves to
scrupulously high standards of Torah and even Oral Law adjudication. Unfortunately, the
27 | P a g e

early Talmudic tractate Sanhedrin which I mentioned earlier as a legitimate historical source,
tells us this is not the case:
(e) In civil cases the whole body of the court may defend or accuse, while in criminal
cases all of them may acquit, but the whole body must not accuse. (f) The former
may be discussed in the daytime and the decision rendered at night, while in the
latter the decision must be in the daytime. But if they did not come to a conclusion
on the same day, they have to postpone it to the morrow. (g) The decision concerning
the former may be reached on the same day either to one's advantage or to his
disadvantage, while in the latter the decision may be rendered on the same day to free
him, but not to condemn him until the next day; and, therefore, cases of capital
punishment must not be begun on the eve of Sabbath or of a legal holiday.
(Sanhedrin 4:1 Rodkinson Mishnah)
This I believe is at the heart of the bad process of the 1st century Sanhedrin, not only by
breaking Torah, but also by breaking Oral Law. Leaving aside for the moment that the NT
directly says false witnesses were collected against Yshuawhich is a violation of the 9th
commandment and Talmudthe Sanhedrin that condemned Yshua tried him both at night
and during a High Shabbat, in the early hours of Abib 15. It was bad enough the Romans had
no respect for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and killed Jews at that time; how much worse
for the Sanhedrin to do the condemning on that same High Shabbat? It also seems they had
to wait another day between the trial and the verdict, and this they did not do either, but
merely ran Yshua through the process in a single night and handed him over to Pilate in the
morning.
If nothing else, I would hope the current Sanhedrin would see these and other indisputable
violations of Talmud law and admit, theological controversies aside, that their forbears made
a horrific mistake that has been falsely perpetuated as righteousness in the centuries of
Jewish tradition that followed. Let them then break that chain of darkness, break the heifers
neck and be done with this madness once and for all.
And just so we are clear, I do not personally believe there is any collective curse on the
Jewish people as a whole. However, if the eldership made a bad call about the Son of Yah, as
seems likely, then they may have betrayed him like Judas did. The sin would have normally
tainted the leadership for up to four generations, but since it was never admitted or repented
of, what was their mistake could have indirectly affected countless generations of Jews that
came after them. And the proof of that possibility also may lie in the later Talmudic
justifications on the matter as well as the overall history of the Diaspora which began in the
generation after Yshua was killed.
To be sure, these are difficult and sensitive issues for all people concerned, which is why
should a re-trial of Yshua happen and the current Sanhedrin decide the time has come to
stop justifying what their 1st century counterparts did, there should also be representatives
from all branches of the Orthodox, Hebrew Roots, Protestants, Catholics and Aramaic
Christian groups alike to receive and accept that apology, so that Yshuas descendants by
both faith and blood can come together and move forward together into the light of grace and
reconciliation.
28 | P a g e

Im Andrew Gabriel Roth and thats your Torah Thought for the Week!
Next week we will be exploring Acharei Mot (Leviticus 16:1-18:30) and Kedoshim
(Leviticus 19:1-20:27). Our Haftorah readings will be Ezekiel 22:1-19 and Amos 9:7-15 and
our Renewed Covenant readings will be Romans 3:19-28 and Acts 15:1-21. Stay tuned!

29 | P a g e

You might also like