Parashat Tazri'a –Vayikra (Leviticus) 12-13

Aside from dealing with the purification rites of a post birth woman, the beginning part of Parashat Tazri'a also touches on the eighth day circumcision (see 12:3). Last week's Parasha was called "Shmini," meaning "eighth."  And while the bulk of Parashat “Tazri'a” deals with regulations of "tzarat" (leprosy and other skin conditions), it is the next Parasha which bears the name of the leper ("Me'tzorah"). Thus, even when there appears to be no connection between two successive Parashot (plural of Parasha), one is often threaded into the other (even if it is only by a very thin cord). That, however, will be not true of (next week's) Parashat Me'tzorah, which forms a sequel to this present one and is therefore very closely related to it.

"If a woman conceives seed [literal translation] and gives birth to a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days…" (12:2). "Conceives seed" is "tazri'a," being the name of our Parasha, is a very unusual form for "becoming pregnant," since its root word "zera" - z.r.a. -  (zayin, resh, ayin) is "seed" or "semen" (and by implication also "offspring"). S.R. Hirsch translates it: "When a woman has matured a human germ…" and goes on to comment: "Germ, basically the seed of plants and hence herb-yielding seed (Gen. 1:11), the seed-forming activity of plants for the continuation of their species, when applied to human beings is the usual term for the offspring by which Man continues his generation.  By the use of the expression "tazri'a" here, which only occurs in B’resheet 1:11 and 12, referring to the activity of plants for the continuation of their species, the mother's role in producing progeny is looked at in the purely material physical character of its physiological process, and with that one word the whole idea of the uncleanness spoken of here is shown."][1][ In this manner Hirsch also provides one of several answers supplied to the question, "Why should a mother be declared 'unclean' for fulfilling a Divinely-ordained mission?" The sages especially question the need for a sin offering. ][2][  The expression "tazri'a," however, brings to mind not only B’resheet 1:11 and 12, as Hirsch points out, but is also reminiscent of the usage of the term "zera," “seed” in B’resheet 3:15, where there is reference to the "Seed of the woman" Who is destined to crush the head of the serpent see also Gal. 3:16). Thus, by one word the “purely material physical character” of birth is brought out, and at the same time, in a contrasting manner, an allusion is made to the future “Seed of Woman” who will remove the sin inherent in every child born. The seven initial days of the woman's "impurity" mentioned, are linked here to the week of impurity during the menstrual cycle (“as in the days of her customary impurity.” See also Lev. 15:19). The numbers of days of impurity, upon the birth of a daughter, are to be twice as many as these days upon the birth of a son. The reason for this appears to be that, this daughter will also be “impure” during her menstrual cycle and when she gives birth.

"When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting" (12:6). The burnt offering, according to some of the sages, was a token of thankfulness to the Almighty for having preserved her through the labor pains and hazards, and for having been granted the strength to bear a child. "The new life within her made [the mother] deeply conscious of the greatness of the creator, as also of her insignificance as 'dust and ashes' and impurity; hence the need for a sin-offering."][3][

The sin offering may be linked to the fact that we are "brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5), as expressed by David, who was not singling out his own mother as a sinner for having conceived him, but was emphasizing the fact that man's inherent sin nature is hereditary and simply passes through the blood line. The fact that it is transmitted from generation to generation is illustrated by what we have already observed, that contained in man is the seed for the perpetuity of his (sinful) race, and thus the fruit will resemble the parent plant. The unusual usage of "tazri'a" could therefore be the clue to unraveling the 'mystery' of the mother's "impurity" after giving birth, and the requirement of a sin offering. Incidentally, Miriam, Yeshua's mother, did likewise (ref. Luke 2:22-24), even though her son's conception had been totally different. In this case, following the Torah ruling was most likely performed in the same vein as Yeshua's immersion, which was for the purpose of "fulfilling all righteousness" (Mat. 3:15). The usage of "seed" in connection to bearing an offspring, therefore, underscores the heredity nature of sinfulness. Thus, the "Seed of the woman" is a reminder that the sinless Seed will likewise be propagated after His own kind.

In one breath with the birth of "a male," mention is also made of the eighth day’s circumcision. When we reviewed last week’s Parashat Shmini mention was made of the significance of the figure “eight” which stems from the root sh.m.n, being the root for “fat” (hence “oil - shemen"), following the fullness of seven ("sheva"), thereby indicating an overabundance (at times with negative connotations, such as "and Yeshurun waxed fat…" Deut. 32:15, emphasis added). The eighth day circumcision also indicates that it takes precedence over Shabbat, and a child who is born on Friday, notwithstanding, will be circumcised on the following day (on Shabbat that is). Take note, in this respect, of the connection between the “seventh day” and the “eighth.”

The next part of the Parasha (chapter 13) is also devoted to issues of purity and impurity, this time related to skin diseases, as well as to contaminated houses and clothes. Since dealing with this variety of conditions was up to the priests' discernment, they are the ones mentioned, and it is therefore Aha’ron who is addressed here (whereas he was not mentioned in the first part of the Parasha). The various conditions described and elaborated upon all come under the general heading of "tza'ra'at" (tz.r.a, tzadi, resh, ayin). Another word which stems from the same root is "tzir'ah", meaning “hornet”. Both  "tza'ra'at" and "tzir'ah" appear to be used symbolically, as we see for example in Shmot (Exodus) 23:28: "And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you" (for a similar reference to hornets refer to Deut. 7:20 and Josh. 24:12).

The root tz.r.a means “project outward.” If the sins that were committed (and resulted in this affliction), were mostly done in secret then this condition will have revealed them, whether on one’s body, clothing or home. Doesn’t this illustrate our lives too? We may think, contemplate or even say something secretly, thinking that we can cover up iniquity. However, we cannot hid from YHVH, not to mention the fact that affliction of one form or another is “built into” the very action of sin, especially as it affects our bodies. Anything which is not of the nature of the One who indwells us is constituted sin, and thus, by not being conformed to His new life we bring on ourselves plagues and malaise, and every form of dis-ease.

     The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon defines the root verb "tza'ro'a" as "to throw down, prostrate, humble oneself"][4][. The various forms of "tzara'at" certainly placed the one declared as contaminated in a humbling, if not a humiliating state, as described in 13:45, 46: "Now the leper on whom the sore is, his clothes shall be torn and his head bare; and he shall cover his mustache, and cry, `Unclean! Unclean!' He shall be unclean. All the days he has the sore he shall be unclean. He is unclean, and he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp." The word for "unclean" is "tameh" (t.m.a, tet, mem, alef) with its literal meaning being "ritually polluted." 

The concept, "outside the camp," like many others in Scripture, is twofold. Whereas here the "tameh" is separated from the community, in Shmot (Exodus) 33:7, after the Golden Calf episode we read: "Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass that everyone who sought YHVH went out to the tabernacle of meeting which was outside the camp" (italics added). Likewise, in Hebrews 13:12-13: "Therefore Yeshua also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach." The paradox of “separation outside the camp” because of sin versus the set apart place “outside the camp” may be compared to another irony in our Parasha. The characteristic of tza’ra’at (a sin related condition) is the skin’s discoloration, turning it white, while in Yisha’ya’hu 1:19 it says: “though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow,” in this case “whiteness” marks purity.  

The latter part of chapter 13 deals with “tzra’at” as it contaminates leather or cloths (v. 47-59). In this connection it refers to wool in the last verse of the Parasha (13:59): “the leprous plague in a garment of wool,” while the second part of Isaiah 1:19 says: “though they [the sins] are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” In this case “wool” implies “whiteness” or “purity.”  Several times mention is made of “sh’ti  va’erev,” that is, the “warp and woof” of the cloth (the threads woven lengthwise and crosswise). The woof which is threaded through the warp is thought of as being “mixed in” and is therefore designated by the well known term “erev” (ayin, resh, vet), a term we have been following in many instances, but primarily in the word for “evening,” which is a state of light being mixed with darkness.

Nechama Leibowitz concludes: "According to most commentators tzara'at is not a common disease, but supernatural infliction by Divine Providence through which man is reminded of his sinful ways, and called upon to abandon them". The appended footnote says: "It is noteworthy that medical research fails to associate the Biblical tzara'at with any known disease. Its diagnosis as leprosy is rejected by modern medicine." She also points out that plagues in general had a special role as warning signs against sinful behavior [5], or were its consequences (e.g. 2^nd Sam. 24:1, 15; and 2^nd Chro. 26:16-21, where the plague mentioned is “tza’ra’at”).

 [[1] ] New Studies in Vayikra Part 1, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner  

        Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc.,       

        Brooklyn, N.Y.

]2[  Ibid

]3[  Ibid

]4[   The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson,   

       Publishers  Peabody, Mass. 1979.

]5[   New Studies

---

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Shmini – Vayikra (Leviticus) 9 - 11

"It came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel" (Lev. 9:1). "Shmini," translated “eighth,” denotes a new beginning. The previous Parasha ended with A'haron and his sons being charged to "not go outside the door of the tabernacle of meeting for seven days, until the days of your consecration are ended. For seven days he shall consecrate you" (8:33). And again in 8:35: “Therefore you shall stay at the door of the tabernacle of meeting day and night for seven days, and keep the charge of YHVH…" Thus, on the eighth day A'haron was to "take… a calf as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before YHVH" (9:2). It is no mistake or coincidence that on this eighth day, symbolic of the new beginning and departure from the 'former things,' A'haron, who had played a major role in the golden calf episode (Ex. 32), was to offer, first and foremost, a calf. This offering is rendered a cut off mark, in the course of which "all the congregation drew near and stood before YHVH" (9:5 emphasis added). In this way the atonement was fully made (see 9:7-22) and YHVH's relationship with Yisrael could be restored. This procedure, as specifically prescribed by YHVH, resulted in “… the glory [kavod] of YHVH appear[ing] to all the people" right after Moshe and A’haron blessed them (9:23). According to Nechama Leibowitz, "The revelation of the Divine glory here denotes a reward for their efforts in erecting a Sanctuary for the Shekina".[1] “And fire came out from before YHVH and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar, and all the people saw it, and they shouted and fell on their faces" (9:24). These sin offerings, therefore, became a demarcation point, separating sinfulness and profanity from YHVH's Holiness and Glory. The motif of the holy or clean versus the profane or the unclean is threaded throughout this Parasha, as we shall continue to observe.

           

 When the above described scene reached its peak, with "fire [coming] out from before YHVH… consuming the burnt offering…" as we just noticed, we are suddenly transferred without as much as a breather into the next one, with its parallel yet contradicting elements. And so we read in 10:1 about A’haron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu taking censors and putting fire and incense on them, which YHVH had "not commanded them." Theirs was a fire of their own making ("zara" - foreign, strange, of a different kind), which they brought near before YHVH, and "so fire went out from YHVH and devoured them" (v. 2). When the Children of Yisrael and their leaders did as they were commanded (see 9:10) and drew near to YHVH, His fire consumed the offering and He showed them His Glory. When Nadav and Avihu brought near before YHVH that which He did not command, it also resulted in a fire that went out from the Him, but this fire consumed them (see 10:1-2). The similar terms used to describe both episodes make for a sinister symmetry, one that demonstrates that often there may be but a fine line which separates the holy from the profane, the desirable from the detestable. An example of contrasting terms, that serve to highlight certain situations is seen in 9:24b, where we read that the people "shouted" - (va)yaronou - joyfully. In contrast, after Nadav and Avihu's sad annihilation, it says that A'haron was utterly silent, or even motionless - (va)yidom – root of d.o.m (see 10:3b). In Psalm 94:17, the expression "dwelling in silence" ("shachna duma”), denotes death. Psalm 115:17 says: "The dead do not praise YHVH, nor any who go down into silence" (duma, once again).

     "By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified" (10:3) is the explanation as to why Nadav and Avihu, because of their lofty positions, had to be totally obedient to YHVH and could not misrepresent him as they had done. In fact, they are called here by YHVH "k'rova'i" - those who are close (or near) to Me - and as such, YHVH was to “be rendered holy" ("eka'desh") by, or through them.  In addition, their actions were supposed to glorify YHVH causing others to also do so, with "eka'ved" being the term used, meaning literally "heavy," and by implication "highly esteemed."

In the second part of chapter 10, Moshe instructs A'haron and his two "remaining sons" (v. 12) to not display any signs of mourning. On the other hand, the rest of Yisrael was given permission to "bewail the burning which YHVH has kindled" (v. 6b, italics added). Interestingly, the “burning” here is not attached to the particular individuals, neither to human beings in general or even to death. The word used, which sounds so dreadfully detached, is "s'refa," meaning "burning” or “to burn." It appears that the emphasis is put on the calamity itself as it was inflicted by YHVH, with the priests being expected to identify with His approach (hence His strict orders to them not to display signs of mourning over the death of their relatives). In addition, they were to remain inside the tent (cf. 8:33,35, mentioned above) as long as YHVH's anointing oil was on them, and were also prohibited from drinking wine and intoxicating drink in the course of their service in Ohel Mo'ed ("Tent of Meeting", 10:6-9). This latter requirement led some commentators to surmise that YHVH's anger against Nadav and Avihu was kindled because they may have been inebriated while ministering. The purpose for these measures was "that you [i.e. the priests] may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which YHVH has spoken to them by the hand of Moses" (v. 11). But in order to be able to do so, they had, according to verse 10, to "distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." It is this verse which encapsulates or summarizes the motif (as mentioned above) of the entire Parasha.

At the end of the following section (10:12-20), Moshe reproves A'haron and his remaining (“nota'rim”) sons, El'azar and Itamar, for not having eaten the remaining (“noteret”) offering, which was rightfully theirs (see v. 17). Instead, they burned the goat for the sin offering ("soraf," v. 16 – identical word to the “fire” mentioned in 10:6 above, which consumed Nadav and Avihu), making a fire of their own and getting rid of that which they were supposed to consume. Once again A’haron’s sons were not acting according to the prescribed instructions. Fear of failure appears to have led these two to over react and miss YHVH’s instructions. Here we also hear A'haron expressing himself for the first time after the loss of his two sons, a loss he refers to as, “such things [that] have befallen me" (v. 19), and wondering if the eating that was required "…had been good - (ha)yitav - in the eyes of YHVH. And Moses heard and it was good - (va)yitav - in his eyes" (vs. 19-20 literal translation). The echoing of A'haron's "good" in Moshe’s response seems to indicate that harmony had been restored.

Our Parasha clearly brings out the role of the priests in the Israelite society, and their view of their office. S.R. Hirsch elaborates on this issue: "The Hebrew priest is part of the nation, and his position is not an isolated one before God, but one that he occupies only within and through the nation….” Regarding the sacrifices and their function relative to the Almighty and to the worshipper, he says: “The closeness of and approach to God… may only be found through obedience to and acceptance of God's will…  The offering means to place the offerer at God's service, i.e., he wants to fulfill God's wishes through his offering. All offerings are therefore forms of Divine demands which the offerer, through his offering, accepts as the guidelines for his future conduct."[2]

     

In line with the theme of separating the clean from the unclean, the rest of the Parasha (chapter 11) is devoted to the type of animal, fish and fowl permitted for consumption, as well as to those that were forbidden. It is interesting that verses 4-7 constitute a list of four animals, all of which have one of the two traits required, but are devoid of the other. However, the first trait mentioned in all four cases happens to be the one that fulfills the requirement, whereas the specification of the missing one is second. The lesson to be learned here is simple:  even though things may seem 'right' or 'proper' at first sight, they should be investigated further, lest deception sets in (e.g. notice the order of adjectives in the title of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). The above tragic scene, with Nadav and Avihu, A’haron’s sons, who may have had ‘good’ intentions, illustrates this point even more poignantly. YHVH’s holiness and His charge upon His people to be “set apart as He is” cannot to be measured by human standards of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ and requires unquestionable obedience.

"You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them, for I am YHVH your Elohim. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy, for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth, for I am YHVH who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your Elohim. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy" (11:43-45). The Israelites were separated for YHVH’s sake by being brought out of Egypt, the land of bondage, where they belonged to someone else (whose servants they were). Now, however, they belonged to their Maker. They were, therefore, to reflect His nature of holiness.

Aligning themselves with their Elohim and His ways is what makes the Israelite Nation a "holy nation." Partaking of that which is abominable in His sight, or even coming into contact with it renders those who choose to do so just as abominable - "sheh’ketz": “You shall not make yourselves (lit. “your soul”) abominable – teshak’tzu” - with any creeping thing that creeps” (v. 43).  The "abomination (of desolation)" in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 employs the same word, with a certain modification (“shikutz”). Interestingly, the partaking of the unclean meat, fish, and fowl has no legal consequence. One may ask, therefore, if the result of being “abominable” and “defiled” before YHVH isn’t, in and of it self, the (unspecified) penalty (although according to Isaiah 66:17 the offender is not unpunished).

Our Parasha ends with a clear reminder of its theme: “to distinguish, [or separate], the unclean from the clean…" (11:47).

Notes

---

[1] New Studies in Vayikra Part 1, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner  

      Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc.,       

      Brooklyn, N.Y.

[2] Ibid

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Tzav – Vayikra (Leviticus) 6:8 - 8 (Hebrew Scriptures 6-8)

"Command Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the burnt offering…’” (Lev. 6:9), are YHVH's words to Moshe at the beginning of our Parasha, named after the imperative form of "command" - "tzav." "The law (of the burnt offering)" is rendered "torah," making the usage of this word here, “binding instructions.” This is one of several examples of the way this multi-faceted term is utilized. But before attending to the subject matters included in the Parasha, let us pause and look at an all important word that appeared three times in last week’s Parashat Vayikra (in Lev. 4:3, 5, 16, being its first appearing in Scripture), and once in ours (6:22). This word is “mashi’ach,” translated “anointed.” In Hebrew, however, there is a clear distinction between “anointed” in verb form (such as in 6:20), which is means “to coat with oil,” as well as the adjective form such as in Sh’muel Bet (2^nd Samuel 3:39) where David declares: “And I am weak today, though anointed [“mashu’ach”] king,” AND the noun: “Mashia’ch.”  In order to illustrate the difference we can take, for example, the verb “to appoint.” “Appointed,” as in an ‘appointed person’ is an adjective, whereas “appointee” is classified as a noun. Similarly, “mashi’ach” is not someone who has been merely smeared or coated with oil, whether for a singular function or for long term functions, or even for a permanent position or calling. “Mashi’ach’s” function and nature, his very being, are embodied in his person. And even though this term was used regarding the priests (or the people of Yisrael -  “m’shi’chim” – plural, in Ps. 105:15), they obviously were not The Messiah.  This rendering was employed with the long term view heralding the coming of the One and only “Mashi’ach” –  the Anointee, if you will.    

   Back to the Parasha’s topics, with the central one being dedicated to the various offerings, and their added specifications. The interaction and connection that exists between them is one more feature introduced in the Parasha. Thus, we read about the meal offering - "mincha" (in 6:17b): “…It is most holy, like the sin offering, and like the guilt offering" (italics added). In verse 25, it says about the sin offering ("chatat"): “This is the law [torah] of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before YHVH" (italics added). Likewise, regarding the guilt offering ("a'sha'm"): “In the place where they kill the burnt offering, they shall kill the guilt offering" (7:2, italics added), and again in 7:7: “As a sin offering is, so [is] a guilt offering. One law [torah] is for them. The priest who makes atonement by it, it is his" (italics added).

     In summation, the meal offerings' holiness is identical to that of both the sin and guilt offerings, all of which are denoted by the term "kodesh kodashim" - holy of holies – i.e. the "holiest of all."  The animals for the sin and guilt offerings are to be killed in the same place as the burnt offering.  Similarly, both the sin and guilt offerings are to have one "torah," according to which they actually belong to the priest who makes the atonement of these two offerings (7:7). Thus, status (of holiness), place, and ownership are the three common elements shared in some way by all four of these offerings.

     

These same three attributes may be quite easily related to the person of Yeshua, to what He has accomplished, and hence to the benefits that we derive thereby:

    1. Holiness: Yeshua was referred to as, “The Holy One and the Just” (Acts 3:14, italics added). "According as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, for us to be holy and without blemish before Him in love" (Eph. 1:4, italics added).

2. Place: Yeshua told the disciples: "I am going to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2, italics added).

     3. Ownership by the Priest: "I am the Good Shepherd, and I know those that are mine, and I am known by the ones that are mine" (John 10:14, italics added).  "I guarded those whom You gave to Me" (John 17:12, italics added). "Of those whom You gave to Me, I lost not one of them" (John 18:9, italics added).  “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Yeshua the Son of Elohim” (Hebrews 4:14 italics added).

   

   Following the instructions for the "guilt offering" is the "torah of zeva'ch sh’lamim,” or “the law of the sacrifice peace offerings” (7:11-21), which appears to stand on its own. However, its conspicuous placement after the mention of the "guilt offering" may be significant. Last week we noted that the "guilt offering" (as mentioned in Parashat Vayikra), was accompanied by reparations for damages incurred (5:6-8). Peace and reconciliation cannot take place before one is relieved of one's guilt (through YHVH’s provision, such as making good for damages).  We also noted that "sh'lamim" is of the root sh.l.m, meaning "complete or whole," as well as "peace, reconciliation and payment." But the actual term for "peace offering" - sh'lamim - is rendered in the plural form. This is not surprising, as this type of sacrifice includes three differing aspects or categories: thanksgiving, oath and a freewill offering (7:12-16).

Thanksgiving is "toda," from the root y.d.a, connected to "hand" or “arm” (and confession, as we observed last week). Interestingly, in quite a few cases carrying out one’s vow is conveyed as "paying the vow/oath" - "shalem neh'de'r" - making use of both these terms (“peace/whole/pay” and “oath”) together (e.g. 2 Sam. 15:7; Ecc. 5:3-4; Is. 19:21*; Jonah 2:9). The freewill offering is termed "n'dava," which is a word we encountered in Parashat Trumah (in Ex. 25:2). The root n.d.v. speaks of generosity and free giving. “Oath” as "neh'de'r” (n.d.r) is connected to another root, n.z.r, which is the root for "nazarite," being the adjective for 'he who is bound by a neh'de'r - oath' (see for example Numbers 6:2). The root n.z.r also appears in our Parasha.

In 8:9, toward the end of the Parasha, we read about the consecration of A'ha'ron and his sons: "And put the miter on his head, and on the miter, on its front, he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as YHVH commanded Moses." The "holy crown" here is "nezer ha'kodesh," the “crown of holiness.”  Since the nazarite is a person who is "consecrated or dedicated (by an oath)," the root n.z.r appears to be a fusion of that which pertains to a priestly ministry and at the same time also referring to a crown, an item associated with royalty. Does the term “nezer,” therefore, allude to the office of king-priest, particularly as it was to be fulfilled in Yeshua (see Zech. 6:13)?

    "As to the flesh of the sacrifice of the thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten in the day of his offering. He shall not leave of it until morning" (7:15). This idea engendered a variety of comments on the part of the sages and rabbis. Maimonides, writing in The Guide for the Perplexed- part 3, proffers the following reason: “‘The offerings must all be perfect and in the best condition, in order that no one should slight the offering or treat it with contempt’. And according to Sefer haHinuch:  ‘There is an allusion [here] to our trust in God; a man should not begrudge himself his food and store it for the morrow, seeing that God commanded to utterly destroy sanctified meat after its time, when no creature - man or beast - is allowed to partake of it.’” This point of view is comparable to the way the Israelites were supposed to regard the manna.2 Notice that the Pesach lamb also had to be consumed without leaving its remains overnight  (Ex. 12:10). In addition, if the offerer is to partake of the peace offering, he must himself be ritually clean or else be cut off from his people (ref. 7: 20, 21). Similarly, in 1^st Corinthians 11:20-34, we read that those who were breaking bread together were not to do so “unworthily, [such] that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and let him drink of the cup; for he who is eating and drinking unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" (v. 27-29).

Still on “Ze'vach sh'lamim" and its above mentioned features… This offering may be seen as an analogy to Yeshua's perfect (shalem) and "one [time] offering… [that] has perfected the ones being sanctified for all time" (Heb. 10:14, italics added), who are thereby able "through Him… [to]  offer up a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Elohim always, that is, the fruit of the lips…” (Heb. 13:15, italics added).

"Any person who eats any blood, even that person shall be cut off from his people" (7:27). In last week's Hebrew Insights we looked at Vayikra 17:11, regarding the “blood which makes atonement for the soul." It also says there that, “the life is in the blood." And while Mankind - "Adam" - is of the earth ("adama"), he is also of blood, which is "dam."  Man cannot partake of the very substance which is divinely designed to both give him life AND cover his sin and iniquity.

  In chapter 8, dealing with the consecration of the priesthood, one of the words used for "consecration" is "milu'im" (v. 22, 28,29,31,33), of the root "m.l.a" (mem, lamed, alef), meaning "full, to make full or fulfill,” and by implication "consecrate," as is seen in verse 33: "…until the days of your consecration – mi’lu’ey’chem” are fulfilled – melot. For He shall consecrate – ye’maleh (et yad’chem – your hand) - you seven days" (italics added). The connection of "maleh" (singular form) to consecration seems rather obscure. Yet when looking at the items pertaining to the act of consecration, in verses 25 and 26, all of which were to be placed on the palms of A'ha'ron's hands and his sons’, we get a glimpse of the connection between 'making holy' and 'full.'  This is how it is described in the Gill Commentary: "And thou shalt put all in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons," [&c.], which accounts for the use of the phrase, filling the hand for consecration." Gill goes on to say - "For all the above things of the ram, bread, cakes and wafers were put into their hands when consecrated, denoting their investiture with their office: all things are in the hands of Messiah, relative to the glory of God and the good of his people. Their persons are in his hands, and all grace and blessings of it for them; a commission to execute his office as a priest is given to him.  And as it was proper that he also should have somewhat to offer (Heb. 8:3), his hands are filled, and he has a sufficiency for that purpose, as Aaron and his sons had."3  And to that we  add: “And out of His fullness we all received, and grace on top of grace. For the Torah was given through Moses, and grace and truth came through Messiah Yeshua" (John 1:16,17, italics added).

   The Parasha ends with A’haron and sons doing as they were commanded, that is sitting for a complete seven days and nights at the door of the Tent of Meeting, thus fulfilling  the “charge of YHVH” (8:33,35) for their sanctification - “milu’im” (again, literally, “fullness” or “completion”).

Lastly, another interesting encounter with the term “fulfill” or “fulfilling” by the “hand” is found in Divrey Hayamim Bet (2^nd Chronicles). At the inauguration of the (first) Temple, Shlomo addressed YHVH, and then “turning around,” he “blessed Yisrael” saying: “Blessed be YHVH the Elohim of Israel, who spoke by his mouth to David my father, and with [or by] his hands fulfilled…”  (6:4, literal translation).  The question whose hands did the “fulfilling” (as in Hebrew verse 4 is ambiguous) is answered by Shlomo in verse 15 of the same chapter: “… You spoke by Your mouth, and with Your hand You fulfilled [it, on] this very day” (literal translation).  And as we saw above (in John 1:16), YHVH does not only do the fulfilling, He is also responsible for the FULLNESS.

Notes:

*.  “ Then YHVH will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know YHVH in that day, and will make sacrifice [ze’vach] and offering [mincha]; yes, they will make a vow [neh’der] to YHVH and perform [shi’lemu].” With this text referring to Egypt, notice the surprising usage that is made here of the familiar terminology from last week’s Parasha and also from the present one.

2. New Studies in Vayikra Part 1, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

3. Gill Commentary, On Line Bible.

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Vayikra - Vayikra (Leviticus) 1-6:7 (Hebrew Scriptures 1-5:26)

This week's Parasha shares its name with the Book's title (Vayikra), which means "And He called - to Moses," continuing with, “and YHVH spoke to him out of the Tent of Meeting, saying…" (literal translation).  The Hebrew syntax of this opening verse is somewhat awkward and obscure. Let us try to find out why. The book of Sh’mot ended with (literal translation): “… so Moses finished the work.  Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of YHVH filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the glory of YHVH filled the tabernacle…  the cloud of YHVH was above the tabernacle by day, and fire was over it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys” (40:33b-35, 38 italics added). Given the fact that during this season Moshe found himself unable to enter the Tent of Meeting because of YHVH’s glory, hearing suddenly the sound of his name would have startled and bewildered him. If written from his vantage point, this strangely formulated text “and He called to Moses, and YHVH spoke to him…” could express his uncertainty as to the source of the sound… until he gathered his wits, realizing Who was calling him.

"Any man, if he brings an offering of you…" (1:2) starts the long and detailed discourse on the sacrifices. It is quite significant that the laws of the sacrifices begin with the word 'man', “to teach that man is the subject and not the object of the sacrifice,” says Seforno. He continues, elaborating: "If he brings an offering of you," that is, from your very selves, with a confession and with due submission, in the spirit of the Psalmist's, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit” (51:17), for the foolish who offers sacrifices without proper humility will find no acceptance"[1]. "Brings an offering" is condensed into one word - yakriv -  rooted in "k.r.v" (kof, resh, bet/vet), which we have already encountered in Parashat Tetzaveh (in Ex. 28:1), and means to “bring near," sharing its root with "korban" - "an offering" or a "sacrifice." Clearly, the purpose of the offerings is primarily to draw the worshipper near or close to YHVH, albeit according-to-His-stipulations.

The first type of offering presented here is the "olah," the burnt offering, a noun that originates with the root a.l.h (ayin, lamed, hey) for the verb “aloh” - meaning to “go up or ascend"; or in a different conjugation, to “raise, elevate, or lift up." Thus, the burnt offering is that which is lifted up to YHVH. The animal is to be “tamim” - "whole, perfect, or faultless." Noach, who "walked with Elohim" was declared "tamim" in his generation (Gen. 6:9); Avraham was told by YHVH, "walk before Me and be tamim" (Gen. 17:1). In Parashat Tetzaveh we examined the Oorim and Toomim (Ex. 28:30), that were to be carried "before YHVH," noting again that the meaning of "Toomim" is "perfect." Hence, that which is to be brought before YHVH (or anyone who walks with or before Him) is to be "perfect" or "whole" (again, according to His specific requirements). Consequently that which was to be "lifted up" (the olah - the burnt offering, along with the peace offering, 3:6, sin offering 4:3, and the guilt or trespass offering, 5:15) had to be in that state or condition, being a reflection of the offerer’s heart attitude, as we shall soon see.

This "korban tamim" had to be brought to the door of the Tent of Meeting, "that he may be accepted - lir'tzono - before YHVH" (1:3 italics added). The question arises here, 'who is being accepted?' Is it the sacrifice, or is it the one making the sacrifice? The answer offered by Prof. Nehama Leibowitz is as follows: "Accepted does not refer to the offering but to the offerer. Acceptance is not an automatic result of the sacrifice; it alludes to the intention that prompts the offering and the spirit in which it is brought. God's will is not swayed by the offering, and He is not thereby "forced" to draw nearer to man. Rather, the offering expresses man's desire to purify himself and come closer to his Creator."[2] As we can see, "bringing up" (offering) the "korban" marks the process of reform or internal change, and is expressed by an outward action. "Acceptance" is also denoted by an external act of the offerer's hand, as it lays on the offering itself (1:4). In Parashat Tetzaveh we noted the purpose for the "laying of the hands" (s.m.ch. of the root to “lean" - Ex. 29:10), as "an identification with the korban which is about to give up its life, denoting ultimate submission.

After the animal is slaughtered, its blood sprinkled, its skin removed and its body parts arranged on the wood, the priest was to wash its "entrails and legs." In Hebrew the entrail is called "kerev" (1:9). The "kerev" (or "k'rava’yim" in plural) is the "inward parts." We have just observed that the noun and verb for "offering" and "to offer," respectively, are of the root k.r.v, meaning "near or close," and so are the "inward parts," all of which appear to symbolize the "drawing near" to YHVH on the part of the offerer, himself undergoing an inward change. The "legs" here are "k'ra'ayim," which is of the root k.r.a (kaf, resh, ayin), meaning to “kneel or crouch,” and is the word used for the two front bending legs of the animal, thus creating an allusion to the required attitude of submission and humility.

When all is cut up properly, washed, and burnt up by the fire it produces "a sweet savor to YHVH" (1: 13). A smell of any kind is always a harbinger. This aroma, therefore, symbolizes the change that has taken place within the person who puts his confidence in YHVH (by relying and leaning on Him), and who is humbly drawing near Him. The smell’s “soothing aroma” is “rey’ach ni’cho’ach.” The latter stems from the root n.u.ch (noon, vav, chet) that we encountered in Parashat Noach (in Gen. 6:9 – 11:32), where we learnt that it is the root for “rest” and connected to the protagonist’s name – Noach – who himself brought an offering – an “olah” – which in B’resheet (Genesis) 8:21 is said to have sent off a “soothing aroma.” It follows, then, that the aroma is indicative of the fact that an issue has been settled and brought to rest. In Romans 12:1 we are told “to present [our] bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to Elohim.” It is only natural, then, that 2^ndCorinthians 2:15 adds that, “we are to Elohim a sweet savor of Messiah,” if we have indeed offered-up-ourselves.

The next offering is the meal offering, "mincha" (2:1), which is thought to be of the root m.n.h (mem, noon, chet), meaning "a gift or a tribute"[3]. Ka’yin (Cain) and Hevel both brought a "mincha" to YHVH (Gen. 4:3, 4). This type of offering, as it is presented here, is made up of variable mixtures of grain, oil, frankincense, and is baked or fried without leaven or honey, although there are somewhat different stipulations required when it is offered as a first fruit (ref. 2:14-15). "A soul, if it should offer…" (2:1) is the introductory phrase to the "mincha" regulations, as well as to the sin offering (4:2), and guilt offering (4:27). The term "soul" (“nefesh”) rather than "a man" (although not always reflected in the translations) which was used regarding the burnt offering, may point to the place from where the person's true intents issue forth. This is particularly appropriate in the case of the “mincha,” as it was the only offering that all could afford - including-the-poor.

Following the "mincha" is the "peace offering," "zeva'ch sh'lamim" (3:1). The word used here for offering is no longer "korban" but "zeva'ch," which is "slaughter for sacrifice." Quite appropriately our Patriarch Ya’acov is seen offering a “zeva’ch” when he and Lavan (Laban) were reconciled, making peace with each other (Gen. 31:54). "Shlamim" is of the root sh.l.m (shin, lamed, mem), meaning "whole, complete, or full,” being also the root meaning of "shalom" – “peace” - from which the word for "payment" is derived. Thus, when He cried out "it is finished" (John 19:30), Yeshua the Perfect ‘Ze'vach’ who paid the full and necessary price, such that we may have peace with YHVH, summarized-His-tremendous-undertaking-in-one-word.
Next is the sin offering which denotes a korban offered for sins committed inadvertently - "korban chatat" (4:2ff.). Chatat is of the root ch.t.a (chet, tet, alef), just like “chet” (“sin”) and primarily means to “miss a goal or a mark." But as is often the case in Hebrew, the same root can apply to another word - opposite in meaning - creating one of the language's characteristics of dynamic tension and paradox. Thus the root ch.t.a, used in a different conjugation, also forms a verb which means to “cleanse or purify" (e.g. Lev. 14:49, 52; Num. 19:12, 13). Hence the cure is contained within the very affliction itself. Prof. Nechama Leibowitz points out that in the case of this type of "missing the mark," as presented here, "the offerings imposed on the leaders of the people involve a greater burden than those required of the ordinary people"[4]. Let us examine some of the relevant verses: "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people" (4:3 emphasis added), as compared to 4:13: "And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err" (emphasis added), and compared again to: "When a ruler sins… and is guilty" (4:22 emphases added). The usage of the various terms here, as they relate to the-respective-parties-speak-for-themselves.

In dealing with the sin offering a singular new term is introduced - confession. The first 13 verses of chapter 5 enumerate the various offenses which, aside from incurring the need for a sacrifice, also require confession (ref. v. 5) - "vidu'y," of the root y.d.a (yod, dalet, hey). "Yada" stems from "yad" – “hand” - and its basic meaning therefore is to “cast or throw." Many times it is used in connection with casting stones. However, it is also the root for "thanksgiving" and "praise" (and hence the name Yehuda). Just as the word for "teaching" (from which we get the noun “Torah”) stems from the act of "shooting" (an arrow), so do these terms of “thanking, praising and confessing,” issue forth from a root denoting activity. It is no wonder that the hand is symbolic of all of these expressions, as it is able to stretch forth and reach further than any other part of the human body - thus rendering it an instrument of communication and action. This root and its derivatives shed light on the society which made use of them, demonstrating its vibrant and animated communicativeness,nandnits-expressive-characteristics.-

Lastly, the Parasha deals with "guilt offerings," which were also to be offered upon sins being committed inadvertently. But in this case, before making the sacrifice, reparations had to be paid (5:14-6:7). By the same token, Yeshua says: “If you offer your gift on the altar, and remember there that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go. First, be reconciled to your brother [compensate him for what your behavior has caused him to suffer or lose], and then come, offer your gift" (Mat.5:23,24). “Committing a trespass” is the term used, and in Hebrew “tim’ol ma’al” (5:15; 6:2). Interestingly, “ma’al” which speaks of “unfaithfulness and treachery,” is very similar to “m’eel” which is an “outer garment,” especially worn by high ranking personages, such as the priests [5]. This is much like “ba’god,” the meaning of which is identical to “ma’al,” and to “begged,” being an “outer garment.” Do these connections of disloyalty to articles of clothing suggest the proverbial nakedness requiring covering of the unfaithful individual, and at the same time infer that a personmofmanymrank.is-susceptible-to-such-acts (seenminmversesm3-12,-22-26 of chapter-4)?

In verse 2 of chapter 6 the above discussed term, “tim’ol ma’al,” is used in a singular fashion. Unlike any other reference to “missing the mark” or to “trespassing” in the Parasha, here the offender is said to commit a trespass “against YHVH.” This trespass is one which involves “lying to [one’s]… neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it…” (6:2-3). YHVH clearly treats those kinds of offences very solemnly, and regards them as a direct wrongdoing against Himself (see for example, Matt. 25;40, 45). It is the “least of these”, the poor, the humble and the needy who are unprotected that, our Elohim identifies with, having sent His Son to personify and exemplify such a lowly status.

As mentioned, in the last three types of offerings (peace, sin and guilt), we observed faultless ("tamim") animal sacrifices. There is no mention of laying hands on the animals in the course of performing the "guilt offering," but it exists in the case of both the peace (3:2,8,13) and sin offerings (4:4,15). In all cases (except the meal offering), blood is involved, “for it is the blood which,makes-atonement-for-the-soul"-(Lev.-17:11).

Notice that only clean animals fit for consumption were to be offered up to YHVH. Therefore, whenever offerer and priest would share in eating the sacrifice, both parties-would-be-partaking-of-YHVH’s-table.

Finally, in chapter 2:13, in the passage dealing with the "meal offering," we read: "And every offering of your food offering you shall season with salt, and you shall not let the salt of the covenant of your Elohim be lacking from your food offering; you shall offer salt with all your offerings." Yeshua makes reference to this perpetual salt covenant in Mark 9:49-50: “For everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt. Salt is good, but if the salt becomes saltless, by what will you season? Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with one another" (italics added). Being who we are in Yeshua, we are rendered a salted sacrifice burnt by fire unto the peace (completeness, fullness) which He made "by the blood of His cross" (Col. 1:20), sealing the covenant for all eternity.

[1] New Studies in Vayikra Part 1, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

2 Ibid

3 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980.

4 New Studies in Vayikra Part 1, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

5 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson. Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.

---

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Fkudey – Sh’mot (Exodus) 38:21- ch. 40

Parashat Fkudey, the last in the book of Sh’mot, continues to elaborate on the inventory of materials for the Mishkan and on the priests’ official garments. “Fkudey” means, “which was counted,” or “these are the accounts.” But it is not only the Mishkan’s inventory which is counted or inventoried; the term is also applied here to the congregation itself (38:25, “pkudey ha’eda” – “those of the congregation who were taken into account”). The meaning of the root p.k.d. aside from counting, visiting and commanding, originates with “invest with purpose or responsibility”1 Thus in last week’s Parashat Va’yak’hel emphasis was placed on the congregation as a “kahal,” a crowd, a mass, host, whose parts (namely the individuals who make it up) have no significance in and of themselves. But the term “fkudey,” on the other hand, stresses the fact that the congregation has no existence apart from the individuals who make it up. Thus, each and every one has been “visited” and “taken into account” in order to make the half shekel payment (ref. 38:25,26).2

In Parashat Trumah’s chapter 25 we noted some parallels between the establishing of the Mishkan to the creation process. Here, in 39:32, we read the following: "And all the work of the tabernacle of the congregation was finished (“vate’chal”), and the sons of Israel did according to all which YHVH commanded Moses; so they did” (emphasis added). In B’resheet (Genesis) 2:1 it says: “And the heavens and the earth were finished (va’ya’chulu), and all the host of them. And Elohim finished (va’y’chal) His work which He had made…” (emphases added). Here is yet another parallel to the creation process, found also in 39:43 where it says: “And Moses saw (“va’yar”) all the work, and behold they had done it…. and Moses blessed them.” This may be compared to the oft-repeated “and Elohim saw…“ (in B’resheet 1) and also to B’resheet 1:28, where in reference to the creation of man and woman it says, “and He blessed them” (emphasis added). In 40:33 we read, “And he raised up the court all around the tabernacle and the altar, and hung up the screen of the court gate. So Moses finished (va’yechal) the work (m’lacha) (emphasis added).” Compare this to B’resheet (Genesis)  2:2: “And on the seventh day Elohim ended (va’yechal) His work (m’lacha) which He had done.”

The term “tabernacle of the testimony” meets us in 40:2, echoed in 40:3 by the “ark of the testimony,” whereas in Parashat Ki Tissa we encountered the “tablets of the testimony” (34:29). “Testimony” is “edut,” which is “a witness” or “evidence.” The reason, therefore, for the existence of the Mishkan, the ark and that which it contained (that is the “tablets”), appears to be in order to validate YHVH’s covenant with His people. “Ed,” witness, and “edut,” testimony, witness or evidence, originate with the root ayin, vav, dalet (u.d), whose primal meaning is to “endure, continue, repeat,” and by implication to “establish Facts.”3  “Od” is therefore, “more and continually” and “ad” is “perpetuity,” while “edot” are YHVH’s “decrees.” Thus, the witnesses (whether human, inanimate objects, decrees, or even Time itself) are incorporated into the perpetual and firm arrangement to which they are testifying, in this case being YHVH’s Covenant.

In Parashat Trumah we examined the association of the shape of the Menorah (Ex. 25:31-39) to the flora of the Land of Yisrael. A similar relationship is thought to exist here too. ”And he gave the table into the tabernacle of the congregation, on the side of the tabernacle, northward outside the veil; And he put the lampstand in the tabernacle of the congregation, opposite the table, on the side of the tabernacle southward” (40:22, 24, emphases added). The placing of these articles in the directions specified above was not coincidental.

“The fifty day period between Pesach and Shavu'ot is when the flowers of the olive open and the kernels of wheat and barley fill with starch. Thus, the productive fate of these crops is determined during that season which [in the land of Israel] is characterized by multiple changes and climatic contrasts. Scorching southern winds, which bring with them extreme dryness and heat, alternate with cold winds from the north and west which generate tempestuous storms containing thunder, lightning and rain. The northern wind is most beneficial to the wheat, if it blows during the wheat's early stages of ripening; yet the same wind can wreak havoc on the olive crop if the buds have already opened into flowers. Olive blossoms need successive days of dry heat. Both of these crops then require just the proper balance of the heat waves and cold northern winds, making the fifty day season (the ‘Omer counting’) a very important and yet precarious season. The Talmudic sages explained that this phenomenon is symbolized by placing "the table in the north and the Menorah in the south". The showbread, which represents the wheat and barley, faced the direction of the north wind. The Menorah, lit with olive oil, faced the direction of the southern wind. Placed together in the Holy Place, they symbolize the plea to the One Creator that each wind would come at the right time.”4

Obviously it is only YHVH Who is able to hold all the elements of His creation in the perfect balance required. Thus, He is seen using (more than once) the Land of Yisrael and the variety of its natural conditions as an instrument for building and maintaining the relationship with His People, as well as for instructing and chastising them. And, as we have already observed, this concept is implemented well before the Israelites even enter the Land of Promise!

Last week’s Va’yakhel and this week’s Fkudey complement one another. Whereas, Va’ya’kehl informs us about the making of the vessels of the Mishkan, Parashat Fkudey “pours” content and meaning into them: The tablets are placed into the Ark of the Covenant, the bread is laid on the Table of Showbread (“lechem ha’panim” – “bread of the face”), the wicks are lit in the Menorah and the incense is burned5. We are also informed, of course, in detail about the making of the vestments of those who were to officiate in YHVH’s abode, i.e. the priests. Interestingly, the materials used for these garments -“gold, blue, purple, and scarlet and the fine woven linen” - were also used in the making of the tent itself.  

Among the various parts of the high priest’s regalia was “the plate of the holy crown of pure gold” and on it “an inscription like the engraving of a signet: HOLINESS TO YHVH” (39:30).  In 39:6 we read, similarly, about the two onyx stones that were placed on the high priest’s shoulders, with the names of the tribes etched on them.  In this way, the high priest would approach YHVH on behalf of His people.  “An engraving of a signet” is rendered “pituchey chotam”- literally “the engravings of a seal.”  Digging a little deeper, we discover that whereas “chotam” is a seal, “pituchey” (engravings of…) originates from the root p.t.ch (peh, tav, chet) meaning “to open” or “opening.”  So, how is it that a “seal” and an “opening” signify the onyx stones as well as the engraving upon the high priest’s crown?  Do these two seemingly opposing terms allude to something beyond that which meets the eye? In Revelation Chapter 5, Yeshua is seen worthy of opening a special “book” and breaking its seals.  What was it that enabled Yeshua to carry out this most important task, which no one else could execute? That which qualified Him to open the seals was what He had accomplished by having given up His life, redeeming for His Father those who are to be kings and priests, who would reign on earth and are sealed on their foreheads (Revelation 7:4).  Thus, our High Priest is seen standing before the Father with the proverbial onyx stones on His shoulders and the golden band with “Holiness to YHVH” on His forehead.  Qualifying to open the sealed book of redemption, He was displaying His ultimate task of presenting to His Father those whom He had purchased by His blood, having enabled them to be “the sealed servants of Elohim” (Revelation 7:3 italics added).

1 Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebew, based on the commentaties of Samson Raphael Hirsch, Matityahu Clark, Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem, - New York, 1999.

2 http://www.kipa.co.il/pash/

3 Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew

4 Nature in Our Biblical Heritage, Nogah Hareuveni, trans. Helen Frenkley, Neot     

Kdumim Ltd. Lod, Israel, 1996.

5 http://www.kipa.co.il/pash/