#Ben Sirach

[apenitentialprayer]

The bread of charity is life itself to the needy; whoever withholds it is a murderer.

the Book of Sirach (34:25)

[hyperpotamianarch]

Well, the one part of the question I didn't answer yet is what isn't part of the Tanach. Which, while it's a group that contains a lot of books (Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings aren't part of the Tanach, for example), we can still have a look at some books that potentially could enter but didn't. In addition, explaining why the Talmud isn't a part of the Tanach might also be helpful. So let us start talking about the codification and canonization of the Tanach!

Now, the codification of the Tanach, as in organizing the books that would enter and perhaps editing some of them, was a work done by Knesset HaGdolah - the Great Assembly of 120 Jewish rabbis and leaders that formed at the start of the 2nd Temple era, around 516 BCE (according to historians. There are some disagreement between them and traditional Jewish chronicles around this particular time frame). No decisive date can be put to the end of it, though. Some books that ended up in the Tanach were written around the early days of the Great Assembly - Ezra, for example - and the finalization of codifying and canonizing the Tanach likely happened some time after the books in it were written. It's likely that by the time Alexander the Great conquered the Land of Israel - around 332 BCE - there was a loose canon of texts, though I can't really say for certain. I would like to note, for example, that I've heard from Rav Aviah HaCohen that the book of Daniel contains words of Greek origin, indicating it has some degree of Hellenistic influence and thus was likely written when they controlled the land. From the perspective of a non-believer it also makes all the prophecies about the wars between the North and South kings more obviously about the Ptolemies and Seleucids. If it truly was written that late, it might well be the latest-written book of the Tanach.

Either way, there are evidence that by the time of the destruction of the 2nd Temple, the canon of the Tanach as we know it existed. It does not mean that it was undisputed - within the Pharisees, the 2nd Temple sect that gave rise to Rabbinic Judaism as we know it, there were still some disagreements about books that should be kept. Other sects (such as the Qumranites) wanted to add books, while yet others didn't accept the Tanach at all - the Samaritans still only consider the Torah as scripture, to this day. However, the Pharisees became the mainstream and thus based the canon.

So first, what disagreements were among the Pharisees? Well, for the most part, there were two books in dispute: Kohellet and Shir HaShirim. Now, there's also a disagreement regarding on which of them there was a dispute in the first place, which can get a little confusing. We'll just avoid that point for now and note that the problem with Kohellet was that it contradicted itself multiple times, and Shir HaShirim... well, it's kind of a romantic-erotic love song that doesn't exactly seem like it belongs in scripture, if we're being honest. However, both have stayed in canon - the Sages have explained the contradictions in Kohellet and Rabbi Akiva would have my head for suggesting the love song (commonly seen as a parable for G-d's love to the Israelites) doesn't belong in scripture. So that is that.

Now, another question that needs to be answered is what books could have entered, but didn't? There are many books that fit that title even if we only discuss Jewish religious books from that period (that aren't disqualified for reasons similar to the Talmud, elaboration on that later). To make things easier for me, I'm going to limit myself to talking about three particular books: the Book of Enoch, Ben Sirach and Maccabees. I could (and possibly should) stop here and not try explaining why they didn't enter the Tanach. However, if I had done that I could've just looked up a list of the Apocryphal book and paste it here. So, I'll attempt to get into the why. (In case you're wondering what apocryphal means, it appears the literal translation of the word is somewhere along the lines of dubious or inauthentic. In Hebrew those books are called Sefarim Ḥitzoniyim, meaning "outer books". Essentially - books that aren't a part of the Tanach's canon.)

The most problematic of these three is Ben Sirach. And I mean "problematic" in the sense it seems to have gotten the closest to entering. Ben Sirach is a book of proverbs and saying by a Jewish scholar, I think from Alexandria? Who wrote them around the time of the 2nd Temple. And this book is quoted in the Talmud a few times, with at least once that it's seemingly referred to as if it's a part of scripture. On the other hand, in the tractate of Sanhedrin (100B) Rav Yosef includes it among the books that reading in leads to exemption from having an afterlife. The weird part is that even he himself quotes from it a couple of lines later.

Well, a common explanation I've seen of that is that Rav Yosef there - as well as the Mishnah he comments on, which talks about Sefarim Ḥitzoniyim in general - don't actually mean one shouldn't read those at all. They merely mean that one shouldn't read it in the same way one reads scripture, and should remember it's not scripture. The reason Rashi gives to what the problem is with Ben Sirach is that it has some nonsensical or empty sayings (it's a little hard to translate, maybe it would be more accurate to say some of its sayings are rubbbish).

The Book of Enoch is an intersting one. It talks about the hierarchy of angels and the proper order of the world, from what I understand, and much of the lore in it is accepted as canon by both Christians and Jews (I think, though I didn't read the book). However, only one existing group in the world has it in their canonical Bible and those are Ethipean Christians. Well, I might be wrong - it could be that the Assyrian church also has it, as while modern editions lean heavily on the Ethipean version they still have other sources to lean on. Either way, this book - likely written during the Hellenistic period in the Land of Israel - is not a part of the canon of the Tanach. Why? I don't really know. Maybe the attribution of the book to such an old figure didn't sit well with the rabbis working on the canonization. Maybe they didn't believe it was written with any divine inspiration. Maybe it was written too late into the Hellenistic period, at a time when the canon was already set. Either way, it didn't get in, leaving Daniel as the only book in the Tanach that gives angels names.

Now, regarding the Book of Maccabees: there are actually four of them. I really don't want to get into all of them, so I'm going to focus on the first - which was likely written the closest to the actual Hasmonean rebellion, by someone who may have participated in it, and in Hebrew. And it still didn't get into the Tanach, though it gives much-needed context to the holiday of Hannukah. Why is that? Well, the most likely answer is that it wasn't written with divine inspiration. It's not something easily provable, and for a non-believer it's not going to mean much, so to rephrase - the people who canonized the Tanach didn't think it was divinely inspired. It just seemed like a chronicle of a war that was written after the prophecy was gone from among the Jews. Without prophecy, this book wasn't deemed a legitimate addition to canon and thus remained outside.

There are quite a few more books that didn't enter but you may have heard of - the book of Judith, the book of Jubilees, and many others. I have written a list in the first post of all the books in the Tanach - if it's not one of those, it's not inside. Usually under the assumption it wasn't written with Divine inspiration.

So, what about the Talmud? I am aware that you didn't ask this question. The Talmud is known to not be a part of the Tanach. But why is that? If it's a Jewish religious book, shouldn't it be included in the collection of our scripture? Well, to explain that we need to explain about the Oral Torah. This post is long enough as it is, however, so I'll try to keep it brief.

Basically, Orthodox tradition has it that Moshe got two Torahs on mount Sinai: one Written and one Oral, with the Oral one explaining the Written one and getting into the finer details of the law. Conservative Jews consider the Oral Torah to be a later addition by the Great Assembly, I think - if a Conservative JEw in the audience knows otherwise please do correct me. Its role doesn't change, however: it's always to explain the Written Torah, add some prohibitions to help avoid doing anything forbidden, and such things. The Oral Torah was codified into the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi around the 2nd century CE, including in it various discussions and disagreements on details of the law. A couple of centuries later, a series of discussions and interpretations on the Mishnah were codified in the Talmud. In addition to these two books, the various Midrashim can probably also be considered a part of the Oral Torah.

You might notice I used the word "codify" and not "write". Even if you didn't, well, you should know that there's a reason for that: the Oral Torah truly is Oral, or at least was. It's very different in nature and purpose from the Written Torah and the Tanach. And that is why the Talmud isn't a part of the Tanach - because it's a part of the complex collection of interpretations on it.

I hope this was helpful! Thank you for asking (and for reading that), and have a good day! If you had trouble understanding something I wrote here, please don't hesitate to ask!

Secular jew here with a really stupid question about the tanach

What exactly constitutes the tanach? I think I've heard it's an acronym, so would the Torah be the t? what's the rest of the acronym? Which writings does it include? I'm pretty sure the talmud isn't part of it, what else isn't? Apologies if this is too basic of a question for you!

Hello! Thank you for the question!

The Torah indeed is the first part of the Tanach. Tanach is an acronym for the Hebrew words Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim. Roughly translated, those titles mean "Instructions", "Prophets" and "Writings", respectively. The Tanach, then, consists of 24 books divided into those three categories.

The Torah is the easiest one to define: it's the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, however else you choose to call them, and they are generally known to be set apart. The books in it are Bereshit (Genesis), Shemot (Exodus), Vayikra (Leviticus), B'midbar (Numbers) and Devarim (Deuteronomy). Those are the books traditionally given to Moshe directly by G-d, and mostly focus on the formation of the Israelite people and its time under his leadership. It also includes all the commandments, basically.

Nevi'im are supposedly the books written by prophets, and half the books there are specifically books of prophecy (which is more messages from G-d than necessarily predicting the future). However, the first four books - Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings - are more historical in nature, chronicling the events from Moshe's death to the destruction of the 1st Temple. The last four books - Isaiah, Jeremaiah, Ezkiel and the Twelve prophets - are primarily books of prophecies and visions, with some stories sprinked in between. Most of them are concurrent with events in the book of Kings - except for the last three of the Twelve Prophets, who have lived around the building of the 2nd Temple. The Twelve Prophets are (by this order): Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Michah, Naḥum, Ḥabakuk, Zephaniah, Ḥaggai, Zacharias and Malachi. Names are written more or less in their traditional English spelling.

Then we get to the Ketuvim, Written texts, which are... a little more vague. It's hard to say if there's a uniting theme. A couple are books of parables and songs are there, yet others are more chronicles of events, either ones that occured after the time of the book of Kings, before it or concurrently with it. A common assumption is that the difference between those and the Nevi'im is the level of prophecy in writing them - where the Nevi'im were written under direct prophecies, while the Ketuvim were only written in Ruach HaKodesh (roughly translated as "the holy spirit", but I don't want to cause any confusion with Christianity). Either way, the books in the Ketuvim are, in order: Tehilim (Psalms), Mishley (Proverbs), 'Iyov (Job), Shir HaShirim (the Song o Songs/the Songs of Solomon), Rut (or Ruth), Eichah (Lamentations), Kohellet (Ecclesiastes), Ester (or Esther), Daniel, Ezra (and Neḥemiah) and Divrey HaYamim (Chronicles).

If you count, you'll find there are 5 books in the Torah, 8 in the Nevi'im and 11 in the Ketuvim - 24 in total. Ther Twelve Prophets, known as Trei Asar (which just means twelve), are considered one book, The division of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Chronicles into two books each is relatively late and only makes sense in Ezra due to the obvious PoV shift. Which kind of reminds me, maybe a brief explanation is required as to what each of those last 11 books is.

Tehilim is a book of prayers and religious poems, traditionally written by King David (though they were probably collected long after his time). Mishley is the proverbs of king Shelomo (Solomon), some of which were definitely written long after his time (as in, it's directly stated inside the book). 'Iyov is possibly a parable, possibly a real story which serves as a background to a conversation on the problem of evil that doesn't seem to be solved within the book. The five books from Shir HaShirim to Esther are considered the Five Scrolls, but actually share very little in common: Shir HaShirim is a love song that sometimes become rather erotic, written by King Solomon. Ruth is an origin story to King David's family that occurs during the Judges period, and is about his Great-Grandmother and her conversion to Judaism (she was from Moab, which was a neighboring nation). Eichah is a book lamenting the destruction of the 1st Temple and of the Kingdom of Judea, traditionally written by Jeremiah. Kohellet is a philosophical book pondering the meaning of life - it either finds none or finds solace in faith, depending who you ask - also said to have been written by King Solomon. Esther is famously about the first organised Pogrom in recorded history - one against the Jews of the Persian empire, occuring during the Babylonian exile in Persia. Daniel is about the vision of a Jewish slave in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, who somehow succeeds to stay in a position of power after multiple switches in the government. The story of Daniel isn't half as interesting as his weird visions, though. Ezra is about the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem after the return from exile, more or less - Ezra and Neḥemiah are the major leaders of this time period. This is pretty much a chronicling book - as is the last one, appropriately called Chronicles (Divrey HaYamim). That one basically attempts to sum up everything that happened to the Jewish people throughout history until the building of the 2nd Temple.

I've already written a lot and am too tired to explain why those books were codified and others weren't, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

[storytour-blog]

What Does a Bribe Look Like

Once, two men were to appear before an older judge over a matter concerning a lot of money. One of the men came the day before his appearance and asked the judge to help him. As he spoke, he laid five hundred silver coins on the table. The judge took the money and told the man to come back the next day. That evening the old judge asked that a big dinner be served, and he called together his sons,…

[friarmusings]

Wisdom of Sirach

The first reading for today comes from the Book of Sirach (also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira and as Ecclesiasticus, or more literally, “Church Book.”) The author, a sage who lived in Jerusalem, was thoroughly imbued with love for the wisdom tradition, and also for the law, priesthood, Temple, and divine worship. As a wise and experienced observer of life he addressed himself to his…

[jesus-had-relatives]

#21 Book of Sirach

Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus Sirach is the wisdom of Yeshua ben Sira.  He was a Hellenistic Jewish scribe living in Alexandria in Egypt under the Ptolemaic kingdom in 180-175 BC.  The book was translated into Greek by Yeshua’s grandson who went to Egypt in 132 BC.  Sira in Greek is Sirach so this is where the book got its name. The name ‘Ecclesiasticus’ means ‘church book’ in Latin…

[freespiritlilith]

i see people are talking about this again so, from a queer trans jew:

LILITH IS OPEN! IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN WORSHIP HER! BE YOU JEWISH OR GENTILE 💖

Four points:

lilith is open, but making jewish pregnancy protection bowls and saying its idk a modern michigander witch invention, THAT is appropriation. Just saying a prayer to Lilith as a gentile is, can’t believe i have to say this, not appropriation.

lilith is jewish, as known from oral tradition, ancient and medieval apotropaic artifacts, Zohar, and of course the Alphabet of (falsly attributed) Ben Sirach ~ she’s jewish but, just like judaism, she’s is an amalgam of common experiences witnessed by peoples in antiquity

lilith is actively worshipped, observably, in reality, by jewish and gentile women and queers for decades. My friends aren’t antisemitic just for me inviting them in, that’s batshit talk.

don’t tell anyone who to worship. this includes unsolicited suggestions to “swap” Lilith with anyone else. Imposing your religious beliefs on others is very, very culturally christian, so stop that. please.

[creature-wizard]

if lilith is closed, then how come she is lamashtu/lilitu/babalon

So, the specific lore that Lilith worshipers are all about (the whole first wife of Adam thing) is relatively new - it came about around the 10th century, in The Alphabet of Ben Sirach.

The lilitu and lamashtu did not have this lore attached to them, and the people claiming that they are functionally the same as the Lilith of the tenth century are misguided at best, and dishonest at worst. In either case, Lilith is not the same as these entities. The Lilith figure you're most probably thinking of is a much, much later development.

Babalon comes from Thelema, a 20th century religion. It's the same problem, but in reverse; anybody insisting that the Lilith of the 10th century is the same as Aleister Crowley's Babalon is either misguided or dishonest.

Actual lilitu or lamashtu aren't closed; if anybody wanted to work with these blood-drinking spirits of the night, then they're welcome to them. The point of contention is the much later, very specifically Jewish lore about Lilith being Adam's first wife and all that.

[aorish]

yeshua is probably the correct name for jesus but I think this (unintentionally) implies something that isn't true; that there are any close-to-contemporary accounts of Jesus in Hebrew.

The oldest sources attesting to the historical existence of Jesus are all in Greek - the oldest gospel is Mark and it dates to around the time of the Roman-Jewish war (70 CE), written by someone with such an abysmal understanding of the local geography that they almost certainly weren't ever in the Levant. And there's also the "Mara Bar-Serapion" letter, written some time after, by a guy who makes some offhand comment about, like "maybe if the Jews hadn't killed that wise king of theirs their temple wouldn't have been destroyed" which, like, isn't even necessarily about Jesus. It's not exactly great documentary evidence beyond "this Jesus guy probably existed."

The "Jews killed Jesus" is a recurring theme in the Gospels though. The narrative even names the guy who betrayed him "Judas." And they have this whole narrative of the roman governor being like "hey I'm going to pardon someone, should I pardon this Jesus guy? Or this horrible criminal" and then the people pick the criminal.

I wonder if the whole "the Jews killed Jesus" thing is an artifact of the center of Christianity being the Roman empire (which actually killed Jesus. Assuming that someone named Jesus was crucified) for a while.

[antebellumite]

We cannot forget the loss imbedded in this half of the story as well. Long ago, the preacher Joshua ben Sirach said, " Some there be, who have no memorial, who perished as if they had never been, and are become as if they had never been born, and their children after them." So it was on slavery's frontier. The earth took many of them back, alone, almost unmourned. Some never conceived children. Or the children died in the womb. Their lines ended. We do not even know where. Those who ruled their world, who terrorized them, did not care about their survival, for enslavers and investors could help hedge the financial bets against enslaved migrants deaths. Yet some dared to live under the threat of the overseer's sidearm. Some succeeded in surviving the driver's lash that dangled over them, just as the cotton sack balanced against the steelyard's weight. And what they did with their survival changed the world. Survivors refused to accept the stories they were told, stories meant to justify the thefts perpetrated on them every day of their lives.

Again and again enslaved people created their own accounts of the history of plunder in which they were trapped, and they told them to each other. They built new relationships to each other in the wake of death and despair and disruption. In these relationships and with these stories they found new ways to communicate, new ways to worship, new identities. They created and impressive political and cultural ethic of solidarity that transcended origins and geograph and has lasted to this day. So they dared to love each other and themselves.

-- Edward E. Baptist, The Half Has Never Been Told

[barbaramoorersm]

February 12, 2023

February 12, 2023

6th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Book of Sirach 15: 15-20

The author Ben Sira, refers to our free will and our responsibilities.

Psalm 119

The Psalmist speaks of the need for God’s help as one lives out God’s degrees.

1 Corinthians 2: 6-10

Paul tells his listeners that God’s wisdom, is “mysterious and hidden”.

Matthew 5: 17-37

Jesus confirms that he was not going to abolish Jewish law but fulfill it.

 In these days, when antisemitism is rather prevalent in our country and around the world, it is wise for us to remember and share the fact that Jesus was a practicing, faithful Jew throughout his life and even in his death.  In fact, the early church was composed of both Jews and Gentiles.  In a new book by Justo and Catherine Gonzalez, entitled “Worship in the Early Church”, they share that it was approximately in the year 100 that the Judeo-Christian community declined, and the growing Christian church was composed mostly of Gentiles. But they write, “…all Christianity -even in its anti-Semitic strains- has Jewish roots.” (35) This factor seems to be lost on those who take actions against the Jews like the denial of the Holocaust in WWII and even today, the murder of Jews, and attempts to damage their synagogues.

Some religious leaders in Jesus’ day feared he was threatening the laws of their Jewish community. But Jesus calls for observance of the law when he said, “I have not come to abolish (the law) but to fulfill (it).”  This statement is part of the larger Sermon on the Mount.  What are we to understand by this statement? What might he have meant by the fulfillment of the law?

Perhaps Jesus meant that the law over time was losing its original intent.  Or maybe he worried that the law was becoming too rigid.  It is a fact that many poor folks and those who lived a great distance from Jerusalem did their best observe the whole law but at times it was impossible because of their circumstances.

As one author states, “ Jesus declares  that they (his listeners) are held to a higher standard than even those who  know the Torah intimately and claim to be strict adherents to it”.  That is a remarkable statement. Remember he once said to the religious leaders that “they placed heavy burdens on the people but never lifted a finger to help them.” Or, as he grew in his faith, did he come to see the enormous needs of the people, and did he understand that the some demands and interpretations of the law were too burdensome and had moved away from God’s heart? Think of the cures he performed on the sabbath not only for Jews but Gentiles as well.  Cures for those considered impure or possessed.   As I was growing, up scrupulosity was evident among some and great worries existed that they kept violating the law.  My guess is that it still exists among many people.  At times the law in my life, took precedence over God’s great love.

What he was saying about “fulfillment of the law”?   Listen to how he was trying to teach fulfillment of the law. “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill’ and whoever kills will be liable to judgement,’ but I say that ‘whoever is angry with their brother or sister will be liable to judgment’”.  In other words, he is asking us to broaden our views and come to understand that bitter anger has the capacity to kill as much as a weapon.

He is inviting his listeners who understand that if a “brother or sister has anything against them to reconcile” before they offer their gifts at the altar. Jesus expands the concepts of loving one’s neighbor as oneself.  He speaks of adultery forbidden by the law, but also includes behavior that may lead to the practice.  Divorce was very easy for a male to obtain in his day, and women were considered property, but Jesus expands the understanding of that relationship.

And when he speaks of parts of our human body that cause us to sin, and that we should eliminate those parts physically, of course, he was using a dramatic metaphor.  The topics that are mentioned by Jesus in this Gospel were being debated in his time and Jesus was, by his words today adding to the discussion.

He was so aware of the struggles and suffering of the men and women who were listening to him. The law, the commandments are very important, but by his life and actions Jesus makes it clear that the greatest of all the commandments is to “love God and one’s neighbor as one’s self.”

Yes, this is the greatest commandment and the fulfillment of the law.  But experience tells us that often, it is the most difficult of all the laws.

[apenitentialprayer]

The beginning of pride in man is renunciation of God, since the heart withdraws from God who made him, just as pride in any form is the beginning of sin.

Betty Radice's translation of Sirach 10:12-13a, from the Vulgate (10:14-15a)

[storytour-blog]

A Tale of Two Sisters

Once, there were two sisters who married and lived in towns distant from each other. As often happens with siblings, one sister found herself quite wealthy, while the other was very poor. Because of the great distance that separated them, they could see each other only once every several years. When that happened, each one would tell the other everything that had happened since the previous…

[thefernmanner]

"The Crops." From the Book of Sirach, "The Manner of the Fern" 7: 1-7.

Miscellaneous laws refer to ways to respond to anti-Semitic challenges to Jewish traditions and practices. Some people are just not going to get it, you know? They aren't going to be able to leave other people alone, read books, read the laws, lawmakers and governors like those in America are going to find complexities that enable them to avoid doing their jobs and allow evil people harm the greater good. This does not appear to be a change that is on the way.

Sirach says "do not make it worse". In other words do not be one more disgrace among a disgraced and rueful people and their government:

Miscellaneous Advice

7 Do no evil, and evil will never overtake you. 2 Stay away from wrong, and it will turn away from you. 3 Do[a] not sow in the furrows of injustice,     and you will not reap a sevenfold crop.

4 Do not seek from the Lord high office     or the seat of honor from the king. 5 Do not assert your righteousness before the Lord     or display your wisdom before the king. 6 Do not seek to become a judge,     or you may be unable to root out injustice; perhaps you will fear the powerful     and so mar your integrity. 7 Commit no offense against the public,     and do not disgrace yourself among the people.

The Values in Gematria are:

v. 1-3: Do not sow or reap crops of the kind of the Sevenfold Evil.

Let us invert the Seven Laws and see if we recognize anything we know:

Worship idols- like Donald Trump and his fake religion

Curse God- threaten the poor, and to tyrannize and torture gay people and women

Commit murder- murder your opponents, break into their houses and kill their family members

Commit adultery or sexual immorality- have sex with kids, make illegal movies, raid the local Catholic Schools and churches, steal boys right off the soccer fields and football games (like Ronna McDaniel and Barbara Green did).

Go ahead and steal- steal elections, try to steal the government, like on January 6, try to steal Israel and the Al Aqsa Mosque because you feel like you should be allowed to do it

Eat flesh torn from a living animal- slander and gossip as much as you want. Invade people's homes and computers like Rhett McRae and Dylan Welch at ADP, and sell the information to politicians.

Do not bother with courts of justice: Trump has stacked them all and there is no point in enforcing laws, no point to law schools, lawyers, or the police, crooks are allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want. Then patronize the victims telling them if they complain the world will end.

The Number is 18873, יחחז‎‎ג‎, yehchaz, "Say you will, and learn the hard way later."

v. 4-5: Do not try to be the King. Persons who seek power are vulgar. It is the lust for power that is the root cause of all evil on this planet. Man has simply never learned how to do it properly and is not even making the attempt. The Number is 10121, יאב‎א‎, "power comes to you."

v. 6: Do not seek to become a judge. Do not mar your integrity. Do root out injustice. The Number is 9943, טטדג‎, tatdag, "a wedge." Shabbat, the essence of all human rights is the wedge. Without the freedom to self-define and safety to do it within the soul will not be born within the flesh:

"The further significance of our verb τεμνω (temno), to cut or cleave, is that it ties into the same core activity as described by the verb σχιζω (schizo), to split or divide, namely the activity of taking things apart down to their constituting elements, just to see how these elements relate to each other in order to figure out how the original thing works. From the latter verb, or from a shared Indo-European root, comes our word "science", which mean just that.

The compass and intent of these very common Indo-European words are also comparable to the widely attested Semitic verb בין (bin), to discern, and its derived substantive בין (ben), between. These words in turn resemble the equally broadly used word for son, namely בן (ben), hence names like Benjamin, Ben-hur and Reuben, and the verb בנה (bana), to build.

The feminine version of בן (ben), son, is בת (bat), daughter (hence Bathsheba), which in turn resembles the noun בית (beth or bayit), house or temple (hence Bethlehem and Bethel). The noun אבן ('eben) means stone, which is the constituting element of any building. And when Jesus said that "from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham" (Matthew 3:9), he meant exactly that."

The final line in the etymology contains an idea found through the Pslam we are studying and the Gospels. Government and polities that violate the Seven Laws and oppress their people are unholy and must not be allowed to persist.

v. 7: Commit no offense against the public. Explain this to that useless US Attorney General that just let Donald Trump, a mob boss and child molester enter his second term in the White House. Crazy people are going to take over this planet now.

The Number is 2949, ב‎טדד‎ ‎ ‎"in tadad." "the point of no return."

Once we condone repugnant practices and enshrine them within a criminal president, only God knows what will happen next. That and the criminal mastermind to which one has just given supreme power. Does this mean I can call a meth dealer and head on over to Gonzaga College High and smoke up the locker room and hang the kiddies from the shower curtain rods too? Does it mean anyone who wants can now do that? Is that what you're saying? Or if I don't like someone, I can hire a contact killer and just be done with it?

This is the message that is being sent.

[witchcraft-system]

Just a small little reminder

Lilith isn't a single deity. Or even a deity at all. Lilith is a species of demon that helped explain SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)

The idea that "Lilith" was a singular being (and even the idea of "Lilith" secretly being the "actual first woman") comes from a satirical "autobiography" of Ben Sira called Alphabet Of Sirach created somewhere between 700 - 1000 AD, almost 2000 years after Judaism was founded in 1800 BC

And the "singular being Lilith" was created by and for Jewish people (Ben Sira was Jewish and Alphabet of Sirach was a Jewish satirical book)

And the feminist Lilith was created by and for Jewish women

[apilgrimpassingby]

Lilith is not part of the Biblical canon in any Judeo-Christian religion...

Sort of. The word is used in Isaiah 34:14.

וּפָֽגְשׁ֚וּ צִיִּים֙ אֶת־אִיִּ֔ים וְשָׂעִ֖יר עַל־רֵעֵ֣הוּ יִקְרָ֑א אַךְ־שָׁם֙ הִרְגִּ֣יעָה לִּילִ֔ית וּמָֽצְאָ֥ה לָ֖הּ מָנֽוֹחַ (Ufageshu tziyyim et-iyyim vesa'ir 'al-re'ehu yikra ach-sham hirgi'ah lilit umatze'ah lah manoach).

And wild animals shall meet with hyenas; the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; indeed, there lilit settles and finds for herself a resting place. (ESV rendering) .

Whether this is referring to a Lilith as a demon or wild animal is ambiguous. One the one hand, the immediate context suggests a wild animal, but on the other hand almost every culture has a belief in evil spirits dwelling in ruins (including our own - think of haunted house stories), which is reflected in the Bible (Revelation 18:2). There's also the possibility it could be both, since Lilith in Mesopotamian culture had a strong association with owls. Short version, no-one's sure what lilit here means, as reflected in the huge range of translations of it.

But I agree with your main point. The popular Lilith story of being Adam's first wife is absent from the Bible, first appearing in The Alphabet of Ben Sirach, a text written in 700 AD at the earliest that doesn't enjoy canonical authority in any Jewish or Christian sect as far as I'm aware. Without it, Lilith would almost certainly have received as much attention from modern culture as Resheph or Damim or Ra'av or any of the other demons of the Hebrew Bible - almost none.

Lilith is not part of the Biblical canon in any Judeo-Christian religion, and people's obsession with her cheap mythos is frankly a testament to the cheapness of our age. The popular view of Lilith is like if a 22-year-old BookTokker with a minor in Women's Studies wrote a reimagining of Genesis.

[marianeaparecidareis]

O QUE É RAZÃO?

O NOSSO AMADO SENHOR JESUS DIZ:

«Já consigo ouvir os comentários dos“ DOUTORES ”com acusações capciosas:“ Como pode uma menina de menos de três anos falar assim? É um exagero”. E eles não consideram que me fazem um monstro atribuindo as ações dos adultos à Minha própria infância.

A inteligência não é dada a todos da mesma maneira e ao mesmo tempo. A Igreja fixou a idade da razão em seis anos de idade, porque essa é a idade em que até uma criança atrasada pode distinguir o bem do mal, pelo menos em questões basicamente importantes. Mas há crianças que muito antes dessa idade são capazes de discernir, compreender e querer com discrição suficientemente desenvolvida. A pequena Imelde Lambertini, a Rosa de Viterbo, Nellie Organ, e Nennolina podem dar-vos a confirmação, ó difíceis médicos, de acreditar que Minha mãe conseguia pensar e falar assim. Citei quatro nomes ao acaso entre os milhares de crianças sagradas que povoam o Meu Paraíso, depois de raciocinar na terra como adultos por possivelmente mais ou menos anos.

O que é razão? Um presente de Deus. Deus pode, portanto, dá-lo como Ele deseja, a quem Ele deseja e quando Ele deseja. A razão, na verdade, é uma das coisas que o torna mais parecido com Deus, o Espírito Inteligente e Raciocinador. Razão e inteligência foram graças dadas por Deus ao Homem no Paraíso Terrestre. Quão cheios de vida eles eram, quando Graça estava viva, ainda intacta e ativa no espírito dos primeiros dois Pais!

O Livro de Jesus Ben Sirach afirma “Toda sabedoria vem do Senhor e é sua para sempre”. Que sabedoria, portanto, os homens teriam se tivessem permanecido filhos de Deus?

As lacunas em sua inteligência são os frutos naturais de sua queda da Graça e da honestidade. Ao perder a Graça, você baniu a Sabedoria por séculos. Como um meteoro, que se esconde atrás de massas de nuvens, a Sabedoria não mais vos alcança com seus clarões brilhantes, mas através da névoa que suas prevaricações têm tornado cada vez mais espessas.

Então Cristo veio e restaurou a Graça, o dom supremo do amor de Deus. Mas você sabe como manter esta joia clara e pura? Não, você não. Quando você não o esmaga com sua vontade individual ao pecar, você o suja com suas contínuas falhas menores, suas fraquezas, seu apego ao vício. Tais tentativas, mesmo que não sejam um casamento adequado com o vício septiforme, são um enfraquecimento da luz da Graça e de sua atividade. E então, para enfraquecer a magnífica luz da inteligência que Deus deu aos primeiros pais, você tem séculos e séculos de corrupção, que exercem uma influência prejudicial sobre o corpo e a mente.

Mas Maria não era apenas a Pura, a nova Eva criada para a alegria de Deus: Ela era a super Eva, a Obra Prima do Altíssimo, Ela era Cheia de Graça, a Mãe do Verbo na mente de Deus.

Jesus Ben Sirach diz:

“Fonte de Sabedoria é a Palavra”. O Filho, portanto, não colocou Sua sabedoria nos lábios de Sua Mãe?

Se a boca de um Profeta foi purificada com brasas, porque ele teve que repetir aos homens as palavras que a Palavra, a Sabedoria, a Ele confiada, o Amor não terá purificado e exaltado a fala de sua Esposa infantil que deveria levar a Palavra, para que Ela não falasse mais como uma menina e depois como uma mulher, mas apenas e sempre como uma criatura celestial fundida na grande luz e sabedoria de Deus?

O milagre não está na inteligência superior demonstrada por Maria na sua infância, como depois foi por Mim [O CRISTO]. O milagre está em conter a Inteligência Infinita, que ali morava, dentro de limites adequados, para que as multidões não se espantassem e a atenção satânica não fosse despertada.

Voltarei a falar sobre este assunto que faz parte da “lembrança” que os santos têm de Deus.»

O Evangelho Segundo Me Foi Revelado - Maria Valtorta.