#eruvin

[echo-of-amos]

[keshetchai]

#oh this is a really interesting perspective#I definitely know of (more younger) pagans who latch on to Lilith#which I think is interesting because most of the early neopagan practitioners used the figures of Diana or Hecate or Frig or Brigid or even#the Morrigan to stand in for the ‘divine feminine’ or whatever#lots of goyim (and I’m no exception) found the popular culture imagining of Lilith as the ‘mother of monsters’ inspirational#but she has been robbed of context and repackaged as another pop culture goddess#(don’t get me started on witch washing)#anyway I’ve always found her appearance in the epic of Gilgamesh

(Do get started on Witch-washing, lol!) I think this is interesting to mention the Gilgamesh appearance, because the idea that "Lilith" is even in the Epic of Gilgamesh is disputed by some academics.

Because what we have is ki-sikil-lil-la-ke mentioned in Tablet XII (An Assyrian Akkadian translation), and it happened to be one single translator in 1932 who translated the "lil-la-ke" part as Lilith.

I'm not really convinced we have genuine textual grounds to firmly connect the ki-sikil-lil-la-ke with Lilit (Lilith) as an individual character. The Lil-la-ke of the Assyrian Gilgamesh has also been argued to be a water-spirit, or an owl (given that it makes a home within the tree trunk). Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian scripts variously refer to classes of spirits/demons known as: lilu, hilu, lili, and lilitu -- but they aren't typically individuals. It would seem to me that is why the lil-la-ke in question is specified as the "ki-sikil" -- which has been suggested to mean "sacred place".

This would be more similar to the Jewish usage of "lilin" as a class of being, but not a specific individual like Lilit (Lilith). The singular use of "lilit" within the Hebrew Bible is in the book of Isaiah. There is a Dead Sea Scrolls fragment of the same part of Isaiah that actually renders this in plural form -- liliyyot.

Tablet XII is a translation from about 600 BCE, and the historical Isaiah would've been mid-late 8th century BCE. The development of a story of "first Eve," and even "mother of monsters" however, is centuries later. The DSS has one mention of a lilit singular in a "Songs of the Sage":

And I, the Instructor, proclaim His glorious splendour so as to frighten and to te[rrify] all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and [desert dwellers]...

This dates to the Herodian period. So like... nearly 600 years later, there is another one (still extent) mention of Lilith (singular).

And it's maybe a century or two after that before a "mother of monsters" association is found in Jewish texts.

I do get the appeal of a "mother of monsters" vibe comes from -- of course I understand why people are drawn to safety, acceptance, protection for those the world might deem "monstrous."

But like, in Jewish mythology, Lilith like...I mean she's not a great mother? The first mention of a Lilith who is mother of monster children that we have is literally Moses mentioning she murders her own children.

Now that this has got me thinking, there's one other very good reason all the appeal is in the "Eve" parallel (which is...actually medieval, not ancient), combined with misunderstanding "mother of monsters" as potentially empowering/subversive. And that's that absolutely no one latches on to Adam in the same way, and that has never been part of the pop culture thrall, and yet we have just as solid reasons to see him as the father of countless monsters within Judaism.

and like, for some reason, "Adam's wet dreams created hundreds of spirits, demons, and female-demons" never really got this pop culture pagan feminist treatment, lmfao.

Btw the reason gentile pagans are fixated with Lilith is because she is the parallel to their fixation with "Lucifer," or "Satan," as a means of deconstructing their fucked up relationship with Christianity and Christian theology, and the internalized terrible garbage they picked up from Christian normativity, even if they weren't previously practicing Christians.

Lucifer/Satan gets to replace Jesus/God (the representation of XYZ Christian theologies they have issues with) and Lilith gets to replace Eve (the representation of XYZ Christian theologies relating to women that they have issues with).

The replacements represent - to some extent - themselves. They choose means of interpreting these characters that specifically make them into people who were unfairly victimized (within Christian theology) and marginalized, and who were ultimately "right." Or more "powerful," or ultimately more sympathetic/human/compassionate.

It's a fantasy wherein they get to validate their own frustration/pain/feeling of exclusion or powerlessness/treatment of being seen as an "ungodly" or "bad" person, and then make that person who typifies those things in their mind as the real hero, regardless of how doing that affects other people, or even if it makes sense.

It's actually very transparent when you think about it. I can almost guarantee Lilith would hold almost no sway to any of them if she wasn't explicitly mentioned as a counterpoint to Eve.

[baroque-hashem]

I've seen some people support the teacup mikvah by saying things to the effect of: "Well you can choose to drive or not on Shabbat so clearly you can choose how you want your mikvah!"

Cherry picking Jewish practices and explaining them incorrectly, using Jewish practices to support their arguments even though the practices do nothing of the sort.

And like, no.

On the matter of Shabbat:

You can choose to observe Shabbat or not. That is a choice regarding a specific Jewish practice.

The teacup mikvah is a distortion of an established Jewish practice. And Jewish writings are surprisingly unanimous about the nature of the mikvah, and the teacup mikvah does not align with accepted standards, it is not a mikvah, and there really isn't any wiggle room here. Why? Because the ultimate authority for our laws is G-d, and the laws in the Torah are said to come from G-d. And the Torah specifies that immersion must be full and total. There is no "ya ya, dance around the teacup, ya ya". It is a full, ritual immersion. Every inch of your body fully covered in water. A simple knowledge of science will tell you that there is no way a teacup of water is gonna cut it. (Eruvin 4b, Mishnah Mikvaot--yeah there's a whole fucking part of the Mishnah which talks about mikvaot, Leviticus 15 talks about purity and immersion, and it's mostly where the Mishnah and Talmud and later sources get the whole concept of a mikvah from)

Judaism is full of nuance. For the most part, you really can practice in a way that works for you. You can adopt what practices you are freely able to adopt. And there are accepted, agreed upon practices--yes, I know, shocking, Jews agreeing on things! We've been known to, from time to time. But you cannot distort a practice or a law. You cannot lie and say a practice is in alignment with Jewish law when you know full well it is not.

We Jews are an honest people (which is why it is so absurd that antisemites have this idea that we are liars). We value honesty so highly. We do not take kindly to people intentionally distorting our practices and lying to others about who we are and what we do.

You can choose what practices you accept. But with some practices, there is little to no wiggle room. And you cannot, under any circumstances, willingly distort Jewish practices for selfish reasons.

[magnetothemagnificent]

Rabbi Yochanan in Eruvin 100b: "If we hadn't been given the Torah we would have still learned modesty from cats"

Cats in real life:

-Stretch in such a way when they're grooming themselves that their butthole is visible for all to see

-Beg to be let into the bathroom when their human is in there

-Hide inside the bathroom and don't come out until their human is sitting on the toilet, and then they meow and beg for pets

[snissel613]

I don’t think enough people know that the Ship of Theseus is a solved problem. It’s been settled for over a thousand years. There is a clear ruling in the Mishnah (Keilim 18:6, 26:4) which is explicitly interpreted as “it’s a different ship” twice in the gemara (Shabbas 112b, Eruvin 24a). The best part of it all? That’s the boring part of the sugya! Dig a little deeper and you’ve got physical matter being part of two objects at once, temporal contact, impurity by association, it’s great!

[writer-at-the-table]

I am once again asking for diagrams of the city, town, and village setups discussed in the Talmud. This is like Eruvin all over again,

[lostcauses-noregrets]

were you in the fandom when the acwnr anime first released? what was the fandoms reaction to the adaptation being different from the manga i am curious.

I wasn't in the fandom when ACWNR first aired. I joined in fandom in late 2015 and the ACWNR OVA came out at the end of 2014. I asked some of the Veterans who were around at the time though and they were kind enough to share their reminiscences 🙏

@darlingpoppet: "I just remember we all had Thoughts™️ about Erwin’s ending speech… that’s never really changed has it 😂"

@he1chouarts: "We were all pissed about Erwin. Weak nose bump, weird dialogue."

@masksarehot2: "Part 1, everyone went nuts. Part 2, mixed reactions. After part 1 we were concerned they would cut a lot of content, and we were right 😭 Levi going feral was the repeated clip everyone sobbed over for weeks, it was the first time we saw him really emotional. There was a mostly negative reaction to Erwin's reaction to Farlan and Isabel's deaths. And the cut "your wings are the real thing after all" was also a hot topic of discussion. ERUVIN SMISSU. Levi saying that, clip circulated for a while.

Despite its obvious flaws the ACWNR anime will always hold a special place in my heart because it was my gateway drug for the SnK manga and Eruri shipping. So even though I'm still pissed about Erwin's characterisation, I can't be too mad at it!

[power-chords]

As Moshe Idel points out, pardes, comprising the Hebrew consonants P-R-D-S, “stands for peshat or plain meaning, remez or hint, sometimes designating allegorical explanations, derash or homiletic exposition, and sod or secret (namely symbolic) interpretation of the text. In Kafka such fullness of interpretation counts as paradise—another meaning of pardes—as his aphorism on the coming of the messiah declares: “the messiah will come as soon as the most unbridled individualism of faith becomes possible.” Kafka's version of the Talmudic parable thus suggests that such fullness of interpretation is possible without the destructiveness that tradition assigns to the heretic other, and it quietly celebrates the multiplicity of the traditional Hebrew text.

Uncle Jakob's “intermediary trade” (Zwischenhandel) reflects this same kind of interpretive transaction, where respect for the law and love for interpretive freedom go side by side. The accurate transcription of messages in Jakob's office echoes this principle, evoking a modern form of the traditional copying of the Torah famously depicted in S. Y. Agnon's modern Hebrew tale “The Torah Scribe.” Thus in Jakob's New York office Karl is astonished to see how “Meldungen,” or “messages,” are “taken down by two other employees and then compared [verglichen], so that errors [Irrtümer] could be ruled out as much as possible.” In the Talmudic tradition, the same Rabbi Meir whom Kafka mentions in his pardes version was famous for strictly following the letter of the law, and with the same paradoxical effect. The more that literal correctness is valued, the more each word comes to be invested with a mystical, even world-changing significance, as attention to the letter eventually reveals potential “others” that open up the meaning of the text. As Rabbi Meir declares in the Talmud, here quoted in a version of Eruvin 13a that Gershom Scholem provides: “When I was studying with Rabbi Akiba, I used to put vitriol in the ink and he said nothing. But when I went to Rabbi Ishmael, he asked me: My son, what is your occupation? I answered: I am a scribe [of the Torah]. And he said to me: My son, be careful in your work, for it is the work of God; if you omit a single letter, or write a letter too many, you will destroy the whole world.” Fidelity to the letter and its “messages,” as Uncle Jakob practices this notion, leads to a flourishing “business” in New York in a more comic form. Scrupulous attention to the letter thus acquaints the reader with the infinite potential of its inferences, multiple meanings, and even secret combinations of the letters of the law. As a Jewish scholar who used Kafka's pardes passage for his commentary on Exodus once declared, “whoever believes only in the plain sense of the Bible, peshat, is indeed a fool,” playfully demonstrating his reading by rearranging the consonants of peshat to show that they also spell the Hebrew word tipesh, that is, “foolish,” meaning someone who misses the hidden meanings of the traditional text.

—David Suchoff, excerpted from Kafka’s Jewish Languages: The Hidden Openness of Tradition, 2012.

[33-108]

ZOHAR AND LILITH:

"References to Lilith in the Zohar include the following:

She roams at night, and goes all about the world and makes sport with men and causes them to emit seed. In every place where a man sleeps alone in a house, she visits him and grabs him and attaches herself to him and has her desire from him, and bears from him.

And she also afflicts him with sickness, and he knows it not, and all this takes place when the moon is on the wane.

This passage may be related to the mention of Lilith in Talmud Shabbath 151b (see above), and also to Talmud Eruvin 18b where nocturnal emissions are connected with the begettal of demons.

According to Rapahel Patai, older sources state clearly that after Lilith's Red Sea sojourn (mentioned also in Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews), she returned to Adam and begat children from him by forcing herself upon him.

Before doing so, she attaches herself to Cain and bears him numerous spirits and demons.

In the Zohar, however, Lilith is said to have succeeded in begetting offspring from Adam even during their short-lived sexual experience.

Lilith leaves Adam in Eden, as she is not a suitable helpmate for him.

Gershom Scholem proposes that the author of the Zohar, Rabbi Moses de Leon, was aware of both the folk tradition of Lilith and another conflicting version, possibly older.

The Zohar adds further that two female spirits instead of one, Lilith and Naamah, desired Adam and seduced him.

The issue of these unions were demons and spirits called "the plagues of humankind", and the usual added explanation was that it was through Adam's own sin that Lilith overcame him against his will.

17th-century Hebrew magical amulets

Medieval Hebrew amulet intended to protect a mother and her child from Lilith (see picture)

A copy of Jean de Pauly's translation of the Zohar in the Ritman Library contains an inserted late 17th century printed Hebrew sheet for use in magical amulets where the prophet Elijah confronts Lilith.

The sheet contains two texts within borders, which are amulets, one for a male ('lazakhar'), the other one for a female ('lanekevah').

The invocations mention Adam, Eve and Lilith, 'Chavah Rishonah' (the first Eve, who is identical with Lilith), also devils or angels:

Sanoy, Sansinoy, Smangeluf, Shmari'el (the guardian) and Hasdi'el (the merciful).

A few lines in Yiddish are followed by the dialogue between the prophet Elijah and Lilith when he met her with her host of demons to kill the mother and take her new-born child ('to drink her blood, suck her bones and eat her flesh'). She tells Elijah that she will lose her power if someone uses her secret names, which she reveals at the end: lilith, abitu, abizu, hakash, avers hikpodu, ayalu, matrota ...

In other amulets, probably informed by The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, she is Adam's first wife. (Yalqut Reubeni, Zohar 1:34b, 3:19

Charles Richardson's dictionary portion of the Encyclopædia Metropolitana appends to his etymological discussion of lullaby "a [manuscript] note written in a copy of Skinner" [i.e. Stephen Skinner's 1671 Etymologicon Linguæ Anglicanæ], which asserts that the word lullaby originates from Lillu abi abi, a Hebrew incantation meaning "Lilith begone" recited by Jewish mothers over an infant's cradle.

Richardson did not endorse the theory and modern lexicographers consider it a false etymology."- Adam van norden

[eli-kittim]

Is Mara bar Serapion’s Letter a Forgery?

Eli Kittim

The letter has been claimed to include no

Christian themes.

— Wiki

Mara bar Serapion was a stoic philosopher. He is noted for a lengthy letter that he wrote to his son. The letter was composed in Syriac, written sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century. Many Christian apologists have suggested that Mara bar Serapion is alluding to Jesus Christ in this letter. But there are several problems with that theory.

First, a nonChristian like Mara bar Serapion would never have referred to Jesus as a “king.” Only dedicated and reborn Christians refer to Jesus as their Lord of lords and kings of Kings, not pagans.

Second, Jesus was not known as a “king.” In fact, according to Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (“Studying the Historical Jesus,” pp. 455–457), “the term ‘king of the Jews’ has never been seen in the Christian literature of antiquity as a title for Jesus.”

Third, Jesus was not known as a “wise king.” The only Jew known to be a “wise king” was King Solomon, who was in fact a *king,* and whose *wisdom* was known throughout the ancient world. What is more, King Solomon is well known for being the author of many books of *wisdom* in the Bible.

Fourth, Mara bar Serapion does not even mention the terms “Jesus” or “Christ.” And when referring to famous heroic philosophers who died, and what happened after their death, he never mentions Jesus’ resurrection. Even if he didn’t believe it, he would have, at least, mentioned the *rumor* of Jesus being raised from the dead. The fact that he doesn’t mention it at all means that he’s not talking about Jesus:

[Robert E.] Van Voorst adds two factors

that indicate Mara was not a Christian, the

first being his failure to mention the terms

Jesus or Christ. The second factor (also

supported by Chilton and Evans) is that

Mara's statement that Jesus lives on based

on the wisdom of his teachings, in contrast

to the Christian concept that Jesus

continues to live through his resurrection,

indicates that he was not a Christian.

— Wiki

Fifth, the language of the document suggests that Mara bar Serapion is referring to an actual king who enacted new laws and established new practices. For example, Jewish tradition ascribes ritual hand washing and eruvin to King Solomon, who also served as a Judge (e.g. the “Judgment of Solomon”). He was also responsible for building the first temple, and for instituting new laws of how the temple services would run:

Nay, Socrates did ‘not’ die, because of

Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the

statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King,

because of the new laws which he enacted.

— Wiki

Sixth, there’s something very odd about the reference to the Jews in this letter. This is quite a long letter, which is based entirely on Greek philosophy. Scholars are in agreement that Mara bar Serapion was a Stoic philosopher and a pagan. As a rule, Stoic philosophers held Jewish teachings in contempt, and so they would never have placed them on a par with the teachings of Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras. We know this from the apostle Paul who was scoffed at when preaching to stoic philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:15-34). The addition of the “Jewish” element, therefore, reads like a non sequitur, like a strange interpolation that doesn’t belong there… It sounds as if someone added it at a later time. And it seems as if the author (or editor?) got things wrong. Pythagoras was not burned, and King Solomon was not killed. And the expulsion of the Jews might be a reference to the deportation of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC, or to that of Judah in 586 BC:

The letter refers to the unjust treatment of

‘three wise men’: the murder of Socrates,

the burning of Pythagoras, and the

execution of ‘the wise king’ of the Jews.

— Wiki

Now that I have offered my critique, let’s actually read that portion of the letter that apologists have employed time after time as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Do you think that this pericope constitutes strong evidence for the existence of Jesus? Hardly! Not by a long shot:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain

by putting Socrates to death, seeing that

they received as retribution for it famine and

pestilence?  Or the people of Samos by the

burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one

hour the whole of their country was covered

with sand?  Or the Jews by the murder of

their Wise King, seeing that from that very

time their kingdom was driven away from

them?  For with justice did God grant a

recompense to the wisdom of all three of

them.  For the Athenians died by famine;

and the people of Samos were covered by

the sea without remedy; and the Jews,

brought to desolation and expelled from

their kingdom, are driven away into every

land.  Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because

of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the

statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King,

because of the new laws which he enacted.

— Wiki

[warm-starlight]

Well yeah and when Zeke killed all the people in the forest he was thinking about Erwin too, why not

I hope they replace "I should have talked more to Eren" with "I miss Eruvin", why not

Lastly make the plane look like Erwin's eyebrows

[seborn9000]

Not really an ask, either. Not sure why you can't accept direct messsaging, but thanks for the message (even though it's not showing up in my tumblr ask file. Did you delete it?) Just decided to get off my duff and restart writing these limericks. Things just slogged in the Eruvin days because I had lost my job. But I'm in a better place emotionally at the moment

I don't know why either! I've been failing to learn to use multiple different platforms at once, and it's just a mystery.

Glad you're doing better now. And it can be intimidating to pick up something you wandered away from or let go, even if it was for really good reasons (and that's some major stress). But you charged right through and that rocks.

[rabbicreditor]

Said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah: "Once a child got the better of me." "I was traveling, and I met with a child at a crossroads. I asked him, 'which way to the city?' and he answered: 'This way is short and long, and this way is long and short.' "I took the 'short and long' way. I soon reached the city but found my approach obstructed by gardens and orchards. So I retraced my steps and said to the child: 'My son, did you not tell me that this is the short way?' Answered the child: 'Did I not tell you that it is also long?'" (Talmud, Eruvin 53b) #talmud #wisdom #life #path #lifequotes https://www.instagram.com/p/CoArQfQvotS/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[automatismoateo]

FFRF insists that Milwaukee County remove unnecessary Jewish eruvin after a bicyclist was nearly decapitated by a fallen wire. Eruvin are perimeters often created by wire that Orthodox Jews put up to extend private spaces allowing them to avoid their self-imposed Sabbath restrictions. via /r/atheism

FFRF insists that Milwaukee County remove unnecessary Jewish eruvin after a bicyclist was nearly decapitated by a fallen wire. Eruvin are perimeters, often created by wire, that Orthodox Jews put up to extend private spaces, allowing them to avoid their self-imposed Sabbath restrictions. https://ift.tt/n95tlby Submitted October 10, 2024 at 11:54PM by FreethoughtChris (From Reddit https://ift.tt/cG9qZSu)

[riverlinden]

common misconception.

actually, this is because the vampire believes they never technically went outside, due to their slight misunderstanding about how eruvin work.

Vampyre lore:

Vampires can enter any building in New York city specifically because the statue of liberty welcomes them in

[the-hem]

"The Barren Fig Tree." Luke 13:6-9.

Fig Trees in Judaism represent spiritual life cycles, like the one that began when Adam and Eve, unripe fig fruits sampled the fruit of the tree and then discovered they were naked and donned fig leaf aprons to hide from their error. From thence came expulsion from childhood, then healing through maturity. Finally God told them when they ready, they could dig in once again.

This more or less summarizes also one's relationship with the Torah. Recall every time one reads the Gospels, all is Torah, the God of Israel's Masterpiece Blueprint for Civilization:

"How can the Torah which is the source for healing, and “a tree of life to those who hold fast to it,” 2 become deadly poison, not only serving as a source of healing, but rather, becoming the direct opposite.

To understand this phenomenon, we must preface the teachings of the Midrash Rabbah (Bereishis, ch. 19), on the verse: 3 “And they sewed fig (t'eina) leaves.” Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai comments: [They chose the] leaves which brought grief (to'anah) to the world.” This follows the opinion stated by Rabbi Nechemiah (Berachos 40a) that the Tree of Knowledge was a fig [tree].

Explanation is necessary. The Oral Law is compared to a fig tree, as it is written: 4 “He who plants a fig tree will eat its fruits.” And our Sages state (Eruvin 54a): “Why are the words of the Torah described with the analogy of a fig tree?

A fig tree produces fruit throughout the entire time that a person pays attention to it (i.e., it does not produce its fruit only at one time; instead, today, some, tomorrow, some. At any time, it is fitting to partake of it). The same concept applies to the words of the Torah. Whenever a person meditates upon them, he will find value in them.”

6 Then he told this parable: 

“A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 

7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”

Fields are where crops grow, vineyards are made for the purposes of cultivation of humanity's prescribed tribute to God for the gift of Shabbat, AKA human civilization. One is essential to our survival, the other to our pleasure.

The fig and vine go together according to the Tanakh, and their failure to produce is considered egregious:

The fig-tree was associated with the vine as an emblem of peace and prosperity (Micah iv. 4; Isa. xxxvi. 16). On the other hand, the failure of the fig-crop and the destruction of the fig-tree were regarded as a misfortune and as a punishment from God (Ps. cv. 33). In Jotham's parable (Judges ix.) the fig is distinguished for its sweetness and good fruit.

The fruits of our actions, grapes, olives, figs, pomegranates, apricots (woof), if they come to fruition at all, which is good, must be edible, they must be pleasing or something went wrong. Failure of the fig especially after three years is particularly worrisome.

Why did Jesus use Gematria in His reference to three years? Let's find out.

Three years is the amount of time from birth till the moment one exceeds one's clinginess to a dual way of looking at reality and switching it with the infinite. This is explained in the Gematria of how one becomes two and then two becomes the infinite:

One symbolizes unity, agreement, simplicity. When something exists alone, nothing disturbs it. It remains completely at peace, without regard for anything else.

Two symbolizes duality, tension and complexity.

The number three symbolizes a harmony that includes and synthesizes two opposites. The unity symbolized by the number three isn’t accomplished by getting rid of number two, the entity that caused the discord, and reverting to the unity symbolized by number one. Rather, three merges the two to create a new entity, one that harmoniously includes both opposites.

The word for year in Hebrew is shana. Gematria is alpha-numeric. Words can be transliterated using both. If we address the prosaic portion first, we get the following meanings for the word year.

שנה I

The verb שנה (shana I) means to change (Lamentations 4:1) or to create a difference (Esther 1:7). It may be used to indicate a change of clothes (Jeremiah 52:33), or a change of mind (Psalm 89:34). It may also denote a perversion of justice (Proverbs 31:5) or even the act of disguising oneself (1 Kings 14:2).

This verb's sole derivative is the feminine noun שנה (shana), meaning year (שנת means 'year of' and שנים means 'years'.).

The temporal unit year primarily denotes the repeating cycle of seasonal change, and in plural it is used to indicate a period that spans several years (in the formula "during the years of" this or that king).

There are several expressions in the Bible that use this noun שנה (shana) to indicate a certain (prolonged) event that marks a profound change: The "year of favor" (Isaiah 61:2), the "year of release" (Leviticus 25:10, Ezekiel 46:17), the "year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13), the "year of remission" (Deuteronomy 15:1), the "year of vengeance" (Isaiah 63:4).

By Year Three Jesus expected an harmonious point of view towards the world from persons in His Flock, which they needed to come up with on their own, not as a result of complying with the law or because it was the popular thing at the time but because the Spirit of God touched his heart during his study of the Torah.

The soil for such efforts are the unclean efforts left behind in the past, which fed the tree by traveling upward into its branches and leaves. Soil and soul are the same: The soul, or neshamah in Jewish thought, is the self, the "I" that inhabits the body and acts through it.

If this does not happen what can we do? The Gospels say we get one more year, "to grow up greatness", which omes from the word segev, the Gematria for verse 8.

Through digging and fertilizer, which agitate and potentiate the soil, the process of ascent out of a fruitless state begins:

The human can descend, with difficulty, into animal existence, by acting with no more than raw animal instinct. By failing to use to proper advantage his intelligence capacities, he can become part of the animal world.

He can descend (with much greater difficulty, and then only periodically) into vegetable existence. Through sickness or deep sleep, a human can reach a state where his only life signals are his internal movement.

At death, the body descends to the level of mineral existence.

The animal can likewise descend to vegetable existence or to mineral existence.

The vegetable can descend to the mineral existence when it dies. (A wooden table is a mineral existence.)

Each level of existence includes all the properties of the level below it—plus one.

Members of each level can descend to a lower level, until the mineral.

There is no lower level in our existence than the mineral.

Members of one level of physical existence can also ascend to a higher level.

Water that has been absorbed into a plant, through its roots, can (and does) become part of the plant. Earth that supports too much growth can eventually lose its nourishment. The minerals have been absorbed by the vegetable existences. Plants also use gases in their growth process.

Grass that is eaten by cows gives nourishment, and actually adds pounds of meat, to their bodies.

Beef, when consumed by humans, becomes part of the body.

So the goal of the Parable is to urge us to ascend out of the soil and animal refuse of the past into full grown men capable of handling a spiritual quest for a fruitful, full grown civilization all around us. Not tomorrow, or the next day, but as soon as one is capable of understanding the reasoning. Otherwise the tree might have to be cut down:

The twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy contains many of the laws of warfare. One of them involves the cutting down of fruit trees:

"When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them, for you may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Is the tree of the field a man, to go into the siege before you? However, a tree you know is not a food tree, you may destroy and cut down, and you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until its submission."1

Nevertheless, the prohibition of cutting down fruit trees is stricter than the prohibition of destroying other objects of value.5 Since man is compared to a fruit tree,6 it is particularly harmful for a person to destroy a tree, for the act unleashes negative spiritual energies.7 In fact, the Talmud tells us that Shichvas, the son of Rabbi Chaninah, was severely punished for chopping down a fig tree. 8