The Three Levite Families

In entry “Salvation Part II” I make mention of a three-level Kingdom.  I came upon this today at Aish while investigating today’s Torah portion:


Although these four points are important, we can also suggest another approach in understanding God’s expectation of us when it comes to peace. The beginning of this week’s Torah portion focuses on the tribe of Levi, which is composed of three main families: Kehat, Gershon, and Merari. Based on the Shem MiShmuel and the Netivot Shalom, we can understand these three families as representing three spiritual levels.

The family of Kehat represents the highest, most righteous level. Their role is to carry the Holy Ark (Rashi on Numbers 4:4) – the highest component of the Tabernacle. The importance of this task underscores their lofty spiritual level.

The family of Gershon represents the middle level. They carry the curtain that divides the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Sanctuary (Numbers 4:25). One side of the curtain is close to the intense sanctity of the Holy of Holies, while the other side is not. We could suggest that this curtain hints to the spiritual level of an average person, who fluctuates between moments of intense devotion and moments of feeling less connected to the Divine.

The family of Merari represents the lowest level. They carry the beams and pillars of the Sanctuary (Numbers 4:31), the weight of which can be burdensome. This physical weight represents the heaviness of the lowest spiritual level.


Exodus 19:4-6 You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now IF you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

1 Peter 2:9, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to YHWH, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.”



That makes quite a statement.

Humanism and Evolution

Recently there has been increased emphasis from some to validate evolution-based junk science.
I view with increased awe as end-times prophecies of a falling away continue to mount and fuel increased anti-Torah, Jew-hating discussions from both liberals and conservatives alike.
Of these, none are more sharply pointed than this recent discovery of a 1954 letter from Albert Einstein:

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".


"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,"

Sadly, Einstein could see only “relativity” as a substitute for continual witness of the Grace, Beauty, Wisdom and Mercy of our Creator.

The misfortune of those stubbornly misguided to seek solace in their own righteousness and creativity rather than seek the total wisdom of YHWH is summarized well by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer in his Christian Manifesto:

I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view — that the final reality is an infinite creator God — over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.

The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a "buzz" word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.

So, Humanism is the absolute certain result, if we choose this other final reality and say that is what it is. You must realize that when we speak of man being the measure of all things under the Humanist label, the first thing is that man has only knowledge from himself. That he, being finite, limited, very faulty in his observation of many things, yet nevertheless, has no possible source of knowledge except what man, beginning from himself, can find out from his own observation. Specifically, in this view, there is no place for any knowledge from God.

But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary — merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.


Mourner’s Kaddish

Magnified and sanctified be YHWH’s Great Name in the world which He created according to His Will. May he establish His Kingdom during our lifetime and during the lifetime of Israel.
Let us say, Amen.

May YHWH’s Great Name be blessed forever and ever.

Blessed, glorified, honored and extolled, adored and acclaimed be the Name of the Holy One, though YHWH is beyond all praises and songs of adoration which can be uttered.

Let us say, Amen.

May there be peace and life for all of us and for all Israel.

Let us say, Amen.

Let He who makes peace in the heavens, grant peace to all of us and to all Israel.

Let us say, Amen.

United Nations Condemns Counterterrorism

According to the Cybercast News Network, the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference has pushed and passed a United Nations resolution to combat the "defamation of religions" (although only Islam is mentioned).
It expresses alarm about "discrimination" and "laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration."

Muslim minorities are subjected to "ethnic and religious profiling … in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001," it says.

The resolution decries "the negative projection of Islam in the media" and voices "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

This from the same religion that kills and maims thousands of their own and the infidel yearly.

Defending Shaul

Some individuals, rather than look for the consistency of the writings of Shaul of Tarsus and Written Torah, have taken the lazy path to deny that his words are relevant, or simply choose to conclude that he is a deceptive individual.  It is a hard thing to understand him on first glance, even with long, involved study – unless the time is taken to analyze his words from a Biblical standpoint.
One of the most often misunderstood areas is with his statements on circumcision.  Where the Greek word "peritome" is used by Shaul, it is a good thing.
Akrobustia is a forsaking of the physical circumcision.
These footnotes from the Restoration Scriptures edition by Rabbi Moshe Koniuchowski of Your Arms to Israel Ministries:

The Greek word used in Galatians 2:7 for Shaul’s ministry to the uncircumcised is the word akrobustia (Strong’s Greek # 203), which literally means “tossed-away foreskins.” He was contrasting his ministry to the uncircumcised, or the “akrobustia” with James and Peter’s ministry to the circumcised, or the “peritome” (Strong’s Greek # 4061). The same word peritome is used in describing the mission of James, Peter and John. This peritome means those living and abiding in circumcised identity, or in other words, the “House of Judah.” The choice of “akrobustia” is fitting, as it describes just what Shaul was doing in the nations, or among the Galut-Yah. He was first and foremost looking for the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael (Efrayim), as per Yahshua’s instructions.

Akrobustia, does not mean “pagan gentiles” per se, but a select group within the gentiles, or nations. The term akrobustia, as opposed to peritome, means those who were circumcised, but through disobedience and outright rebellion had their foreskins tossed away, thus becoming like one who is born and raised as an uncircumcised (aperitome) pagan gentile. The opposite of a ministry to the peritome (which James and Peter had) would have been one to the aperitome, or “never-circumcised.” Yet Shaul did not claim a ministry to the aperitome, or never-circumcised.

His ministry, according to his own description, was to the akrobustia, or those who had undergone circumcision but had tossed it all away.



And this on Galatians 5:6 -

This holds true eternally. First, that circumcision is an act of love to seal one’s faith, not to establish it, and neither the Jews, the circumcised, nor the akrobustia the “tossed-away foreskinned ones” have any ranking, or special standing over the other. Neither house of Yisrael should see circumcision, or lack thereof as a means of a spiritual rank over and above the other, but as something that the individual in YHWH’s decent order must do on his own.

Circumcision avails nothing in the sense that if abused, it establishes one part of Yisrael as master and the other as slaves. So it avails nothing in terms of restoring equality in Yisrael, yet it is a mandate to the individual in his personal walk with YHWH. Messiah came to free both houses, and establish equality, not a new system of “works of law,” or ranking, based on an immediate response to mandated corporate physical circumcision, rather than personal physical circumcision.


The “New 666″

What follows is my amplification of the explanation by ex-Muslim Simon Altaf concerning the multitude of the beast –  in his book, World War III – Unmasking the End Time Beast.”


The Greek text does not say “six humdred threescore and six” or “six hundred sixty-six” or even “666”  – these are assumption that the three Greek letters   χ Chi   ξ Xi  * Stigma  form a translation of letters to numbers,  called a gematria (just as “Roman numerals” look like letters but create numbers) . 

* Follow this Wikipedia link to view the shape of stigma – it is an obsolete letter on the right hand side.

This numeric assumption has a big problem: 
This curious set of letters has been translated as “666” or “661” in most English translations.  However, in Sophocles’ Lexicon of Byzantine Greek, which covers late antique Greek up to 1000 AD, there is no mention of “stigma” as either a ligature or a number. The value of six is held by the Upsilon and there is certainly no need to designate an obsolete letter as a duplicate six, is there?

Let’s assume instead that John was trying to convey something else: a pictogram of the insignia on the headgear and armbands of a huge number (a multitude) of soldiers having risen up to attack Israel.  

Military units incorporate standard symbols as do all militaries, such as the Middle Eastern crossed swords.  Here’s two designators from the Pakistani army:

The first example is the flag of their military crest.

  The flag includes the following description:

The motto of the Pakistan Army reads: “Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah”. Translated into English, it means “Faith, Piety, Fight in the Way of Allah”.

(Note:  while the Pakistani army crescent faces to the left, in most Islamic uses including the Pakistani flag, it faces right like the Greek letter Stigma) 

This second example is also from Wikipedia.


The script for the word “Allah” looks remarkably like the letter “Xi” (see the picture at the bottom of the post).

Arabic script did not come into existence until AD 400. Arabic script would have made absolutely no sense at all to John.

“Let him who has understanding” understand the meaning of:

  – Crossed swords.    Arabic script ‘Allah’.   A crescent moon. 

as the

The symbols of the multitude rising to attack Israel.

Makes more sense, right?


The Defence College ExperienceSince those were the ‘Islamization days of positive results’, we got more than our fair share of male guest speakers whose lectures smacked of preaching from the pulpit. We also actually got Mullas as guest speakers who presentations sounded like Friday prayer sermon. My written comments to college on Mulla guest speakers were that we did not need any preaching on the religion itself and a presentation on the comparative study of religion was perhaps more appropriate.

Closing on the following note:

Daniel 9:11: Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of Eloah, because we have sinned against him.

The Hebrew word “curse” is  “Allah”.



Thirty-two Rules of Ben Galil

From this link (compiled by Greg Killian):

The Thirty-two Rules of

Eliezer B. Jose


Rules laid down by R. Eliezer b. Jose Ha-Gelili for haggadic
exegesis, many of them being applied also to halakic interpretation.


1. Ribbuy (extension): The particles “et”, “gam”, and
“af”, which are superfluous indicate that something which is not explicitly
stated must be regarded as included in the passage uinder consideration, or
that some teaching is implied thereby.

2. Mi’ut (limitation): The particles “ak”, “rak”, and
“min”, indicate that something implied by the concept under consideration must
be excluded in a specific case.

3. Ribbuy ahar ribbuy (extension after extension):
When one extension follows another it indicates that more must be regarded as

4. Mi’ut ahar mi’ut (limitation after limitation): A
double limitation indicates that more is to be omitted.

5. Kal va-chomer meforash:
“Argumentum a minori ad majus”, or vice versa, and expressly so characterized
in the text. 

6. Kal va-chomer satum:
“Argumentum a minori ad majus” or vice versa, but only implied, not explicitly
declared to be one in the text. This and the preceeding rule are contained in
the Rules of Hillel number 1.

7. Gezerah shawah: Argument from analagy.
Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much
they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications. 

8.  Binyan ab
mi-katub ehad
:  Application of a
provision found in one passage only to passages which are related to the first
in content but do not contain the provision in question.

9. Derek Kezarah: Abbreviation is sometimes used in
the text when the subject of discussion is self-explanatory.

10. Dabar shehu shanuy (repeated expression):
Repitition implies a special meaning.

11. Siddur she-nehlak: Where in the text a clause or
sentence not logically divisible is divided by the punctuation, the proper
order and the division of the verses must be restored according to the logical

12. Anything introduced as a
comparison to illustrate and explain something else itself receives in this way
a better explanation and elucidation.

13. When the general is
followed by the particular, the latter is specific to the former and merely
defines it more exactly. (compare with Hillel #5)

14. Something important is
compared with something unimportant to elucidate it and render it more readily

15.  When two Biblical passages contradict each
other the contradiction in question must be solved by reference to a third

16. Dabar meyuhad bi-mekomo:
An expression which occurs in only one passage can be explained only by the
context. This must have been the original meaning of the rule, although another
explanation is given in the examples cited in the baraita.

17. A point which is not clearly
explained in the main passage may be better elucidated in another passage.

18. A statement with regard to
a part may imply the whole.

19. A statement concerning one
thing may hold good with regard to another as well.

20. A statement concerning one
thing may apply only to something else. 

21. If one object is compared
to two other objects the best part of both the latter forms the tertium quid of

22. A passage may be
supplemented and explained by a parallel passage.

23. A passage serves to
elucidate and supplement its parallel passage. 

24. When the specific implied
in the general is especially excepted from the general, it serves to emphasize
some property characterizing the specific.

25. The specific implied in
the general is frequently excepted from the general to elucidate some other
specific property, and to develop some special teaching concerning it.

26. Mashal (parable). 

27. Mi-ma’al: Interpretation
through the preceding.

28. Mi-neged: Interpretation
through the opposite. 

29. Gematria: Interpretation
according to the numerical value of the letters.

30. Notarikon: Interpretation
by dividing a word into two or more parts. 

31. Postposition of the
precedent. Many phraes which follow must be regarded as properly preceding, and
must be interpreted accordingly in exegesis.

32. May portions of the Bible
refer to an earlier period than to the sections which precede them, and vice


These thirty-two rules are united in
the so-called Baraita of R. Eliezer b. Jose HaGelili. In the introduction to
the Midrash ha-Gadole, where this baraita is given, it contains thirty-three
rules. Rule 29 being divided into three, and rule 27 being omitted.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.