<![CDATA[Jewish Forums - Judaism General]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/ Sun, 09 Aug 2026 22:11:21 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Thousands Of Questions About God]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1857 Mon, 03 Aug 2026 18:19:50 -0700 irmadlad]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1857
A little about my background. I was raised in a very oppressive, abusive, 'Christian' environment. I was once backhanded across the face for the audacity to question an almighty God, and what was being forced upon me. It really didn't make sense, even as a lad. Ever since then I have read and studied many religions, tho I am no theologian by any stretch of the imagination. I am just a man who reads prolifically, searching for what I call, the truth trifecta. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Truth, when you can find it, is great, but practically useless unless bolstered by the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Of the religions I have studied, I am embarrassed to say Judaism hasn't been one of them. So, please keep my religious background in mind during this discussion. RabiO commented on the length of my comments to him and searchinmyroots. Brevity is not an attribute that I possess. Mainly because it is quite difficult to express these things that trouble me in a few short sentences. I do beg of your patience in this matter. Being retired, I realize I probably have the most amount of disposable time than others. So, I do not make any demands on the immediacy of your replies and comments. 

I will return shortly to begin this discussion. At the moment, I am trying desperately to pass a kidney stone, and am in a lot of pain as anyone who has done so can attest. However, I wanted to get the ball rolling, as it were. 

Thank you for your time, patience, and hospitality.]]>
A little about my background. I was raised in a very oppressive, abusive, 'Christian' environment. I was once backhanded across the face for the audacity to question an almighty God, and what was being forced upon me. It really didn't make sense, even as a lad. Ever since then I have read and studied many religions, tho I am no theologian by any stretch of the imagination. I am just a man who reads prolifically, searching for what I call, the truth trifecta. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Truth, when you can find it, is great, but practically useless unless bolstered by the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Of the religions I have studied, I am embarrassed to say Judaism hasn't been one of them. So, please keep my religious background in mind during this discussion. RabiO commented on the length of my comments to him and searchinmyroots. Brevity is not an attribute that I possess. Mainly because it is quite difficult to express these things that trouble me in a few short sentences. I do beg of your patience in this matter. Being retired, I realize I probably have the most amount of disposable time than others. So, I do not make any demands on the immediacy of your replies and comments. 

I will return shortly to begin this discussion. At the moment, I am trying desperately to pass a kidney stone, and am in a lot of pain as anyone who has done so can attest. However, I wanted to get the ball rolling, as it were. 

Thank you for your time, patience, and hospitality.]]> <![CDATA[Deuteronomy 6:4]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1853 Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:35:20 -0700 searchinmyroots]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1853  
[url=https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9970#v4][/url]Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.

From what I understand, the way it is written in the Hebrew bible, it confirms the role of the Jewish nation as described in many places to be a witness to the nations. There are 2 letters that are written enlarged. One, the last letter of the first word Shema, the other, the last letter of the word Echad. Those 2 letters together form the Hebrew word "witness".

One example where we are called to be a witness would be Isaiah 43:10 - 

You are My witnesses," says the Lord, "and My servant whom I chose," in order that you know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall be. 

Let's rise to the challenge G-d has given us!]]>  
[url=https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9970#v4][/url]Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.

From what I understand, the way it is written in the Hebrew bible, it confirms the role of the Jewish nation as described in many places to be a witness to the nations. There are 2 letters that are written enlarged. One, the last letter of the first word Shema, the other, the last letter of the word Echad. Those 2 letters together form the Hebrew word "witness".

One example where we are called to be a witness would be Isaiah 43:10 - 

You are My witnesses," says the Lord, "and My servant whom I chose," in order that you know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall be. 

Let's rise to the challenge G-d has given us!]]> <![CDATA[Rachels Tears]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1844 Sun, 19 Jul 2026 05:13:04 -0700 searchinmyroots]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1844
What actions is G-d referring to?

May there be a secret word connection that refers to something Rachel did at one time?

There seems to be, and the connection concerns Leah's son Yissachar.

Is there a lesson here to be learned for us?]]>
What actions is G-d referring to?

May there be a secret word connection that refers to something Rachel did at one time?

There seems to be, and the connection concerns Leah's son Yissachar.

Is there a lesson here to be learned for us?]]> <![CDATA[Islamic Deception Al-Takeyya. Or: Al-Taqiyya.]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1843 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 03:53:17 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1843 Islamic Deception Al-Takeyya. Or: Al-Taqiyya.
In Islam, lying or omissions for the 'greater good,' according to a strict or radical Islamic philosophy is not only acceptable, but it is a holy and blessed work. It is called "Al-Takeyya. Or. Al-Taqiyya. It is a strategy outlined in the Hadiths and supported by various interpretations of some of the Suras in the Koran.
Al-Takeyya is a policy whereby a Muslim may lie, deceive or omit critical truths if it promotes the spreading of Islam, and the conquest of the Non-Muslim world.
According to William P. Welty, Ph.D., "Al-Takeyya / Taqiyya is:
"The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates."
Definition from an Islamic encyclopedia:
"The word "Al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and / or strategies..."
In radical Islam, any Jew living in Israel is not considered innocent nor a civilian. Nor were the people living and working in America on 9-11. Islamists consider the "Great Satan -- America," and the "Little Satan -- Israel," to be enemy combatants. And this includes every man, woman or child, even babies. This includes any and all who are not Islamists and who oppose being forced to kneel down and pay homage to Allah. In particular, Christians whom they call "Crusaders", and also the Jews.
Muslims see America as naive, and its people ripe for deceit and murder in the name of Allah.
A Muslim thinks from the first moment that he lies that he is honouring Allah, and putting one over on the infidel, which he is directed to do.
"and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers" Sura 3:54
So then, lies and deception is a part of the Muslim religion! That would mean that they are beyond reason, and beyond redemption; totally lacking in any redeeming qualities, making themselves of a very low moral grade.
In regards to the Palestinians.
The Palestinians were of Greek ancestry. The Philistines came to the land of Canaan from Caphtor and other western coastlands. Caphtor is now called Crete and the people are called Cretans. They made war against the Canaanites for their land to establish Palestine. The Palestinian people were not, and are not, of Arab ancestry. The Arab people who now live in Israel want to reclaim Palestine, saying that they are the Palestinians is not true. What is true is that they are Arabs who wish to reclaim Canaanite land. Note: See Jeremiah 47:4 and Amos 9:7. The Philistines invaded Canaan about 1400 B.C. Hebrew settlement of Canaan was about 1200 B.C. At a later date the Canaanites became an Arabic tribe.
Meaning of the word Islam.
Islam is an Arabic word that means "submission or submit" (to Allah). It has a relationship to another Arabic word, such as Salaam, meaning "peace". The Arabic word "Muslim" is related to the word Islam and means a "vassal" of Allah, and is whom has surrendered and submitted (to Allah).
Muslims see homage to Allah as a sign of distinction; paying homage means serving the will of Allah above and beyond one's own goals. The Arabic word "Islam" simply means "submission", and is derived from the word meaning "peace."
In a religious context it simply means submit to the will of Allah. And so Islam means “submission” not “peace". It is frequently said that the word Islam means “peace.” It does not. Islam is the Arabic word for "submission." The Arabic word for “peace” is transliterated as salam or salaam.
In Arabic, as in English, these are distinctly different words.
It is their religion to destroy other nations to establish Islam. The politicians just do not get it. When the Muslims have established themselves in numbers and strength in a nation, then they are embolden to exert their will.
Mohammad said: If your enemy is stronger than you, make a pretense of peace, then when you are able, kill them.
From now on it is their plan to weaken the nations financially through terrorism.
Speculation: About 75% of Muslims believe the white race has to be destroyed in order for Islam to advance.
Islam is the Red Horse Zechariah 1:8
During the night I had a vision—and there before me was a man riding a red horse! He was standing among the myrtle trees in a ravine. Behind him were red, dappled and white horses.
Zechariah 6:2
The first chariot had a red horse, the second black, 3 the third white, and the fourth dappled—all of them powerful. 4 I asked the angel who was speaking to me, "What are these, my lord?"
5 The angel answered me, "These are the four spirits of heaven, going out from standing in the presence of the Lord of the whole world. 6 The one with the black horses is going toward the north country, [Russia] the one with the white horses toward the west, [America] and the one with the dappled horses toward the south." [Austrailia]
[The red horse goes east]

The Babylonian Talmud says: "Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth" The Last Will of Canaan, Babylonian Talmud, Peshachim 113b.
These five points have been in operation for the Canaanites for three thousand years. The Will of Canaan even today remains instructions for the Canaanite heirs. At the same time, it remains unknown to the peoples whom the Canaanites continue to rob, enslave, and massacre. The instructions are a command to commit genocide against the people of Shem.]]> Islamic Deception Al-Takeyya. Or: Al-Taqiyya.
In Islam, lying or omissions for the 'greater good,' according to a strict or radical Islamic philosophy is not only acceptable, but it is a holy and blessed work. It is called "Al-Takeyya. Or. Al-Taqiyya. It is a strategy outlined in the Hadiths and supported by various interpretations of some of the Suras in the Koran.
Al-Takeyya is a policy whereby a Muslim may lie, deceive or omit critical truths if it promotes the spreading of Islam, and the conquest of the Non-Muslim world.
According to William P. Welty, Ph.D., "Al-Takeyya / Taqiyya is:
"The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates."
Definition from an Islamic encyclopedia:
"The word "Al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and / or strategies..."
In radical Islam, any Jew living in Israel is not considered innocent nor a civilian. Nor were the people living and working in America on 9-11. Islamists consider the "Great Satan -- America," and the "Little Satan -- Israel," to be enemy combatants. And this includes every man, woman or child, even babies. This includes any and all who are not Islamists and who oppose being forced to kneel down and pay homage to Allah. In particular, Christians whom they call "Crusaders", and also the Jews.
Muslims see America as naive, and its people ripe for deceit and murder in the name of Allah.
A Muslim thinks from the first moment that he lies that he is honouring Allah, and putting one over on the infidel, which he is directed to do.
"and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers" Sura 3:54
So then, lies and deception is a part of the Muslim religion! That would mean that they are beyond reason, and beyond redemption; totally lacking in any redeeming qualities, making themselves of a very low moral grade.
In regards to the Palestinians.
The Palestinians were of Greek ancestry. The Philistines came to the land of Canaan from Caphtor and other western coastlands. Caphtor is now called Crete and the people are called Cretans. They made war against the Canaanites for their land to establish Palestine. The Palestinian people were not, and are not, of Arab ancestry. The Arab people who now live in Israel want to reclaim Palestine, saying that they are the Palestinians is not true. What is true is that they are Arabs who wish to reclaim Canaanite land. Note: See Jeremiah 47:4 and Amos 9:7. The Philistines invaded Canaan about 1400 B.C. Hebrew settlement of Canaan was about 1200 B.C. At a later date the Canaanites became an Arabic tribe.
Meaning of the word Islam.
Islam is an Arabic word that means "submission or submit" (to Allah). It has a relationship to another Arabic word, such as Salaam, meaning "peace". The Arabic word "Muslim" is related to the word Islam and means a "vassal" of Allah, and is whom has surrendered and submitted (to Allah).
Muslims see homage to Allah as a sign of distinction; paying homage means serving the will of Allah above and beyond one's own goals. The Arabic word "Islam" simply means "submission", and is derived from the word meaning "peace."
In a religious context it simply means submit to the will of Allah. And so Islam means “submission” not “peace". It is frequently said that the word Islam means “peace.” It does not. Islam is the Arabic word for "submission." The Arabic word for “peace” is transliterated as salam or salaam.
In Arabic, as in English, these are distinctly different words.
It is their religion to destroy other nations to establish Islam. The politicians just do not get it. When the Muslims have established themselves in numbers and strength in a nation, then they are embolden to exert their will.
Mohammad said: If your enemy is stronger than you, make a pretense of peace, then when you are able, kill them.
From now on it is their plan to weaken the nations financially through terrorism.
Speculation: About 75% of Muslims believe the white race has to be destroyed in order for Islam to advance.
Islam is the Red Horse Zechariah 1:8
During the night I had a vision—and there before me was a man riding a red horse! He was standing among the myrtle trees in a ravine. Behind him were red, dappled and white horses.
Zechariah 6:2
The first chariot had a red horse, the second black, 3 the third white, and the fourth dappled—all of them powerful. 4 I asked the angel who was speaking to me, "What are these, my lord?"
5 The angel answered me, "These are the four spirits of heaven, going out from standing in the presence of the Lord of the whole world. 6 The one with the black horses is going toward the north country, [Russia] the one with the white horses toward the west, [America] and the one with the dappled horses toward the south." [Austrailia]
[The red horse goes east]

The Babylonian Talmud says: "Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth" The Last Will of Canaan, Babylonian Talmud, Peshachim 113b.
These five points have been in operation for the Canaanites for three thousand years. The Will of Canaan even today remains instructions for the Canaanite heirs. At the same time, it remains unknown to the peoples whom the Canaanites continue to rob, enslave, and massacre. The instructions are a command to commit genocide against the people of Shem.]]> <![CDATA[Concealing the name of God]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1842 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 03:32:32 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1842
Concealing the name of God was not only a custom, it was also made a law.
The sages quoted, "This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (Ex. iii. 15). Here the word "le-'olam" (forever) is written defectively, being without the "waw" for the vowel "o," which renders the reading "le-'allem" (to conceal; Ḳid. 71a).
Forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple, the priests ceased to pronounce the Name (Yoma39b). From that time the pronunciation of the Name was prohibited. "Whoever pronounces the Name forfeits his portion in the future world" (Sanh. xi. 1).
30 AD to 70 AD.
Abba Saul (2d cent.) condemned the profanation of the Tetragrammaton by classing those "that speak the Name according to its letters," with those who have no part in the future world (Sanh. x. 1); and according to 'Ab. Zarah 17b, one of the martyrs of Hadrian's time, Hananiah b. Teradion, was burned at the stake because he so uttered the Name.
The view that prayer is more effectual if the name of God is pronounced in it as it is written caused the scholars of Kairwan to address a question in the eleventh century to Hai Gaon with reference to the pronunciation of the Shem ha-Meforash, to which he answered that it might not be uttered at all outside the Holy Land (Hai Gaon, "Ṭa'am Zeḳenim," p. 55; see Löw, "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 204).
Because Hebrews dropped their 'ayins', to keep from saying God's name, hence we have "y'shua." Also spelled Yeshua, for which we have in Greek, "Iēsous" and "Isus." These are corruptions of the names that begin with "Yah."
Thirteen theophoric names with "Yeho" have corresponding forms where the letters eh have been omitted. There is a theory by Christian Ginsburg that this is due to Hebrew scribes omitting the "h", changing Jeho (יְהוֹ‎) into Jo (יוֹ‎), to make the start of "Yeho-" names not sound like an attempt to pronounce the Divine Name.
Theophoric Names: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophoric_name
Praise, Exalt, and Proclaim His Name
Exodus 34:5
Then Yahwah came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, Yahwah.
1 Chronicles 16:8
Give praise to Yahwah, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done.
Psalm 34:3
Glorify Yahwah with me; let us exalt his name together.
Psalm 68:4
Sing to God, sing in praise of his name, extol him who rides on the clouds; rejoice before him—his name is Yahwah.
Psalm 96:2
Sing to Yahwah, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day.
Psalm 105:1
Give praise to Yahwah, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done.
Psalm 148:13
Let them praise the name of Yahwah, for his name alone is exalted; his splendor is above the earth and the heavens.
Isaiah 12:4
In that day you will say: “Give praise to Yahwah, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.
Isaiah 47:4
Our Redeemer—Yahwah of Host is his name— is the Holy One of Israel.
Isaiah 52:6
Therefore my people will know my name; therefore in that day they will know that it is I who foretold it. Yes, it is I.”
Malachi 2:2
If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name,” says Yahwah of Host, “I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.
Last Days.
Zechariah 13:9
This third I will put into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘Yahwah is our God.’”
Yahwah reveals His name to Moses
Exodus 3:13-15.
13 And Moses said to Elohiym, “Suppose I go to the siblings of the Israelites and say to them, 'The Elohiym of your forefathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?”
14 And Elohiym said to Moses, “The Living that Lives. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'The Living has sent me to you.”
15 And Elohiym also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, 'Yahwah, the Elohiym of your forefathers; the Elohiym of Abraham, the Elohiym of Isaac and the Elohiym of Jacob has sent me to you.' That’s my name forever, the name by which I’m to be remembered, from generation to generation.”
Exodus 6:3
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name Yahwah I did not make myself fully known to them.
Yahwah
A note on the words hawah and hayah.
Quote from pages 217 and 218 of the Brown-Driver-Briggs. Ref # 3068-69 on page 217.
Brown-Driver-Briggs on page 218 states that, "Many recent scholars explain יהוה‎ as Hiph. of הוה equals היה "
הוה hawah / HWH is hawah.
היה hayah / HYH is hayah.
Note that the vowels are all " a."
יהוה Yahwah
The vowels are "a" in the Brown-Driver-Briggs, the NIV Exhaustive Concordance, and the Strong's Exhaustive Concordances.
The name Yahwah is from the Aramaic, not the Hebrew.
The original spelling of God's name is Yahuah, later changed to Yahwah for modern English.]]>
Concealing the name of God was not only a custom, it was also made a law.
The sages quoted, "This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (Ex. iii. 15). Here the word "le-'olam" (forever) is written defectively, being without the "waw" for the vowel "o," which renders the reading "le-'allem" (to conceal; Ḳid. 71a).
Forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple, the priests ceased to pronounce the Name (Yoma39b). From that time the pronunciation of the Name was prohibited. "Whoever pronounces the Name forfeits his portion in the future world" (Sanh. xi. 1).
30 AD to 70 AD.
Abba Saul (2d cent.) condemned the profanation of the Tetragrammaton by classing those "that speak the Name according to its letters," with those who have no part in the future world (Sanh. x. 1); and according to 'Ab. Zarah 17b, one of the martyrs of Hadrian's time, Hananiah b. Teradion, was burned at the stake because he so uttered the Name.
The view that prayer is more effectual if the name of God is pronounced in it as it is written caused the scholars of Kairwan to address a question in the eleventh century to Hai Gaon with reference to the pronunciation of the Shem ha-Meforash, to which he answered that it might not be uttered at all outside the Holy Land (Hai Gaon, "Ṭa'am Zeḳenim," p. 55; see Löw, "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 204).
Because Hebrews dropped their 'ayins', to keep from saying God's name, hence we have "y'shua." Also spelled Yeshua, for which we have in Greek, "Iēsous" and "Isus." These are corruptions of the names that begin with "Yah."
Thirteen theophoric names with "Yeho" have corresponding forms where the letters eh have been omitted. There is a theory by Christian Ginsburg that this is due to Hebrew scribes omitting the "h", changing Jeho (יְהוֹ‎) into Jo (יוֹ‎), to make the start of "Yeho-" names not sound like an attempt to pronounce the Divine Name.
Theophoric Names: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophoric_name
Praise, Exalt, and Proclaim His Name
Exodus 34:5
Then Yahwah came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, Yahwah.
1 Chronicles 16:8
Give praise to Yahwah, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done.
Psalm 34:3
Glorify Yahwah with me; let us exalt his name together.
Psalm 68:4
Sing to God, sing in praise of his name, extol him who rides on the clouds; rejoice before him—his name is Yahwah.
Psalm 96:2
Sing to Yahwah, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day.
Psalm 105:1
Give praise to Yahwah, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done.
Psalm 148:13
Let them praise the name of Yahwah, for his name alone is exalted; his splendor is above the earth and the heavens.
Isaiah 12:4
In that day you will say: “Give praise to Yahwah, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.
Isaiah 47:4
Our Redeemer—Yahwah of Host is his name— is the Holy One of Israel.
Isaiah 52:6
Therefore my people will know my name; therefore in that day they will know that it is I who foretold it. Yes, it is I.”
Malachi 2:2
If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name,” says Yahwah of Host, “I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.
Last Days.
Zechariah 13:9
This third I will put into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘Yahwah is our God.’”
Yahwah reveals His name to Moses
Exodus 3:13-15.
13 And Moses said to Elohiym, “Suppose I go to the siblings of the Israelites and say to them, 'The Elohiym of your forefathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?”
14 And Elohiym said to Moses, “The Living that Lives. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'The Living has sent me to you.”
15 And Elohiym also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, 'Yahwah, the Elohiym of your forefathers; the Elohiym of Abraham, the Elohiym of Isaac and the Elohiym of Jacob has sent me to you.' That’s my name forever, the name by which I’m to be remembered, from generation to generation.”
Exodus 6:3
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name Yahwah I did not make myself fully known to them.
Yahwah
A note on the words hawah and hayah.
Quote from pages 217 and 218 of the Brown-Driver-Briggs. Ref # 3068-69 on page 217.
Brown-Driver-Briggs on page 218 states that, "Many recent scholars explain יהוה‎ as Hiph. of הוה equals היה "
הוה hawah / HWH is hawah.
היה hayah / HYH is hayah.
Note that the vowels are all " a."
יהוה Yahwah
The vowels are "a" in the Brown-Driver-Briggs, the NIV Exhaustive Concordance, and the Strong's Exhaustive Concordances.
The name Yahwah is from the Aramaic, not the Hebrew.
The original spelling of God's name is Yahuah, later changed to Yahwah for modern English.]]> <![CDATA[Isaiah 24:20 comment]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1841 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 03:25:22 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1841 Never to rise again.
Isaiah 24:20
The Earth reels like a drunkard, it sways like a hut in the wind; so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion that it falls—never to rise again.
(the guilt of the rebellious, they shall fall—never to rise again.)
Yahwah created the Earth to be inhabited.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from Pasha
Definition
transgression
NASB Translation
breach of trust (1), rebellion (6), rebellious (1), rebellious act (2), rebellious acts (2), transgression (37), transgressions (45).
Formed it to be inhabited.
Isaiah 45:18
For this is what (the Lord / Yahwah) says— he who created the heavens, he is (God / ElohiymWink he who fashioned and made the Earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I am (the Lord / Yahwah,) and there is no other.]]> Never to rise again.
Isaiah 24:20
The Earth reels like a drunkard, it sways like a hut in the wind; so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion that it falls—never to rise again.
(the guilt of the rebellious, they shall fall—never to rise again.)
Yahwah created the Earth to be inhabited.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from Pasha
Definition
transgression
NASB Translation
breach of trust (1), rebellion (6), rebellious (1), rebellious act (2), rebellious acts (2), transgression (37), transgressions (45).
Formed it to be inhabited.
Isaiah 45:18
For this is what (the Lord / Yahwah) says— he who created the heavens, he is (God / ElohiymWink he who fashioned and made the Earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I am (the Lord / Yahwah,) and there is no other.]]> <![CDATA[Moses and Mount Sinai]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1840 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 03:21:56 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1840 Moses and Mount Sinai
The blackened peak of Jabal Maqla in Saudi Arabia, is proposed to be the true Mount Sinai, and features a distinctly scorched top, leading some to believe it is evidence of the biblical fire from Exodus. The rocks on the summit are black on the outside and lighter inside, creating a "burnt" appearance.
The summit rocks are black, appearing almost glassy or basaltic, which contrasts sharply with the lighter-colored rock on the rest of the mountain. When broken, the rocks show a reddish-tan or brown interior, suggesting a chemical interaction or intense heat altered only the outer layer. The site also features nearby ruins, including potential altars, which are frequently cited in arguments identifying it as the biblical Mount Sinai. The rocks at the top are completely black and looking slick like glass.
The reddish-tan layer and a brown core matches the rocks found on the rest of the mountain. It indicates that the rocks had a chemical interaction that only altered the outside and only occurred at the top of the peak.
Proto-Hebrew Inscriptions with the oldest Menorah.
Ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found at the site — including what could be the oldest inscription of a Menorah.]]> Moses and Mount Sinai
The blackened peak of Jabal Maqla in Saudi Arabia, is proposed to be the true Mount Sinai, and features a distinctly scorched top, leading some to believe it is evidence of the biblical fire from Exodus. The rocks on the summit are black on the outside and lighter inside, creating a "burnt" appearance.
The summit rocks are black, appearing almost glassy or basaltic, which contrasts sharply with the lighter-colored rock on the rest of the mountain. When broken, the rocks show a reddish-tan or brown interior, suggesting a chemical interaction or intense heat altered only the outer layer. The site also features nearby ruins, including potential altars, which are frequently cited in arguments identifying it as the biblical Mount Sinai. The rocks at the top are completely black and looking slick like glass.
The reddish-tan layer and a brown core matches the rocks found on the rest of the mountain. It indicates that the rocks had a chemical interaction that only altered the outside and only occurred at the top of the peak.
Proto-Hebrew Inscriptions with the oldest Menorah.
Ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found at the site — including what could be the oldest inscription of a Menorah.]]> <![CDATA[Noah]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1826 Sat, 11 Jul 2026 18:41:04 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1826 Noah
There seems to be a translation problem because Noah did not give the people "rest," "repose," or "comfort". He did literally "rise above" the people.
The name Noah from its Hebrew origin translates to "rest," "repose," or "comfort".
Touching upon a profound and a highly debated linguistic paradox. This has fascinated biblical commentators and etymologists for centuries. The tension between what Noah’s name literally means and what he actually did is one of the most famous text-level "problems" in ancient Semitic literature.
Linguists and theologians view this narrative friction through a few distinct lenses:
The Literal "Translation Problem" in Genesis
The Bible itself explicitly flags the exact contradiction. In Genesis 5:29, Noah’s father names him:
"He named him Noah (Noach) and said, 'This one will comfort us (yenaḥamēnu) from our work and painful toil...'"
Linguistically, this is a flawed pun.

Noah comes from the root N-W-Ḥ (meaning to rest/repose).
Comfort/Relief comes from the root N-Ḥ-M (meaning to console or soothe).
As the Hadar Institute analysis of ancient texts points out, his father used a completely different Hebrew root to justify the name. Historically, this tells us that the text is engaging in an intentional play on words rather than strict, scientific etymology.

The Irony of "Rest" vs. "Rising Above."
The observation that Noah did not bring the population rest, but instead literally "rose above" them as they drowned, captures the dark irony of the narrative. Rather than being a "rest-giver" to his generation, the only "rest" achieved was the terrifying silence after the world was wiped clean.
The ark itself is described using the Hebrew verb va-tarom ("and it rose high") above the earth. Metaphorically and physically, Noah underwent an ascension while the rest of humanity sank.

Confusion with a Homonym: No'ah (To Motion / Rise)
There is also a separate, distinct Hebrew name that sounds almost identical to Noah but has a completely opposite definition.

The female biblical name Noah (spelled No'ah or Noa in Hebrew) comes from the root N-W-A, which means "to move," "to waver," "to shake," or "to travel upward/stir." Because the English language spells both the masculine Noach (Rest) and the feminine No'ah (Motion) exactly the same way ("Noah"), these two entirely separate etymological concepts often get blended together in modern translations.
The specific grammar differences between the male name Noach and the female name No'ah.
The ancient commentary by Philo of Alexandria, who wrote extensively about the allegorical meaning of Noah "rising above" physical matter.
Genesis 5:29
He named him Noah and said, “He will “comfort” us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.”
Genesis 5:29
He named him Noah and said, “He will “rise above” us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground Yahwah has cursed.”]]> Noah
There seems to be a translation problem because Noah did not give the people "rest," "repose," or "comfort". He did literally "rise above" the people.
The name Noah from its Hebrew origin translates to "rest," "repose," or "comfort".
Touching upon a profound and a highly debated linguistic paradox. This has fascinated biblical commentators and etymologists for centuries. The tension between what Noah’s name literally means and what he actually did is one of the most famous text-level "problems" in ancient Semitic literature.
Linguists and theologians view this narrative friction through a few distinct lenses:
The Literal "Translation Problem" in Genesis
The Bible itself explicitly flags the exact contradiction. In Genesis 5:29, Noah’s father names him:
"He named him Noah (Noach) and said, 'This one will comfort us (yenaḥamēnu) from our work and painful toil...'"
Linguistically, this is a flawed pun.

Noah comes from the root N-W-Ḥ (meaning to rest/repose).
Comfort/Relief comes from the root N-Ḥ-M (meaning to console or soothe).
As the Hadar Institute analysis of ancient texts points out, his father used a completely different Hebrew root to justify the name. Historically, this tells us that the text is engaging in an intentional play on words rather than strict, scientific etymology.

The Irony of "Rest" vs. "Rising Above."
The observation that Noah did not bring the population rest, but instead literally "rose above" them as they drowned, captures the dark irony of the narrative. Rather than being a "rest-giver" to his generation, the only "rest" achieved was the terrifying silence after the world was wiped clean.
The ark itself is described using the Hebrew verb va-tarom ("and it rose high") above the earth. Metaphorically and physically, Noah underwent an ascension while the rest of humanity sank.

Confusion with a Homonym: No'ah (To Motion / Rise)
There is also a separate, distinct Hebrew name that sounds almost identical to Noah but has a completely opposite definition.

The female biblical name Noah (spelled No'ah or Noa in Hebrew) comes from the root N-W-A, which means "to move," "to waver," "to shake," or "to travel upward/stir." Because the English language spells both the masculine Noach (Rest) and the feminine No'ah (Motion) exactly the same way ("Noah"), these two entirely separate etymological concepts often get blended together in modern translations.
The specific grammar differences between the male name Noach and the female name No'ah.
The ancient commentary by Philo of Alexandria, who wrote extensively about the allegorical meaning of Noah "rising above" physical matter.
Genesis 5:29
He named him Noah and said, “He will “comfort” us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.”
Genesis 5:29
He named him Noah and said, “He will “rise above” us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground Yahwah has cursed.”]]> <![CDATA[I built a small site to explain Judaism from the inside, would love feedback]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1807 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:38:58 -0700 sp4z]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1807 Gilui: https://www.gilui.com

It’s not meant to be debate, politics, or kiruv. Just a guided way to understand Jewish ideas, identity, history, sources, and faith.

I’d love honest feedback: is it clear, respectful, useful, or confusing anywhere?]]> Gilui: https://www.gilui.com

It’s not meant to be debate, politics, or kiruv. Just a guided way to understand Jewish ideas, identity, history, sources, and faith.

I’d love honest feedback: is it clear, respectful, useful, or confusing anywhere?]]> <![CDATA[Jesus will help you now and then]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1797 Mon, 15 Jun 2026 13:14:44 -0700 majm84]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1797 <![CDATA[How to deal with antisemitism?]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1794 Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:34:43 -0700 PhotoGuy]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1794 “Hitler was right”
Or
“Jews are out to take over the world.”

How do you deal with people like this?]]> “Hitler was right”
Or
“Jews are out to take over the world.”

How do you deal with people like this?]]> <![CDATA[Comment on Exodus 34:14 Jealous]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1784 Fri, 22 May 2026 11:57:13 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1784 Exodus 34:14 Jealous

The Hebrew word for ( name שְׁמֹו ) can also be translated as (called or called upon.)


Exodus 34:14
You shall not bow yourself down to another god. For Yahwah whose is (called upon) is jealous, and is a jealous God.

A person who is “name-ed” is “called” and is “called upon.”
Yahwah has only one name and many titles.

The Hebrew word for "(name)" is Shem (שֵׁם), which is fundamentally tied to the verb Qara (קָרָא), meaning "to call," "to summon," or "to call out."
Therefore, when a person or thing is "named" in Hebrew, it is essentially being "called" or "called upon" by that designation.

Key Connections:
Shem (שֵׁם): Noun, meaning "Name" or "Reputation."
Qara (קָרָא): Verb, meaning "to call," "to summon," "to proclaim," or "to read."

In the Bible, naming is an action of calling upon someone's identity or purpose, hence a strong conceptual link between the two words.]]> Exodus 34:14 Jealous

The Hebrew word for ( name שְׁמֹו ) can also be translated as (called or called upon.)


Exodus 34:14
You shall not bow yourself down to another god. For Yahwah whose is (called upon) is jealous, and is a jealous God.

A person who is “name-ed” is “called” and is “called upon.”
Yahwah has only one name and many titles.

The Hebrew word for "(name)" is Shem (שֵׁם), which is fundamentally tied to the verb Qara (קָרָא), meaning "to call," "to summon," or "to call out."
Therefore, when a person or thing is "named" in Hebrew, it is essentially being "called" or "called upon" by that designation.

Key Connections:
Shem (שֵׁם): Noun, meaning "Name" or "Reputation."
Qara (קָרָא): Verb, meaning "to call," "to summon," "to proclaim," or "to read."

In the Bible, naming is an action of calling upon someone's identity or purpose, hence a strong conceptual link between the two words.]]> <![CDATA[Pesach]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1737 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 04:38:37 -0700 RabbiO]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1737 <![CDATA[Exodus 21]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1730 Sat, 14 Mar 2026 00:08:32 -0700 gib65]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1730
* primary: chabad.org

* secondary: biblegateway.com (NIV version)

* And if all else fails: chatgpt.com

Exodus 21:2 Wrote:Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.

I have to say, this is very unexpected. In my last thread about Exodus 20, it was emphasized that the reason even "the stranger in your city" was not to work on the Sabbath was to enforce a way of life for the Isrealites that worked against slavery and coerced labor. But here, we see God condoning slavery, at least for six years. Perhaps it ought to be read in context. That is to say, if slaves were owned for life before this ordinance, limiting such ownership to six years might have been seen as merciful. Maybe it was seen as a way to limit to evils of slavery such that those who owned slaves wouldn't be too eager to reject this ordinance and rebel against God's commands (reminds me of The Slave Trade Clause in the US constitution--that the slave trade in the US was to end by 1808--seen by some as morally abhorent given that they could have ended it immediately, but in fact was intended to give the slave owning states enough time to adjust to living within a union where the slave trade would be illegal, thereby making them more willing to accept the constitution, join the union, and defeat the British... but I digress). The point is, everything in context. But I wonder what Jewish scholars and other thinkers on the subject think of this source of potential cognitive dissonance.

On another note, it doesn't escape me that the 6 years of slavery followed by freedom in the 7th year maps perfectly onto the 6 days of creation followed by the day of rest, and the 6 days of work followed by the Sabbath, a day of rest and spiritual reflection. And I assume that the slave's freedom in the 7th year lasts for the rest of his life--as opposed to his having freedom only in the 7th year and then back to slavery for the next 6 years, like the repeating work week after each Sabbath.

I also assume the 6 years applies to Isrealites who already owned slaves at the time this ordinance was announced; as in--you have 6 years to make the most of your slave(s)--as opposed to, if you've owned your slave(s) for 6 years or more, you must set them free as of now.

And is there anything to the wording of "Hebrew" slave? For example, if someone owned an Ethiopian slave, would this ordinance not count for them?

Now, if you thought this verse sounded inhumane, check out verses 3 to 6:

Exodus 21:3-6 Wrote:3 If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave says, "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free," 6 his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Damn! Talk about a sticky predicament! One might at first think this is a no brainer--just keep your mouth shut and go free--but at the cost of betraying your wife and children? Well, if the consequence is that nobody goes free and has to serve their master forever, maybe it is a no brainer after all. But let's look at this in more detail. First of all, from verse 3, it's pretty clear that the husband and wife come and go together. But it doesn't mention anything about children. If the slave comes with a wife and children, do the children also go out with their parents after 6 years? I would think so, but it's not explicitely stated. Now if the master gives him a wife and they bear children, as verse 4 says, they don't go free together. This could mean something as simple as: the wife and children must stay for their 6 years and then go free. So, for example, if the master gives the slave a wife in the 3rd year, and then they bear a child in the 4th year, then he goes free in the 6th year, she goes free in the 9th year, and the child goes free in the 10th year. The alternative interpretation is that the wife and children remain slaves forever. The latter interpretation seems to be supported by the consequence of the father/husband refusing to leave in his 6th year--he is to remain a slave forever--implying, one could suppose, that if he's choosing to stay with his wife and children, he must stay forever since they stay forever.

Speaking of the choice to remain, I wouldn't immediately interpret the consequence of remaining a slave forever a punishment if it wasn't for that awl thingy being bored into his ear. OUCH!!! I can see no other purpose for that except to punish him for choosing to stay. Why would it have been so imperative for the slave to leave after 6 years? The only answer I can think of is that, like my interpretation above, the 6 year limit was a way of deminishing slavery, so much so that, even if by the slave's own will, refusal to accept freedom was punishable by such a barbaric treatment. Maybe the fact that he has a wife and kid(s) was seen as a potential insentive to stay, and so had to be deterred. But then again, the master has an insentive too--slaves are useful! (It makes one wonder, what was the punishment for the slave owner if he refused to let his slave free in the 6th year?).

Verse 5 gives an example of what a slave might say: "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,"--and I interpret this to be just an example of what the slave's reasons for staying might be--but what if it's a condition for the punishment for breaking this ordinance? I mean, what if the slave's reason is "I kinda like it here; I always get fed, I always have a place to sleep, my master treats me well"? <-- Note that this doesn't require a wife or children. Does the same punishment apply? And if we get really specific, does it depend on the slave's love for his master? I mean, the quote could have been: "I love my wife and my children". But verse 5 includes love for the master as well. Does the condition for the punishment get that specific? And one might wonder, what slave would ever love their master? But again, one must put themselves in the context of the times. Perhaps love for the master was an expectation of the slave, maybe a sign that he was a "good" slave. After all, to feed, clothe, and shelter a person who would otherwise be out on the street with no way to feed himself or find secure shelter might have been seen, at the time, as an act of benevolence. But anyway you cut it, a slave being punished with an awl in his ear and then eternal slavery thereafter seems especially cruel if it follows an expression of love on the slave's part for his master.

And why bring the slave to the door or doorpost before drilling his ear with the awl? Most likely, to make a public display of it. It means, from what I surmise, to take the slave outside for the general public to witness the punishment, a common practice before modern times so as to maximize the deterring effect of the punishment.

And finally, I assume the gender roles here are intentional. That is, only males can be purchased as slaves, and females given to the slave as a wife for the purpose of producing children (who also become slaves). But if that's the case, where is the wife taken from? Perhaps the slave trade at the time included both men and women, but the laws surrounding ownership of slaves distinguished between men and women. Men could be bought as slaves straight up, whereas women could be bought as slaves only as concubines to male slaves already owned. In other words, there shouldn't have been any female "standalone" slaves. And again, I assume this is still in the context of "Hebrew" slaves.

Perhaps verses 7 to 11 will shed some light on these.

Exodus 21:7-11 Wrote:7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the slaves go free. 8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her. 9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. 10 If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free without charge, without [payment of] money.

Well, lo and behold, it does explain how the law works for female slaves. Now, it calls her a "maidservant" which in modern parlance means she gets paid for her work, which certainly bears no relation to marriage or child bearing. But a quick google search tells me that in the biblical context, this is typically the intent. It says exactly:

Google Gemini Wrote:Based on an analysis of Exodus 21:7–11, a daughter "sold" by her father as a amah (maidservant/handmaid) was not a chattel slave in the modern sense, but rather a form of indentured servant or concubine (a wife of lower status). She was not "paid" a salary, but the transaction was a form of protection against extreme poverty, aiming for her to become a wife or daughter-in-law in the household.

A lot of context there--enough to say the roles of male slaves and female maidservants was definitely different--but without getting too tangled in exact definitions, let's pick apart verses 7 to 11.

According to verse 7, these ordinances only apply if the maidservant is a daughter of a man who sold her to a master. Or was this the only way a female could become a maidservant anyway?

Now it's verse 8 that really throws me for a loop. What does "did not designate her for himself" mean? Meaning that the master didn't take her as wife/concubine? Verse 9 seems to imply this as a possibility (he can designate her to his son), but I'm wondering if the insertion of "for himself" in the translation over at chabad.org is misplaced, and the verse really means to say: if the master didn't designate her to anyone at all--as in, she is just a servant--cleaning, cooking, taking care of his children--but not being wedded to nor having children with anyone. After all, I have to imagine that some slave owners were already married to ordinary Isrealite citizens, and therefore it would be inappropriate to take a maidservant as a wife or concubine--in which case, she'd just do work as an ordinary slave--but then again, the google definition above suggests that maidservants can be "a wife of lower status"--so already having a wife doesn't seem to be a show stopper. Was marriage in Israel at the time considered exclusive? Will have to consult biblegateway.com and ChatGPT later.

In any case, the real loop here (that I'm thrown through) is "then he shall enable her to be redeemed"--redeemed how?--this seems to stand in stark contrast to the slave who refuses to go free in the 6th year--severe punishment vs chance to be redeemed--and this: "he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person"--this is what it means to be redeemed? Is this another way of saying he shall set her free? As in, if she displeases you, you can just let her go. And particularly: you can't just get rid of her by selling her to another person. Maybe this is where the term "enable" plays a role. It doesn't say that he shall redeem her; it says that he shall enable her to be redeemed--meaning, perhaps, he shall give her the choice of whether to go free or remain a maidservant (again, quite the contrast with the male slave who rejects his freedom). If she goes free, this makes sense out of not ruling over her to sell to another person. And if she stays, well, then he continues to rule over her until he sells her to someone else. All this would make perfect sense, wrapped up in a nice little bow, if it wasn't for the last part of this verse: "when he betrays her". Betrays her how? If anything, I would think her displeasing him would count as a betrayal against him. The only thing I can think of is that "betrayal" might mean sleeping with another women. So effectively, this passage is saying if she displeases him, and she is not redeemed (whatever that means), he may choose someone else to marry and/or be concubine, but at the cost of ruling over her (i.e. he marries/sleeps with another women, he relinquishes ownership of her). But again, this doesn't quite work because this whole verse is couched in the assumption that the master "did not designate her" (for himself or anyone). Maybe the rule is: even if you don't intend to marry or sleep with your maidservant, you may not marry or sleep with another (unless she displeases you, of course). Sooo confused.

Anyway, verse 9 talks about what happens if the master designates his maidservant to his son. So his son marries/sleeps with the maidservant (makes one wonder if a male slave can be designated to a daughter, but I don't think that's the way things were done in these times). All it says on this score is that she shall be dealt with (if she displeases his son, or perhaps himself, I'm assuming) according to the laws of the daughters. What are the laws of the daughters? I thought these were the laws the Isrealites are to follow. Are these laws of the daughters laid out elsewhere in the Torah? Perhaps in Genesis? In any case, it doesn't leave much to think about (which might be a good thing).

And verses 10 and 11? These are more or less straight forward--if the master takes another wife/concubine for himself, it doesn't nullify his responsibilities as master to his maidservant--he must still take care of her basic needs--which totally blows my interpretation of "betrayal" out of the water (unless it's like modern day alimony Smile ). Then again, there's a bit of ambiguity over "he". These verses follow immediately after the verse about designating the maidservant to his son--so by "he", are verses 10 and 11 referring to the master or his son? In either case, if the master doesn't provide these 3 things (sustenance, clothing, and marital status), then she goes free. My only question here is: by these 3 things, is it any one of these three things, or all 3 things. So if he fails to provide clothing for his maidservant, but continues to feed her and keeps her marital status (whatever that means), is she free, or does he have to fail on all 3 fronts?

Well, that seems to be it for the ordinance on slaves and maidservants. The next handful of verses appears to be about assault and battery.

Exodus 21:12-14 Wrote:12 One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. 14 But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die.

Verses 12 and 14 are clear. It's the one in the middle (13) which is obscure. The word "stalk" is ambiguous. If it bears any relation to how we use that term today, it sounds something like to persue. In other words, if one does not intentionally persue (go after, hunt down) the man one strikes (because God brought it about that they simply cross paths such that (I guess) some altercation takes place), then God will see to it that the man flees to a place where he doesn't bother one anymore (and this would be for the sake of the man who strikes, thus "for you"). But if the man strikes, there's no less possibility in this case that he would kill the other man... unless this is what God is saying--that He will ensure the struck man will flee instead of die (and thus no punishment is exacted?).

Verse 14 seems to reiterate the stalking scenario, describing it as "plotting" instead of "stalking", which gives richer context to the meaning of these words. It adds that even deliberation is punishable by death, clearly making no distinction between intent and deed. It adds further that he is to be taken even from God's altar (because he's praying or sacrificing, I assume), emphasizing the seriousness of such deliberations. Also note a few differences between verses 12 and 14. Verse 12 describes a man who dies from being struck, implying the death doesn't have to be intentional, whereas verse 14 explicitely mentions plotting "deliberately against his friend to slay him..." meaning there is definitely the intent to kill. And unlike verse 12, verse 14 refers to the man's "friend", perhaps serving as the reason why such a crime is severe enough to warrant being taken even from God's altar.

BibleGateway.com renders this passage as follows:

biblegateway.com Wrote:12 Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

According to this, the unintentional nature of killing a man by striking him only applies to verse 13. It doesn't shed any light on the meaning of "stalk", but seems to have in its place "intentionally". So "one who did not stalk [him]" apparently means "if he did not do it intentionally". Also apparently, "God brought [it] about into his hand" means "God let it happen". And finally, "I will make a place for you to which he shall flee" means "they are to flee to a place I will designate." (I was thrown off by the inconsistent pronouns "you" and "he".) Note that this translation makes no mention of "friend", so I guess whether the victim is a friend, a foe, or a stranger is inconsequential, meaning the severity of the crime (enough to arrest him even at God's altar) comes purely from the scheming and planning.

Makes one wonder how God will inform the man who strikes of the place He designates? A sign? Will He literally come down and speak to the man? Must he consult a member of the clergy? Must he figure it out himself? Or is this part of the justice system? More like an exile than a fleeing from the law, the exact place being determined by the judge?

Exodus 21:18-19 Wrote:18 And if men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or with a fist, and he does not die but is confined to [his] bed, 19 if he gets up and walks about outside on his support, the assailant shall be cleared; he shall give only [payment] for his [enforced] idleness, and he shall provide for his cure.

This passage leaves out what the punishment is if the man doesn't get up (or gets up but doesn't walk outside). If a fatal blow is met with death, I would think a non-fatal blow would be met with something less severe than death. If the victim gets up and walks outside without supports, I assume it's fair to say he has recovered, and that's the end of the whole affair. In that case, the assailant receives the full punishment for the time the victim took to recover. But what about cases where the victim is disabled in a way that doesn't require supports, like a broken hand or a blind eye? I suppose the idea is that if he's bed ridden, the damage must be to his legs and therefore he requires supports in order to get up and walk. But that doesn't mean a broken hand or a blind eye makes him any less debilitated and stuck to his home. The debilitation seems to pivot specifically on being confined to bed and thereby not being able to work or go about town doing his business. In that case, it sounds like the punishment is not just for the "enforced idleness" and the cure, but for wages lost due to inability to work.

Exodus 21:20-21 Wrote:And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. 21 But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.


Well, this seems like strange reasoning. I'm not sure why the time it takes for the manservant or maidservant to die makes a difference. Either way, the master killed him/her. And either way, they are his property. Perhaps it made more sense in the context of the times. And the meaning of "avenged" seems deliberately vague. Obviously, death is not the only option (if an option at all). But what constitutes avengence is not clear. I suppose a judge decides. The meaning of "rod" is also unclear, but I assume it means some kind of long hand-held stick of sorts meant to whip or beat his servants when the master deemed it approperiate. Not something meant to kill as the killing seems to be the crime here (makes one wonder what the punishment is for deliberately killing one's servants). I would think such "rods" were common place at the time, and a master was expected to own one and use it (if necessary) for just this purpose. Otherwise, why would this ordinance be limited just to rods? Why not stones or other hard objects, or even fists? The assumption must be that the practice of disciplining your slave was to be done with special rods for this very purpose, and it was meant to be carried out calmly as a standard proceedure, as opposed to an outburst of rage which could result in the master grabbing any nearby object like a pot and assulting his slave with it.

Exodus 21:22-25 Wrote:22 And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. 23 But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

Does the hitting of the pregnant woman have to be purposeful? I don't think so as restitution implies damages or losses regardless of intent.

Verse 23 makes sense in the context fatalities (the woman's), but then verse 24 and 25 go on about eyes, teeth, hands, feet, burns, wounds, and bruises. Is this to be read in the context of no fatalities? As in, if the assailant struck the woman in the eye and she lost sight, the loss of his own eye would be added to the restitution over and above that for the miscarriage. Or is it to be read as just an elaboration on the justification for this form of justice. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, just as you would take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.. Or is this to be read as a generalization of any kind of altercation in which one person assults another, and it was slipped in here because it was on topic. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, and by the way, the rule in general is that, for any altercation between two people, if one takes the other's eye, he shall have his eye taken, and if one takes the other's tooth, he shall have his tooth taken, etc..

Exodus 21:26-27 Wrote:26 And if a man strikes the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall set him free in return for his eye, 27 and if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall set him free in return for his tooth.

No ambiguity here. An eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom. But is it limited to an eye and a tooth, or does the list of tits-for-tats in verses 25 and 26 apply even here (but implicitely). Of course, it's not an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom, but the point is, does it implicitely go through the whole list from eye to bruise? I actually don't think so, as verse 25 lists injuries one can recover from, and if a master is allowed to strike his servants with a rod, one can't not expect some form of wounding or bruising, or maybe even burning. But it seems like the losing of a hand or a foot (verse 24) ranks right up there with eyes and teeth, so I see no reason these wouldn't be implied after mentioning an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom.

Exodus 21:28 Wrote:And if a bull gores a man or a woman and [that one] dies, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, and the owner of the bull is clear.

Poor bull, one might think, he doesn't know any better, he's just an animal acting on instrincts. But we do the same in today's world. We often put dogs down if they repeatedly attack and injure or kill people. We even hunt down wild animals, like bears or sharks, if they attack or kill human beings. The point is not to punish them for bad deeds, but to do away with them before they cause even more damage or death. They say that once an animal gets a taste for attacking, injuring, or killing (a taste for blood), it becomes less reserved about doing it again. So they must be put down. It's unfortunate, but a necessary part of protecting ourselves.

The part I don't quite get is the prohibition against eating the bull's flesh. Is the fact that the bull is a killer somehow seeped into his flesh, like a poison that, if eaten, transfers to you? I know later in Isrealite history (correct me if I'm wrong), they had a practice of transferring sin from a person to a goat and then sent that goat off into the wilderness (thus the term "scapegoat"). Could this be an early precursor of this idea? That the bull, in killing a person, has sort of "sinned" and therefore eating its flesh would transfer the sin over to you? If so, this casts some doubt on my above interpretation. I said the purpose of the bull's death is not a punishment, but a way of protecting people from the harm it does. But if the prohibition of eating its flesh is grounded on the idea that its sins will be transferred to you, then it sounds like this verse is saying the bull really is guilty of murder, that it has sinned, and actually deserves to die. What did the Isrealites actually believe about animal violence and animal sin?

Exodus 21:29-30 Wrote:29 But if it is a [habitually] goring bull since yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner had been warned, but he did not guard it, and it puts to death a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death, 30 insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul according to all that is levied upon him.

Verse 29 is clear. It's verse 30 that confuses me. What ransom is it talking about? And is the "redemption of his soul" being considered payment for the ransom? So in addition to being put to death, if someone demands ransom for damages, that ransom can be paid for by the man's soul (or the redemption thereof) in proportion to whatever's levied against him. I guess that really puts it in God's hands, doesn't it? <-- If this interpretation is right, it means they must have believed in an afterlife in which God could exact punishment for unredeemed souls, and in this case, in proportion to the levies put on him. So it doesn't sound like everlasting damnation in Hell, but a limited punishment for a short while until the ransom is paid.

Once again, BibleGateway.com makes way more sense of this:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded.

This doesn't even need explanation. It's crystal clear on its surface. But is it accurate? Better clarity for a modern audience may sometimes be at the cost of translational accuracy.

Exodus 21:31 Wrote:Or if it gores a young boy or a young girl, according to this ordinance shall be done to him.

What shall be done to him? Is it saying the default punishment (death) shall be done to him if the bull gores a child, that none are to demand a levy in the case of the death of children?

According to BibleGateway.com, it seems like just the opposite:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.

Since verse 29 speaks of goring a man or a woman, this verse seems to be simply clarifying that this ordinance applies to children as well.

Exodus 21:33 Wrote:And if a person opens a pit, or if a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall return money to its owner, and the dead body shall be his.

Did this happen often? Were donkeys and bulls regularly falling into pits? If not, this seems like such an arbitrary ordinance. For example, why limit it to donkeys and bulls? Why not goats? Why not sheep? Were all other animals just more careful? More resilient? Were bulls and donkeys just that much more valuable? Anyway, the punishment seems fair. In fact, it doesn't seem like a punishment at all. He's simply buying a meal he can feed his wife and kids for days.

Other than that, all other verses are pretty straight forward. I will bring in ChatGPT to add some insight into some of the questions I posed above, but that will be for a later post. And then it will be on to Exodus 22.]]>
* primary: chabad.org

* secondary: biblegateway.com (NIV version)

* And if all else fails: chatgpt.com

Exodus 21:2 Wrote:Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.

I have to say, this is very unexpected. In my last thread about Exodus 20, it was emphasized that the reason even "the stranger in your city" was not to work on the Sabbath was to enforce a way of life for the Isrealites that worked against slavery and coerced labor. But here, we see God condoning slavery, at least for six years. Perhaps it ought to be read in context. That is to say, if slaves were owned for life before this ordinance, limiting such ownership to six years might have been seen as merciful. Maybe it was seen as a way to limit to evils of slavery such that those who owned slaves wouldn't be too eager to reject this ordinance and rebel against God's commands (reminds me of The Slave Trade Clause in the US constitution--that the slave trade in the US was to end by 1808--seen by some as morally abhorent given that they could have ended it immediately, but in fact was intended to give the slave owning states enough time to adjust to living within a union where the slave trade would be illegal, thereby making them more willing to accept the constitution, join the union, and defeat the British... but I digress). The point is, everything in context. But I wonder what Jewish scholars and other thinkers on the subject think of this source of potential cognitive dissonance.

On another note, it doesn't escape me that the 6 years of slavery followed by freedom in the 7th year maps perfectly onto the 6 days of creation followed by the day of rest, and the 6 days of work followed by the Sabbath, a day of rest and spiritual reflection. And I assume that the slave's freedom in the 7th year lasts for the rest of his life--as opposed to his having freedom only in the 7th year and then back to slavery for the next 6 years, like the repeating work week after each Sabbath.

I also assume the 6 years applies to Isrealites who already owned slaves at the time this ordinance was announced; as in--you have 6 years to make the most of your slave(s)--as opposed to, if you've owned your slave(s) for 6 years or more, you must set them free as of now.

And is there anything to the wording of "Hebrew" slave? For example, if someone owned an Ethiopian slave, would this ordinance not count for them?

Now, if you thought this verse sounded inhumane, check out verses 3 to 6:

Exodus 21:3-6 Wrote:3 If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave says, "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free," 6 his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Damn! Talk about a sticky predicament! One might at first think this is a no brainer--just keep your mouth shut and go free--but at the cost of betraying your wife and children? Well, if the consequence is that nobody goes free and has to serve their master forever, maybe it is a no brainer after all. But let's look at this in more detail. First of all, from verse 3, it's pretty clear that the husband and wife come and go together. But it doesn't mention anything about children. If the slave comes with a wife and children, do the children also go out with their parents after 6 years? I would think so, but it's not explicitely stated. Now if the master gives him a wife and they bear children, as verse 4 says, they don't go free together. This could mean something as simple as: the wife and children must stay for their 6 years and then go free. So, for example, if the master gives the slave a wife in the 3rd year, and then they bear a child in the 4th year, then he goes free in the 6th year, she goes free in the 9th year, and the child goes free in the 10th year. The alternative interpretation is that the wife and children remain slaves forever. The latter interpretation seems to be supported by the consequence of the father/husband refusing to leave in his 6th year--he is to remain a slave forever--implying, one could suppose, that if he's choosing to stay with his wife and children, he must stay forever since they stay forever.

Speaking of the choice to remain, I wouldn't immediately interpret the consequence of remaining a slave forever a punishment if it wasn't for that awl thingy being bored into his ear. OUCH!!! I can see no other purpose for that except to punish him for choosing to stay. Why would it have been so imperative for the slave to leave after 6 years? The only answer I can think of is that, like my interpretation above, the 6 year limit was a way of deminishing slavery, so much so that, even if by the slave's own will, refusal to accept freedom was punishable by such a barbaric treatment. Maybe the fact that he has a wife and kid(s) was seen as a potential insentive to stay, and so had to be deterred. But then again, the master has an insentive too--slaves are useful! (It makes one wonder, what was the punishment for the slave owner if he refused to let his slave free in the 6th year?).

Verse 5 gives an example of what a slave might say: "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,"--and I interpret this to be just an example of what the slave's reasons for staying might be--but what if it's a condition for the punishment for breaking this ordinance? I mean, what if the slave's reason is "I kinda like it here; I always get fed, I always have a place to sleep, my master treats me well"? <-- Note that this doesn't require a wife or children. Does the same punishment apply? And if we get really specific, does it depend on the slave's love for his master? I mean, the quote could have been: "I love my wife and my children". But verse 5 includes love for the master as well. Does the condition for the punishment get that specific? And one might wonder, what slave would ever love their master? But again, one must put themselves in the context of the times. Perhaps love for the master was an expectation of the slave, maybe a sign that he was a "good" slave. After all, to feed, clothe, and shelter a person who would otherwise be out on the street with no way to feed himself or find secure shelter might have been seen, at the time, as an act of benevolence. But anyway you cut it, a slave being punished with an awl in his ear and then eternal slavery thereafter seems especially cruel if it follows an expression of love on the slave's part for his master.

And why bring the slave to the door or doorpost before drilling his ear with the awl? Most likely, to make a public display of it. It means, from what I surmise, to take the slave outside for the general public to witness the punishment, a common practice before modern times so as to maximize the deterring effect of the punishment.

And finally, I assume the gender roles here are intentional. That is, only males can be purchased as slaves, and females given to the slave as a wife for the purpose of producing children (who also become slaves). But if that's the case, where is the wife taken from? Perhaps the slave trade at the time included both men and women, but the laws surrounding ownership of slaves distinguished between men and women. Men could be bought as slaves straight up, whereas women could be bought as slaves only as concubines to male slaves already owned. In other words, there shouldn't have been any female "standalone" slaves. And again, I assume this is still in the context of "Hebrew" slaves.

Perhaps verses 7 to 11 will shed some light on these.

Exodus 21:7-11 Wrote:7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the slaves go free. 8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her. 9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. 10 If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free without charge, without [payment of] money.

Well, lo and behold, it does explain how the law works for female slaves. Now, it calls her a "maidservant" which in modern parlance means she gets paid for her work, which certainly bears no relation to marriage or child bearing. But a quick google search tells me that in the biblical context, this is typically the intent. It says exactly:

Google Gemini Wrote:Based on an analysis of Exodus 21:7–11, a daughter "sold" by her father as a amah (maidservant/handmaid) was not a chattel slave in the modern sense, but rather a form of indentured servant or concubine (a wife of lower status). She was not "paid" a salary, but the transaction was a form of protection against extreme poverty, aiming for her to become a wife or daughter-in-law in the household.

A lot of context there--enough to say the roles of male slaves and female maidservants was definitely different--but without getting too tangled in exact definitions, let's pick apart verses 7 to 11.

According to verse 7, these ordinances only apply if the maidservant is a daughter of a man who sold her to a master. Or was this the only way a female could become a maidservant anyway?

Now it's verse 8 that really throws me for a loop. What does "did not designate her for himself" mean? Meaning that the master didn't take her as wife/concubine? Verse 9 seems to imply this as a possibility (he can designate her to his son), but I'm wondering if the insertion of "for himself" in the translation over at chabad.org is misplaced, and the verse really means to say: if the master didn't designate her to anyone at all--as in, she is just a servant--cleaning, cooking, taking care of his children--but not being wedded to nor having children with anyone. After all, I have to imagine that some slave owners were already married to ordinary Isrealite citizens, and therefore it would be inappropriate to take a maidservant as a wife or concubine--in which case, she'd just do work as an ordinary slave--but then again, the google definition above suggests that maidservants can be "a wife of lower status"--so already having a wife doesn't seem to be a show stopper. Was marriage in Israel at the time considered exclusive? Will have to consult biblegateway.com and ChatGPT later.

In any case, the real loop here (that I'm thrown through) is "then he shall enable her to be redeemed"--redeemed how?--this seems to stand in stark contrast to the slave who refuses to go free in the 6th year--severe punishment vs chance to be redeemed--and this: "he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person"--this is what it means to be redeemed? Is this another way of saying he shall set her free? As in, if she displeases you, you can just let her go. And particularly: you can't just get rid of her by selling her to another person. Maybe this is where the term "enable" plays a role. It doesn't say that he shall redeem her; it says that he shall enable her to be redeemed--meaning, perhaps, he shall give her the choice of whether to go free or remain a maidservant (again, quite the contrast with the male slave who rejects his freedom). If she goes free, this makes sense out of not ruling over her to sell to another person. And if she stays, well, then he continues to rule over her until he sells her to someone else. All this would make perfect sense, wrapped up in a nice little bow, if it wasn't for the last part of this verse: "when he betrays her". Betrays her how? If anything, I would think her displeasing him would count as a betrayal against him. The only thing I can think of is that "betrayal" might mean sleeping with another women. So effectively, this passage is saying if she displeases him, and she is not redeemed (whatever that means), he may choose someone else to marry and/or be concubine, but at the cost of ruling over her (i.e. he marries/sleeps with another women, he relinquishes ownership of her). But again, this doesn't quite work because this whole verse is couched in the assumption that the master "did not designate her" (for himself or anyone). Maybe the rule is: even if you don't intend to marry or sleep with your maidservant, you may not marry or sleep with another (unless she displeases you, of course). Sooo confused.

Anyway, verse 9 talks about what happens if the master designates his maidservant to his son. So his son marries/sleeps with the maidservant (makes one wonder if a male slave can be designated to a daughter, but I don't think that's the way things were done in these times). All it says on this score is that she shall be dealt with (if she displeases his son, or perhaps himself, I'm assuming) according to the laws of the daughters. What are the laws of the daughters? I thought these were the laws the Isrealites are to follow. Are these laws of the daughters laid out elsewhere in the Torah? Perhaps in Genesis? In any case, it doesn't leave much to think about (which might be a good thing).

And verses 10 and 11? These are more or less straight forward--if the master takes another wife/concubine for himself, it doesn't nullify his responsibilities as master to his maidservant--he must still take care of her basic needs--which totally blows my interpretation of "betrayal" out of the water (unless it's like modern day alimony Smile ). Then again, there's a bit of ambiguity over "he". These verses follow immediately after the verse about designating the maidservant to his son--so by "he", are verses 10 and 11 referring to the master or his son? In either case, if the master doesn't provide these 3 things (sustenance, clothing, and marital status), then she goes free. My only question here is: by these 3 things, is it any one of these three things, or all 3 things. So if he fails to provide clothing for his maidservant, but continues to feed her and keeps her marital status (whatever that means), is she free, or does he have to fail on all 3 fronts?

Well, that seems to be it for the ordinance on slaves and maidservants. The next handful of verses appears to be about assault and battery.

Exodus 21:12-14 Wrote:12 One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. 14 But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die.

Verses 12 and 14 are clear. It's the one in the middle (13) which is obscure. The word "stalk" is ambiguous. If it bears any relation to how we use that term today, it sounds something like to persue. In other words, if one does not intentionally persue (go after, hunt down) the man one strikes (because God brought it about that they simply cross paths such that (I guess) some altercation takes place), then God will see to it that the man flees to a place where he doesn't bother one anymore (and this would be for the sake of the man who strikes, thus "for you"). But if the man strikes, there's no less possibility in this case that he would kill the other man... unless this is what God is saying--that He will ensure the struck man will flee instead of die (and thus no punishment is exacted?).

Verse 14 seems to reiterate the stalking scenario, describing it as "plotting" instead of "stalking", which gives richer context to the meaning of these words. It adds that even deliberation is punishable by death, clearly making no distinction between intent and deed. It adds further that he is to be taken even from God's altar (because he's praying or sacrificing, I assume), emphasizing the seriousness of such deliberations. Also note a few differences between verses 12 and 14. Verse 12 describes a man who dies from being struck, implying the death doesn't have to be intentional, whereas verse 14 explicitely mentions plotting "deliberately against his friend to slay him..." meaning there is definitely the intent to kill. And unlike verse 12, verse 14 refers to the man's "friend", perhaps serving as the reason why such a crime is severe enough to warrant being taken even from God's altar.

BibleGateway.com renders this passage as follows:

biblegateway.com Wrote:12 Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

According to this, the unintentional nature of killing a man by striking him only applies to verse 13. It doesn't shed any light on the meaning of "stalk", but seems to have in its place "intentionally". So "one who did not stalk [him]" apparently means "if he did not do it intentionally". Also apparently, "God brought [it] about into his hand" means "God let it happen". And finally, "I will make a place for you to which he shall flee" means "they are to flee to a place I will designate." (I was thrown off by the inconsistent pronouns "you" and "he".) Note that this translation makes no mention of "friend", so I guess whether the victim is a friend, a foe, or a stranger is inconsequential, meaning the severity of the crime (enough to arrest him even at God's altar) comes purely from the scheming and planning.

Makes one wonder how God will inform the man who strikes of the place He designates? A sign? Will He literally come down and speak to the man? Must he consult a member of the clergy? Must he figure it out himself? Or is this part of the justice system? More like an exile than a fleeing from the law, the exact place being determined by the judge?

Exodus 21:18-19 Wrote:18 And if men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or with a fist, and he does not die but is confined to [his] bed, 19 if he gets up and walks about outside on his support, the assailant shall be cleared; he shall give only [payment] for his [enforced] idleness, and he shall provide for his cure.

This passage leaves out what the punishment is if the man doesn't get up (or gets up but doesn't walk outside). If a fatal blow is met with death, I would think a non-fatal blow would be met with something less severe than death. If the victim gets up and walks outside without supports, I assume it's fair to say he has recovered, and that's the end of the whole affair. In that case, the assailant receives the full punishment for the time the victim took to recover. But what about cases where the victim is disabled in a way that doesn't require supports, like a broken hand or a blind eye? I suppose the idea is that if he's bed ridden, the damage must be to his legs and therefore he requires supports in order to get up and walk. But that doesn't mean a broken hand or a blind eye makes him any less debilitated and stuck to his home. The debilitation seems to pivot specifically on being confined to bed and thereby not being able to work or go about town doing his business. In that case, it sounds like the punishment is not just for the "enforced idleness" and the cure, but for wages lost due to inability to work.

Exodus 21:20-21 Wrote:And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. 21 But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.


Well, this seems like strange reasoning. I'm not sure why the time it takes for the manservant or maidservant to die makes a difference. Either way, the master killed him/her. And either way, they are his property. Perhaps it made more sense in the context of the times. And the meaning of "avenged" seems deliberately vague. Obviously, death is not the only option (if an option at all). But what constitutes avengence is not clear. I suppose a judge decides. The meaning of "rod" is also unclear, but I assume it means some kind of long hand-held stick of sorts meant to whip or beat his servants when the master deemed it approperiate. Not something meant to kill as the killing seems to be the crime here (makes one wonder what the punishment is for deliberately killing one's servants). I would think such "rods" were common place at the time, and a master was expected to own one and use it (if necessary) for just this purpose. Otherwise, why would this ordinance be limited just to rods? Why not stones or other hard objects, or even fists? The assumption must be that the practice of disciplining your slave was to be done with special rods for this very purpose, and it was meant to be carried out calmly as a standard proceedure, as opposed to an outburst of rage which could result in the master grabbing any nearby object like a pot and assulting his slave with it.

Exodus 21:22-25 Wrote:22 And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. 23 But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

Does the hitting of the pregnant woman have to be purposeful? I don't think so as restitution implies damages or losses regardless of intent.

Verse 23 makes sense in the context fatalities (the woman's), but then verse 24 and 25 go on about eyes, teeth, hands, feet, burns, wounds, and bruises. Is this to be read in the context of no fatalities? As in, if the assailant struck the woman in the eye and she lost sight, the loss of his own eye would be added to the restitution over and above that for the miscarriage. Or is it to be read as just an elaboration on the justification for this form of justice. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, just as you would take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.. Or is this to be read as a generalization of any kind of altercation in which one person assults another, and it was slipped in here because it was on topic. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, and by the way, the rule in general is that, for any altercation between two people, if one takes the other's eye, he shall have his eye taken, and if one takes the other's tooth, he shall have his tooth taken, etc..

Exodus 21:26-27 Wrote:26 And if a man strikes the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall set him free in return for his eye, 27 and if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall set him free in return for his tooth.

No ambiguity here. An eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom. But is it limited to an eye and a tooth, or does the list of tits-for-tats in verses 25 and 26 apply even here (but implicitely). Of course, it's not an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom, but the point is, does it implicitely go through the whole list from eye to bruise? I actually don't think so, as verse 25 lists injuries one can recover from, and if a master is allowed to strike his servants with a rod, one can't not expect some form of wounding or bruising, or maybe even burning. But it seems like the losing of a hand or a foot (verse 24) ranks right up there with eyes and teeth, so I see no reason these wouldn't be implied after mentioning an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom.

Exodus 21:28 Wrote:And if a bull gores a man or a woman and [that one] dies, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, and the owner of the bull is clear.

Poor bull, one might think, he doesn't know any better, he's just an animal acting on instrincts. But we do the same in today's world. We often put dogs down if they repeatedly attack and injure or kill people. We even hunt down wild animals, like bears or sharks, if they attack or kill human beings. The point is not to punish them for bad deeds, but to do away with them before they cause even more damage or death. They say that once an animal gets a taste for attacking, injuring, or killing (a taste for blood), it becomes less reserved about doing it again. So they must be put down. It's unfortunate, but a necessary part of protecting ourselves.

The part I don't quite get is the prohibition against eating the bull's flesh. Is the fact that the bull is a killer somehow seeped into his flesh, like a poison that, if eaten, transfers to you? I know later in Isrealite history (correct me if I'm wrong), they had a practice of transferring sin from a person to a goat and then sent that goat off into the wilderness (thus the term "scapegoat"). Could this be an early precursor of this idea? That the bull, in killing a person, has sort of "sinned" and therefore eating its flesh would transfer the sin over to you? If so, this casts some doubt on my above interpretation. I said the purpose of the bull's death is not a punishment, but a way of protecting people from the harm it does. But if the prohibition of eating its flesh is grounded on the idea that its sins will be transferred to you, then it sounds like this verse is saying the bull really is guilty of murder, that it has sinned, and actually deserves to die. What did the Isrealites actually believe about animal violence and animal sin?

Exodus 21:29-30 Wrote:29 But if it is a [habitually] goring bull since yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner had been warned, but he did not guard it, and it puts to death a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death, 30 insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul according to all that is levied upon him.

Verse 29 is clear. It's verse 30 that confuses me. What ransom is it talking about? And is the "redemption of his soul" being considered payment for the ransom? So in addition to being put to death, if someone demands ransom for damages, that ransom can be paid for by the man's soul (or the redemption thereof) in proportion to whatever's levied against him. I guess that really puts it in God's hands, doesn't it? <-- If this interpretation is right, it means they must have believed in an afterlife in which God could exact punishment for unredeemed souls, and in this case, in proportion to the levies put on him. So it doesn't sound like everlasting damnation in Hell, but a limited punishment for a short while until the ransom is paid.

Once again, BibleGateway.com makes way more sense of this:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded.

This doesn't even need explanation. It's crystal clear on its surface. But is it accurate? Better clarity for a modern audience may sometimes be at the cost of translational accuracy.

Exodus 21:31 Wrote:Or if it gores a young boy or a young girl, according to this ordinance shall be done to him.

What shall be done to him? Is it saying the default punishment (death) shall be done to him if the bull gores a child, that none are to demand a levy in the case of the death of children?

According to BibleGateway.com, it seems like just the opposite:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.

Since verse 29 speaks of goring a man or a woman, this verse seems to be simply clarifying that this ordinance applies to children as well.

Exodus 21:33 Wrote:And if a person opens a pit, or if a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall return money to its owner, and the dead body shall be his.

Did this happen often? Were donkeys and bulls regularly falling into pits? If not, this seems like such an arbitrary ordinance. For example, why limit it to donkeys and bulls? Why not goats? Why not sheep? Were all other animals just more careful? More resilient? Were bulls and donkeys just that much more valuable? Anyway, the punishment seems fair. In fact, it doesn't seem like a punishment at all. He's simply buying a meal he can feed his wife and kids for days.

Other than that, all other verses are pretty straight forward. I will bring in ChatGPT to add some insight into some of the questions I posed above, but that will be for a later post. And then it will be on to Exodus 22.]]> <![CDATA[Happy Purim!]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1727 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 19:02:57 -0800 searchinmyroots]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1727
May our enemies lay down their arms and peace be upon us.]]>
May our enemies lay down their arms and peace be upon us.]]>