1
ISSUES: Christian missionaries are very attracted to the 53rd chapter of Isaiah’s book because it refers to the “affliction, oppression, and persecution of a suffering servant who submitted to his grave.” Superficially, Isaiah’s description sounds enticingly like the Christian view of Jesus. However, chapter 53 is part of Isaiah’s fourth servant song, which does not refer to the Messiah ben David; it refers to a “suffering servant of God.” There are at least five major problems with their interpretation that these verses in Isaiah refer to Jesus:
First, Christian missionaries use the 53rd chapter of Isaiah as a proof-text for the Christian belief that Jesus died for the sins of others. However, people may have seen Jesus die, but it is not conceptually possible to see someone die as atonement for the sins of others. It is merely a theological assertion by the writers of the New Testament intended to give meaning to Jesus’ death. Only if one first accepts the New Testament teaching that Jesus’ death had this non-visible, spiritual significance is it logically possible to assert that Isaiah confirmed Christian beliefs. Therefore, Isaiah 53 is in reality no “proof” at all but rather circular reasoning and a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.
Second, virtually all of the “proofs’ used by missionaries are from rabbinic texts and commentaries such as the Talmud, the Targum and the Zohar. Missionaries use these rabbinic texts to support their assertion that Jesus is Isaiah’s “servant.” The problem with their argument requires an understanding of the nature of “psat” and “midrash.” “Psat” is the plain meaning of a text. All the authors of the Talmud, Targum and Zohar agree that the “psat” of “servant” is Jacob/Israel which means the Jewish People. Midrash never contradicts psat. Midrash is a poetic overlay of meaning designed to teach Jewish theology, not the plain meaning of the text. These rabbinic texts refer to Isaiah’s “servant” as Moses, the soul, an angel, the righteous of Israel, and the messiah ben Joseph (a descendent of Joseph who is prophesized to die before messiah ben David appears to fulfill all the messianic prophecies). Missionaries falsify their analysis of these texts by ignoring all of these non-messianic references and by pretending that messiah ben Joseph is really messiah ben David. They play these name games to shoehorn Jesus into Isaiah’s text. Problematically, Christian theologians universally reject these texts because they contradict or reject the fundamental Christian faith claims about Jesus. It is the height of disingenuousness to use isolated out-of-context verses from Jewish texts to “prove” what the texts themselves reject! Missionaries intentionally misapply these verses to falsify “proofs” to further the Christian missionary agenda.
Third, it is very important to note that while missionaries are grasping at Talmudic straws to support their forced interpretation of Isaiah 53, the Christian Bible contradicts them. It is obvious from the Gospel accounts that Jesus’ handpicked disciples didn’t view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. After the disciple Peter (a pillar of the Church and supposedly the first Pope) identified Jesus as “the Messiah” (Matthew 16:16) Peter is informed that Jesus will be killed. (Matthew 16:21) Peter’s response is most telling: “God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22 and also Matthew 17:23, Mark 9:31-32; Mark 16:10-11; Luke
1 Source: Lets Get Biblical by Rabbi Tovia Singer
18:32, John 20:9). Peter didn’t joyfully exclaim: “Praise God, you are the suffering servant of Isaiah 53!” Clearly, the disciples did not know that the Messiah was supposed to suffer and die nor did they view Jesus’ impending death as “good news.” Their reaction makes it abundantly clear that they had no concept that their messiah’s suffering and death was prophesized by Isaiah 53.
Fourth, Jesus’ enemies such as King Herod certainly didn’t think that the Messiah was supposed to be killed. Otherwise, why would Herod help Jesus’ cause by trying to kill him? (Matthew 2).
Fifth, Jesus himself obviously didn’t see Isaiah 53 as relevant to his messianic claims. According to the Gospel of Mark, “And he (Jesus) went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me.” (Mark 14:35-36). By asking God to “take away this cup from me” Jesus clearly wanted God to allow him to live and not be killed. This creates a monumental problem for today’s missionaries. Didn’t Jesus know that if God listened to him and “removed the cup” Jesus would not be able to fulfill (the current missionary interpretation of) Isaiah 53? Obviously, until Jesus suffered and died there was no need for Christian missionaries to re-interpret Isaiah 53 to explain his death. Parenthetically, since Jesus was supposedly “god” as a member of the trinity, was Jesus speaking to himself when he asked God to “remove this cup?” Does any of this really make sense?
It is important to note that there is no scriptural basis in Isaiah 53, the Torah or the Jewish Bible to support the Christian faith claim that it is necessary to “believe in the Messiah” for personal salvation. God gave the Jewish People a detailed instruction manual (the Torah) containing 613 commandments /tools to make moral choices. According to Jewish theology, each person determines their own personal salvation based upon their own moral choices. Therefore, even if Jesus were the messiah there would be no need to “believe” in him for personal salvation.
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
The speakers throughout chapter fifty-three are the Gentile kings who are introduced at the end of Chapter 52 who remark in shock and astonishment at the sudden elevation of the Jewish People. The Christian Church has always taught that the Jews have suffered for the past 2000 years as a punishment for rejecting Jesus, but in Chapter 52 God reveals and these Gentile kings admit that the Gentiles caused the Jews to suffer for their own sins:
ISAIAH 52: “Behold, My [God’s] servant [Israel] will succeed; he [Israel] will be exalted and become high and exceedingly lofty. Just as multitudes were astonished over you [Israel] …so will the many nations [exclaim about him [Israel] and [Gentile] kings will shut their mouths [in amazement] for they [Gentiles] will see that which had never been told to them [Gentiles], and will perceive things they (Gentiles] had never heard.” (Isaiah 52:15)
CONCLUSION: In Isaiah 52, the Gentile kings “shut their mouths” when they realize that they sinned by persecuting the Jews for their own benefit. They are the speaker in chapter 53. Once this is understood, Isaiah’s 53rd chapter becomes clear. Remember that in Chapter 53, the “we”
are these Gentiles and the “he” is Israel (the Jewish People). This is the correct translation from the Hebrew:
ISAIAH 53: “Who would believe what we [Gentiles] have heard! For whom has the arm of Hashem been revealed! Formerly he [Israel] grew like a sapling or like a root from arid ground; he had neither form nor grandeur; we saw him but without such visage that we could desire him. He was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despised, and we had no regard for him. But in truth, it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried – but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted. He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds, we were healed. We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and Hashem inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all. He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth. Now that he has been released from captivity and judgment, who could have imagined such a generation? For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them [lamo in Hebrew] that was my people’s sin. He submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy [submitted] to his execution, for committing no crime and with no deceit in his mouth.
Hashem desired to oppress him and He afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of Hashem would succeed in his hand. He would see (the purpose) and be satisfied with his soul’s distress. With his knowledge My servant will vindicate the Righteous One to multitudes; it is their iniquities that he will carry. Therefore, I will assign him a portion from the multitudes and he will divide the mighty as spoils – in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked, for he bore the sin of the multitudes, and prayed for the wicked.”
These verses will be analyzed in detail below.
JACOB AND ISRAEL ARE REFERENCES TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE: According to Genesis, the Jewish patriarch Jacob’s name was changed to Israel. Collectively, Jacob and Israel refer to the Jewish People:
GENESIS: “He [an angel] said, “No longer will it be said that your name is Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with the Divine and with man and have overcome.” (Genesis 32:29)
ISRAEL IS GOD’S SERVANT NATION: Isaiah identified the “servant” as Jacob and Israel (the Jewish People) many times in the twelve chapters preceding his 53rd chapter:
1. “But you, Israel, are my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen.” (Isaiah 41:8-9)
2. “Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant and Israel whom I have chosen.” (Isaiah 44:1)
3. “Remember these, O Jacob, And Israel, for you are My servant, I have formed you,
you are My servant.” (Isaiah 44:21)
4. “…for Jacob My servant’s sake, and Israel My elect.” (Isaiah 45:4)
5. “The Lord has redeemed His servant Jacob.” (Isaiah 48:20)
6. “You are My servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Isaiah 49:3)
ANALYSIS: The idea that the servant is the Jewish people in Chapters 41 through 49, and that Isaiah would suddenly turn the servant into the messiah in Chapter 53 without warning defies logic. Missionaries attempt to benefit from the fact that Isaiah had explained who the “servant” was so many times by the times he reached Chapter 53 he did not bother to do so again.
FURTHER PROOF: In the Jewish Bible Israel and Jacob are often referred to as God’s “servant.”
1. “A heritage to Israel His servant, for His mercy endures forever.” (Psalm 136:22)
2. “But do not fear, O My servant Jacob, and do not be dismayed, O Israel! (Jeremiah 46:27)
3. “Do not fear, O’ Jacob My servant, says the Lord, for I am with you for I will make a complete end of all the nations.” (Jeremiah 76: 28)
4. “Therefore do not fear, O My servant Jacob, says the Lord, nor be dismayed, O Israel, for behold, I will save you from afar, and your seed [zera] from the land of their captivity, Jacob shall return, have rest and be quiet.” (Jeremiah 30:10)
Israel is also referred to as God’s servant in the Christian Bible:
5. “He [God] has helped His servant Israel in remembrance of His mercy.” (Luke 1:54)
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW REQUIRES GOD TO BE HIS OWN SERVANT: The Christian view is that the suffering servant of God described in Isaiah 53 is Jesus. However, Christians also assert that Jesus is a part of the “trinity,” one of the three persons in the Christian triune godhead, and therefore is God Himself. Therefore, according to the Christian view, God sent Himself as His own “suffering servant.” This does not make sense logically and is contrary to the plain meaning of the text. Logically and in context, a servant and the servant’s master are not the same person.
CAN “HE” REFER TO ISRAEL? Christian missionaries claim that since the "servant" is referred to as "he" (singular, masculine) Chapter 53 cannot refer to Israel. However, the verses below demonstrate that the Jewish Bible specifically refers to Israel as “he, him, his servant and God’s son,” in the singular, masculine.
1. EXODUS: “You shall say to Pharaoh, ‘So said Hashem, My firstborn son is Israel. So I say to you, send out My son that he may serve Me – but you have refused to send him out: behold, I shall kill your firstborn son.” (Exodus 4:22) Israel is referred to as God’s “son” and “he” in the collective.
2. HOSEA: The prophet Hosea said, “When Israel was a lad I loved him, and since Egypt I have been calling out to My son.” (Hosea 11:1)
3. HOSEA: Hosea confirmed that in exile, Israel struggled as a young tree growing on parched land, “I will be as the dew unto Israel; he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. His branches shall spread, his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.” (Hosea 14:6-8)
ANALYSIS: This confirms the verse in Isaiah 53:2 which says “he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance that we should have desired him.”
ISAIAH SHIFTED TO THE PLURAL: Isaiah himself proves the Jewish understanding is correct by switching back from the masculine singular (he) to the plural form (them) when referring to the Jewish People in verse 53:8. Isaiah said:
“Now that he [Israel] has been released from captivity and judgment, who could have imagined such a generation? For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them [lamo in Hebrew] that was my people’s sin.” (Isaiah 53:8, Jewish Bible, Stone Edition)
ANALYSIS: Isaiah’s switch from him to them (lamo) is a fatal problem for the Christian claim that it applies to one man, Jesus. Christian missionaries can plausibly claim that “he” applies to Jesus but they cannot plausibly claim that “them” applies to Jesus. The New King James and the NIV versions of the Christian Bible dealt with this monumental problem by merely mistranslating “lamo” as him, fraudulently translating the plural as the singular.
The prophet Hosea also described the Jewish People as “lad,” “him,” and “son” (singular masculine) and then switched to the plural them (lamo) in exactly the same way:
“When Israel was a lad, I loved him, and since Egypt I have been calling out to My son. [As much as] they called to them, [Israel] so did they [Ephraim] turn away from them [Israel]…” (Hosea 11:1-2)
ANALYSIS: Like the prophet Isaiah, the prophet Hosea also referred to Israel in the first person masculine as God’s child and God’s son. Hosea then switched to the plural, “them.” This confirms the Jewish understanding that the “he” in Isaiah 53 describes the Jewish People, God’s suffering servant.
THEOLOGY BY BIBLE TAMPERING: The New King James (NKJ) Christian translation of Isaiah 53 further manipulated the text in Isaiah 53:3-5 by changing the tense from past to present and by strategically mistranslating key words and phrases in order to force Jesus into the text. The Jewish Bible correctly translates the Hebrew. The reader can compare this to the Christian translation:
THE JEWISH BIBLE: “…he had neither form nor grandeur…he was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despised, and we had no regard for him. But in truth, it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried-but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted. He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities…” (Isaiah 53:2-5)
THE CHRISTIAN OLD TESTAMENT (NKJ): “He has [instead of had] no form or comeliness…He is [instead of was] despised and rejected [instead of isolated] by men. A man of sorrows [instead of pains] and acquainted with grief [instead of accustomed to illness]. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him. Surely he has borne our griefs [instead of ills] and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed him stricken, [instead of diseased] smitten by God, and afflicted, but he was wounded for our transgressions. (Isaiah 53:2-5)
ANALYSIS: Isaiah referred to an event that had already occurred and therefore used the past tense. Christian translators manipulated the text by changing the tense to the present tense to apply it to Jesus. Christian translators avoided the problem that Jesus never was reported to have suffered from “illness or disease” by mistranslating these words as “sorrows and grief.” This manipulation of the text shifted the meaning of Isaiah’s words to support Christian theology.
ANALYSIS OF KEY VERSES:
ISAIAH 53:3: “He [Israel] was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness [not grief]. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despised, and we had no regard for him.”
ANALYSIS: “He” [the Jewish People] was subjected to 2000 years of anti-Semitism, “despised,” and forced to live in walled ghettos in Europe “isolated from men” and “we “ [Gentiles] had no regard for “him” [the Jewish People].
ISAIAH 53:4: “But in truth, it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried-but we had regarded him diseased, [not sorrows] stricken by God, and afflicted!”
ANALYSIS: The Gentiles admit that it was “our” [the Gentiles] “ills and pains” that “he” [the Jews] bore. The Gentiles regarded the Jews cursed by God and “diseased, stricken, and afflicted.” Clearly, Jesus was not “accustomed to illness, diseased, stricken or afflicted.”
ISAIAH 53:5: “He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit and through his wounds, we were healed.”
ANALYSIS: “He” [the Jewish People] “was pained” [suffered] because of “our” [the Gentiles] rebellious sins and “he” [the Jewish People] was “oppressed” by “our” [the Gentiles] “iniquities” [sins]. The Gentiles believed that the suffering of the Jewish People was deserved because the Jews rejected and killed Jesus but his death redeemed their sins. “We” [the Gentiles] believed that they were “healed” [justified] “through his [the Jewish People’s] wounds” that the Gentiles inflicted upon the Jewish People.
ISAIAH 53:6: “We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and Hashem inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all.”
ANALYSIS: “We” [Gentiles] “strayed [from God] like sheep,” [by persecuting the Jewish People], and Hashem “inflicted upon him” [God’s servant nation] “the iniquity of us all” [that the Gentiles deserved].
ISAIAH 53:7: “He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.”
ANALYSIS: This verse refers to the many hardships that “he” [the Jewish People] endured in their exiles. For example, in the eleventh century, the Jewish People was “persecuted and afflicted” by crusaders who brutally tortured and killed Jews in the name of their lord Jesus. In this century the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in the death camps, “like a sheep being led to slaughter…like an ewe that is silent before her shearers.” This verse cannot be about Jesus who “opened his mouth” on the cross to complain that God had forsaken him.2
ISAIAH 53: 8: “Now that he has been released from captivity and judgment, who could have imagined such a generation? For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.”
ANALYSIS: “He” [the Jews] had been "removed" [exiled] from the "land of the living" [Israel]. The Jews were afflicted and exiled to Babylonia. The Jews were afflicted and exiled from Spain. The Jews were afflicted and removed from Germany in boxcars and taken to death camps.
ISAIAH 53:9: “He submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy [submitted] to his executions, for committing no crime [NKJ and NIV Christian Bibles translates crime as violence] and with no deceit in his mouth.”
2 Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46
ANALYSIS: For one thousand years, European Christians killed wealthy Jews to steal their money who “submitted to execution, committing no crime” [although they were innocent]. “With no deceit in his [the Jewish People’s] mouth” [without pretending to accept Jesus] “he" [the Jewish People] submitted themselves to their grave.”
THE SUFFERING SERVANT “HAD DONE NO VIOLENCE” According to Isaiah the servant “had done no violence.”3 This verse cannot possibly be about Jesus. With whip in hand Jesus attacked the merchants in the Temple area, overturning tables and seats.4 He destroyed a fig tree for not having fruit out of season.5 He caused the death, by drowning, of a herd of swine by allowing demons to purposely enter their bodies.6 Attacking merchants, cursing and killing a fig tree, and permitting demons to enter the swineherd and causing their death is violent behavior. Whether Jesus was justified in this violence is irrelevant. Therefore, Jesus could not have been the subject of Isaiah 53:9.
THE SERVANT HAD PHYSICAL DESCENDANTS: Properly translated Isaiah 53:10 says, “He [the suffering servant] would see offspring.”7 The Hebrew word for “offspring” (zera) literally means sperm. As one would expect, “zera” is always used in the Jewish Bible to denote physical descendants. There is no indication in the Christian Bible that Jesus left physical descendants, (offspring) and therefore, Isaiah 53 cannot possibly be about him. In the Jewish Bible when spiritual descendants are intended, the Hebrew word “ben,” which means “sons” is always used.
THE SERVANT HAD A PROLONGED LIFE: Isaiah said the servant “…[would] live long days…”8 According to the Christian NKJ and the NIV translations [God] will “prolong his days.” “Prolonged days” means a long life, which cannot possibly apply to Jesus. Jesus allegedly died at about 30 years of age, which is not a “prolonged” life. Also, if Jesus was “god” as Christians claim, he was in essence an eternal (not mortal) being whose life could not have been “prolonged.” Although this description cannot fit Jesus, it does fit the Jewish People perfectly, whose physical survival notwithstanding millenniums of persecution is legendary in the face of overwhelming odds against survival. Significantly, the Jewish People are the only biblical people that have survived to the modern era as a distinct people. The days of the physical descendants of the Jewish People have truly and miraculously been “prolonged” for 3200 years and have fulfilled this prophecy and every other prophecy in Isaiah 53.
CONCLUSION: God’s servant nation was referred to as Jacob/Israel many times in the twelve chapters preceding Chapter fifty-three of Isaiah. The Christian Bible also refers to Israel as God’s servant. The Jewish servant nation is referred to in the singular as “he” in Isaiah, Exodus, and Hosea. According to the Christian theory of the trinity, Jesus was God. Logically, God cannot be His own servant. The Christian Bible changed tense, mistranslated the plural (lamo) as
3 Isaiah 53:9 New King James and NIV translations
4 Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15-16, Luke 19:45, John 2:15
5 Matthew 21:18-21, Mark 11:13-14
6 Matthew 8:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33
7 Isaiah 53:10, Jewish Bible, Stone Edition
8 Ibid
singular and falsely capitalized pronouns. The suffering servant “did no violence” and Jesus committed several acts of violence. Isaiah’s servant had physical descendants and a prolonged life, which cannot apply to Jesus.

I never read in the Christian book that Jesus was slaughtered in the courtyard, roasted and eaten that night by those that applied for it. Never mind that,like it shows,the Passover lamb isn't a sin sacrifice and is the least holy.It makes one wonder why the Christian faith equates Jesus being called the Passover lamb with atonement of sin. If you examine the book, the offering to G-d on Passover is Numbers 28:16. And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord.
17. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18. In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:
19. But ye shall offer a sacrifice made by fire for a burnt offering unto the Lord; two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven lambs of the first year: they shall be unto you without blemish:
20. And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil: three tenth deals shall ye offer for a bullock, and two tenth deals for a ram;
21. A several tenth deal shalt thou offer for every lamb, throughout the seven lambs:
22. And one goat for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you.
23. Ye shall offer these beside the burnt offering in the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering.

Is this another place where Paul didn't understand Torah law though he claimed to be a Pharisee "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel", a teacher of higher studies not children.If you refer to my article New Covenant?, you will see where Paul also misquoted Jeremiah.

Mishnah,Zevachim Chapter 5
1)What is the location of the offerings? [Regarding] the most holy offerings,their slaughter is in the north(a).The slaughter of the bull and the he-goat of Yom Kippur is in the north and the reception of their blood in a service vessel (b) is in the north. Their blood requires sprinkling between the pole[of the holy Ark](c),and towards the Curtain {of the Holy of Holys} and upon the Golden Altar(d).Every one of these applications is essential.(e)The leftover blood he would pour onto the western base of the Outer Altar;but if he failed to apply it[leftover blood to the base],he has not prevented atonement.

Notes on 1:A:The most holy offerings are sin,guilt,elevation,and communal peace because they have stricter laws than individual peace and thanksgiving offerings. B:Special vessels set aside strictly for this purpose C:On Yom Kippur the High Priest sprinkled the blood between the poles of the Ark that extended from either side towards the sanctuary. D:The Golden Altar that the incense was burned on every day E:All of the essential applications must be done or atonement is not achieved.

2)Regarding the bulls and goats that are completely burned(a),their slaughter is in the north and reception of the blood in the north. Their blood requires being sprinkled toward the Curtain and upon the Golden Altar,Every application is essential. Leftover blood was poured on the western base,but failure to do so did not prevent atonement.Both these and the Yom Kippur offerings were burned in the place where the [Altar}ashes are deposited (b) In no case are any parts of the burnt offerings eaten.

Notes on 2:A:Certain parts were burned on the Altar (see Lev 4:8-12) and the remainder burned outside of Jerusalem. B:The ashes from the Altar were removed when necessary to a ritually clean place outside the city.

3)Regarding sin offerings of the community and of individual(a)---the communal offerings are as follows:the he-goats of Rosh Chodesh and festivals--their slaughter [of all sin offerings] is in the north and the blood received in the north in the service vessel. Their blood requires four applications,one on each the four corners of the Altar,First the southwest,then the northeast,then the northwest then the southwest. Leftover blood would be poured out on the southern base. These offerings are eaten within the[Courtyard]curtains (b) by males of the priesthood,prepared in any manner,on the same day and that night until midnight (c)

Note on 3:A;Before giving the laws of sin offerings,the Mishnah lists the kinds of communal sin offerings that fall in this catagory.The listing being necessary because earlier mishnayos, too,have discussed communal sin offerings that fall under the burnt offering category. B:It must be prepared in the Courtyard.The term "curtains" is borrowed from the time in the wilderness when the courtyard was enclosed by curtains instead of walls. C:A sin offering could be eaten on the day it was sacrificed and the following evening until dawn by scriptural law, but the sages imposed a deadline of midnight to prevent mishaps.

4)The elevation offering is among the most holy offerings.It is slaughtered in the north and the blood received in the service vessel in the north.It's blood applications are two that are equal to four (A).It requires flaying and dismemberment ( b) and is entirely consumed by fire

Notes on 4:A:The blood was thrown at two corners of the Altar walls,northeast and southwest.The blood would then spread out to the adjacent walls,Thus,two applications put blood on all four walls of the Altar. B:The hide of all offerings of greater holiness was given to the priests and the body cut up in a prescribed way,only then was it burned.

5)Regarding communal peace offerings(a) and [personal]guilt offerings(b)--the guilt offering is as follows:guilt offering for theft(c),guilt offering for misuse of sacred objects(d),guilt offering for violating a betrothed maidservant (e),the guilt offering of a Nazirite (f),the guilt offering of a metzora ( leper) (g) and a guilt offering in the case of doubt (h).Their slaughter and reception of blood is in the north and they are eaten by the priests in the Courtyard the same day and night until midnight.

Notes on 5:A:The only such offering are the two sheep that are brought in addition to the Shavuos mussaf offering (Lev23:19) The other communal offerings are either sin or elevation offerings. B:There are six kinds C.If one owned money--loan or theft,had an article in safekeeping or whatever and swore he did not owe it intentionally,he is required to bring an offering (Lev 5:20-26) D:If someone unintentionally used an belonging to the Sanctuary,he must bring an offering (ibid 5:14-16)E:A female non-Jewish slave is owned by two Jewish partners,One sets her free but the other does not,making her half free and half slave. Since a freed non-Jewish slave has the same status as a convert,she is half Jewish and half non-Jewish.She is therefore forbidden to marry a Jew nor a non-Jew.She is however allowed to marry a Jewish indentured servant,who is permitted to both a Jewish ands non-Jewish maidservant.If she becomes betrothed to a Jewish indentured servant and has relations with another man,the adulterer must bring an offering. F:A Nazirite who became ritually contaminated by contact with a corpse (Num6:9-12) G:A leper that has been declared cured must bring an offering 8 days after he is pronounced cured .H:If one is unsure whether he needs to bring a sin offering .The possible transgressor protects himself from punishment through a guilt offering,If it becomes evident that the offence was committed, he must bring a sin offering at that time.

6)The thanksgiving offering(a) and the ram of the Nazirite (b) are offerings of less holiness (c) Their slaughter is anywhere in the Courtyard and their blood application is two equal to four.They are eaten by anyone,anywhere in the city,prepared in any manner on the same day and night until midnight.The priestly portion is separated from them (d) and treated like them in preparation and where it can be eaten except that only the priests and their family can eat these portions.

Notes on 6:A:Brought by someone that survives serious danger B:Offered after the Nazirite has completed his period of abstinence he imposed on himself C:The greater leniency of these offerings is obvious from comparison to the above offerings laws. D:Priestly portion is the breast and right thigh before they are cooked,In the case of the Nazirite ram,the priests receive the right foreleg after cooking.

7)The peace offerings (a)are of lesser holiness. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Courtyard and the blood is applied two equivalent to four.They are eaten anywhere in the city and prepared in any manner.The priestly portion is separated and treated the same way except only the priests and their family may eat it.

Notes on 7:A:The peace offering can be eaten for two days and the night between while the thanksgiving offering is just the one day and night

8)The firstborn and tithe of animals,and the Pesach offering are the least holy of the offerings. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Courtyard and their blood requires only a single application (a) provided it is applied above the base.They differ in consumption:the priests only eat the firstborn offering and the tithe by anyone They are eaten throughout the city,prepared in any manner,for two days and one night.The Pesach offering is eaten only at night and only by those registered for it (b) and it may only be roasted.

Notes on 8:A:Unlike all the rest of the offerings,only a single application to the base is required.The base is part of the Altar,one cubit high and one cubit wide that juts out along the entire lengths of the west and north walls,but only one cubit along the south and east walls.The blood may only be applied to that part of the Altar directly above the base. B:Those who wish to eat the Pascal lamb must reserve their share before the slaughter (Ex12:4).In the case of all other offerings,any qualified person may partake of the flesh.

“It happened in those times and again in our time!”
They say there never was a Chanukah

2,200 years ago, the Maccabees fought off an attempt from the Greeks to delegitimize the existence of the Jewish people. But you and I know that the battle to deny Israel’s right to exist is still going on in our time and you can help us do something about it.

Only last week, a senior Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information official had the audacity to say, “The Jews have no historical or religious ties to the Temple Mount or the Western Wall. There is no archeological evidence that the Temple Mount was built during the period of King Solomon….”

This lie was contradicted by their own Supreme Muslim Council, the highest Muslim religious authority in Jerusalem which, from 1924 to 1953 published their own official guide to Jerusalem which described the Dome of the Rock as follows, “Its identity with

the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot according to the universal belief, on which [quoting Hebrew Scripture] ‘David built there an altar unto the Lord.”

We must respond to this continuous campaign to delegitimize Israel by the Palestinian leadership. Only two weeks ago, UNESCO joined in in this campaign by calling Rachel’s Tomb a “mosque,” attempting to steal from the Jewish people one of its most sacred religious sites.

Remember the words of the Chanukah prayer, “It happened in those times and again in our time!!”

With your help, we will be successful in standing up to these revisionists as our ancestors did 2,200 years ago on the first Chanukah. Please email this Chanukah message to your family and friends.

Rabbi Marvin Hier
Dean and Founder
Simon Wiesenthal Center

Federal Light Bulb Ban Creating Jobs in China (from my email)

A federal law banning ordinary incandescent light bulbs has already had a negative effect on the American economy — GE has closed its last major bulb producing factory in the United States, creating job opportunities in China.

Legislation enacted in 2007 orders the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs beginning with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and ending with the 40-watt light in 2014. These bulbs cannot meet efficiency requirements dictated by law.

Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) are the least expensive alternative. But the manufacture of CFLs is “labor intensive and too expensive to be done at U.S. wage rates,” according to a report from The Heartland Institute, which estimates that domestically produced CFLs would be 50 percent more expensive than bulbs manufactured in China.

So instead of retrofitting its plant in Winchester, Va., to produce CFLs, GE closed the plant in September and laid off 200 workers.

CFLs are already being manufactured in China, and increasing American demand will no doubt create new jobs there.

As the Insider Report disclosed earlier, while CFLs use about 75 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and last far longer, they cost significantly more, take longer to turn on, can flicker, and contain small amounts of highly toxic mercury, which creates problems for users when they break or need to be disposed of after they burn out.

“Environmental activists and their allies in Washington were either too ignorant of basic economics to see these job losses coming, or they were simply too callous to really care,” said Heartland Institute science director Jay Lehr.

“Either way, compact fluorescent light bulbs in the real world fail to live up to environmental promises, unnecessarily subject American households to toxic mercury, produce poor-quality light, and are sending American workers to the unemployment line.”

And Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said: “If the new energy-saving technologies being pushed by government are really that good, then we don’t need government to mandate them. And if they are being mandated, that’s a sure sign that they’re not very good.”

Three Republican members of Congress — Joe Barton, Marsha Blackburn and Michael Burgess — have introduced a bill that would repeal the ban on the incandescent bulb.

The three said in an article on The Daily Caller: “The unanticipated consequence of the ’07 act — layoffs in the middle of a desperate recession — is what sometimes happens when politicians think they know better than consumers and workers.” 

 It is difficult to write about the crucifixion of Jesus.  Rivers of Jewish blood have been shed because of it, despite the fact that it was Romans, and not Jews, who performed the execution.  But the Gospels insist that a Jewish Sanhedrin delivered him up to the Romans, after adjudging him guilty.  The most enigmatic aspect of all this is that scholars have been unable to ascertain with any degree of precision the cause of the guilt.  Some have suggested blasphemy, others that he claimed to be the Messiah, but all such theories lack substance when scrutinized in the light of Jewish law .

I should like to suggest a different approach based on R. Jacob Emden's thesis that Jesus of Nazareth had sought to establish a religion for the Gentiles based upon the Noahide Commandments.  The Christian Bible tells us John 11:49-51; 18:14) that the High Priest Caiaphas, who had convened the Sanhedrin to try Jesus, said to them, "It is better for one man to die for the people, than for the whole nation to be destroyed." This phrase is found virtually verbatim in one rabbinic source (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 94:9) in conjunction with a Halakhic ruling which was discussed some two hundred years after Jesus' crucifixion.  We shall seek to demonstrate that this later case bears a direct relationship to Caiaphas' remark and the resultant crucifixion.

The Halakha under discussion there states (Tosefta, Terumot 7:23) that if a group of traveling Jews are suddenly confronted by Gentiles who demand that they hand over a Jew to them to be killed, or else they will all be murdered, they must all agree to die and not hand over one of their number.  However, if the Gentiles identify a specific Jew to be handed over, he should be given to them. 

It may be noted that when the Pharisees complained to Jesus about his disciples' desecration of the Sabbath, he first quoted from Hosea (6:6), where the Prophet represents God as desiring mercy (hesed), then refers to his disciples as "innocent," and then concludes: "The son of man is master of the Sabbath." I would suggest that since the alleged work was not intended for its usual purpose, but rather for an ulterior result, it would be classified as "a labor not required on its own account" (see Shabbat 73B et al.), for which there is no liability. A similar thesis is advanced by the sixteenth century Talmudist R. Samuel Edels in a parallel case involving a biblical personality (Maharsha, Bava Batra 119A, Aggadot). The Tosafists (Betsah 8A, second paragraph) have pointed out that such labor would be completely permissible if necessary for a constructive religious purpose, even according to Bet Shammai (see Maharsha ad loc.).
The Gospel (Matthew 12:9-14) then relates that Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, and was criticized by the Pharisees for doing so. Since Jesus evidently healed through prayer, this incident appears to refer to a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over whether it is permitted to pray for the sick on the Sabbath (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14); Bet Hillel permitted such prayer, and Bet Shammai forbade it. In the Gospel according to Mark (2:27), Jesus concludes his argument with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath by stating, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."(Yoma 85b) In addition to prayer for the sick, this would allude to other disputes between the two schools, such as where Bet Shammai rule that it is forbidden on the Sabbath to promise charity for the poor in the synagogue, even for the marriage of orphans, nor may betrothals be arranged, nor may discussion be held for a youngster's education, nor may mourners be comforted or the sick visited, while Bet Hillel permit all of these (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14 and Shabbat 12A).More proof that he was a follower of Bet Hillel.

While I mostly show comparative theology between different religions,there is also Intra-comparative theology, examining the concepts found in a religion and what they are based on either religiously or by historical events that effected the growth of that paticular faith. This is the first of the series. If anyone shows an interest, I'll post more.These are based on the opinions of Rabbi Falk,Talmudic sources of historical and religious events, and other sources.

Scholars have wrestled for centuries with the seemingly anti-Jewish statements that are attributed by the Christian Bible to Jesus of Nazareth.  A reading of his great attack on the Pharisees (Matthew 23) virtually leaves one in a state of shock.  Is this the same person who wandered off as a boy to discuss the Torah with the Doctors of the Law at the Temple (Luke 2:46)?  In this latter passage he seems to exhibit a profound love for the Torah, a love which one can discern on the countenances of many Jewish youngsters to this day.  What could possibly have impelled him at a later date to refer to these rabbis as hypocrites, vipers and even murderers?  It is quite clear that he considered these Pharisees as being worthy of death.  And for two thousand years now, Christians seem to have been able to cleanse their consciences following pogroms or a holocaust by simply reading passages such as these.Nor have such statements endeared him to the people from whom he sprang.Or take the passages John 8 and Revelation 2 and 3) where he speaks of Jews as children of the devil, or of their synagogues as "synagogues of Satan." In the Middle Ages the Church actually thought of the Jews as being less than human because of these statements, and persecuted them as well.

     The reader may ask why we should even bring up such matters.  If we simply hush up such passages, they will be forgotten and abandoned by Christians.  I don't think so.  They are there in the Christian Bible, and will eventually surface again.

          Could it be that Jesus wasn't quoted correctly in the Gospels?  Christians will certainly insist that his words were faithfully recorded and preserved.  Others may suggest that he was mistaken about the Pharisees, that perhaps he didn't know them well enough!  A careful reading of the attack would seem to indicate that he knew them very well, and for many years.  But perhaps he didn't mean to be taken seriously, one might suggest.  A careful reading will surely dismiss any such conception.

Why, then?  What brought him to such a complete break with his people, with their revered scholars, what caused him to turn his back on them and scorn everything his family had held sacred for centuries?  How could he bring himself to call the Jews of his time children of the devil, and their places of worship synagogues of Satan?

        Or was he really anti-Jewish or anti-traditionalist at all?  I have suggested earlier in this book that he possessed a great love for Jewish tradition, the same tradition that is practiced by Jews to this day.  What if we could prove from ancient sources that the Jewish world of scholarship in his time was divided into two Schools, that the scholars in control of the community at the time he preached were of the School he opposed, and that the leading Torah sages of his century later referred to that same group he opposed as being "children of the devil" or considered them worthy of death?

      The thesis I have proposed is based on the writings of the great Talmudist and anti-Shabbatean Rabbi Jacob Emden, a valiant champion of Orthodox Judaism during the eighteenth century.He was a great opponent to the false seventeenth century messiah, Shabbetai Zevi.  These Shabbateans-or Frankists as they were called in his day desecrated Jewish law and openly practiced sexual immorality.  When excommunicated by the Polish rabbinate, they complained to certain Catholic bishops of being persecuted by the Jews because they believed in the Trinity.  This eventually led to the burning of the Talmud in Poland, and these Frankists even tried to revive the notorious blood-libel against the Jews.  When the leading rabbis of Poland asked Rabbi Emden whether it would be permitted to explain the true nature of these immoral heretics to the Polish authorities, Rabbi Emden replied in the affirmative, and also advised them to ask the Christians for help against the Shabbateans.  This led him into a thorough analysis of the origins of Christianity and the original intent of its founders.  He concluded that Jesus and Paul had intended to create a religion for the Gentiles based upon the seven Noahide Commandments.  According to the Talmud and Tosefta, those Gentiles who observe these Commandments are considered of the Hasidim (pious ones) of the Nations, and merit a share in the World to Come. (The basic seven Noahide Commandments consist of the prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, stealing, murder, sexual sins, eating the limb of a living animal [cruelty to animals], and the imperative to establish courts ofjustice.) He believed thatjesus of Nazareth acted entirely according to the Halakha, and "brought about a double kindness to the world."R. Emden stressed that Jesus spoke out strongly on behalf of the Torah of Moses, which indeed grants salvation to those Gentiles who practice the Noahide Commandments.  R. Emden referred to Paul as "a scholar, an attendant of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder."

     Returning now to the first century C.E., we know that two different schools of rabbinic authority existed at that time, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.  These two schools are on record in the Mishnah and Talmud as having clashed on over three hundred and fifty occasions during the century they existed (about 30 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.). Nor were these minor controversies; they reached rather to the very heart of Judaism and its perspective on the world at large.  The Talmud tells us (Sanhedrin 88B) that as the disciples of Shammai and Hillel increased, "the Torah became as two Torahs"; in other words, Judaism became split into two opposing approaches to its religious traditions.And, very importantly for our subject, they were strongly at odds over judaism's view of the Gentile world.

In previous chapters, I have pointed to Talmudic evidence that the Essenes-the apparent authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls-were closely allied with the School of Hillel, and that Hillel and his disciples as well as the Essenes were referred to in the Talmud (Sanhedrin II A et al.) as Hasidim (not Pharisees or Scribes).

We now know on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls that Jesus and Paul must have had some contact with these Essene Hasidim, as many parallel passages have been found in the Scrolls and the Christian Bible.  Hundreds of similar passages (and many customs as well) have been found, and the Scrolls have been demonstrated through scientific process to be of an earlier date.  Two important works on the subject are The Scrolls and the New Testament by K. Stendahl, and The Ancient Library of Qumran by Frank M. Cross.  Many other excellent studies have been published.

We further noted that according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 57A) and Maimonides (Melakhim, ch. 8), Moses obligated the Jews to spread knowledge of the Noahide Commandments to all mankind; therefore, when the Essenes gave their raison d'etre as (Manual of Discipline) "to do what is good and upright before Him, as He has commanded through Moses ... to love all the sons of light," we expressed our belief that they had such a mission to the Gentiles in mind . We should take note here of one of the many parallel passages between the Scrolls and the Gospels.  Jesus preached to his listeners (John 12:36): "While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light.  Paul of Tarsus wrote similarly in his Epistle to the Ephesians (5:8): "Walk, then, as children of light." Hillel, founder of the school that bears his name (died about 10 C.E.), charged his disciples-and all Jews today follow the teachings of Bet Hillel-to be one who "loves mankind, and brings them nigh to the Torah" (Avot 1:12)