1 thought on “Leviticus 22. The Holiness of the offerings”

1. Interpreting T’NaCH prophetic mussar.
   Tehillem סט:יט-לו does not serve as a close בנין אב to learn the k’vanna of Isaiah נג:ג-ה or סג:ז-ט because suffering/ridicule etc refers to themes—suffering, communal dishonor, enemies’ triumph, pleas for vindication, and hope for restoration—which echo Israel’s experience of g’lut and t’shuva. Based upon the model of HaShem doing t’shuva and remembering the oaths sworn to the Avot that they, and only they, would father the chosen Cohen people; not Moshe or any other would replace – the most essential brit sworn only to the Avot.

   These p’sukim, they amplify Jeremiah 33:24–26; Ezekiel 36:22–28. Furthermore Isaiah 41:8–9; 49:3; 52:4–6 serve as witness that the intent of “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53 implies a national and not an individual context. The theme – HaShem making t’shuva by remembering the Avot and restoring Israel – as taught in the mussar of Ezekiel 16:60; Leviticus 26:42. All three major prophetic books together with minor prophets like Micah and Hosea teach this common foundational mussar — which portrays Israel’s suffering as the curse side of the blessing/curse oath Sinai brit.

   ---

   [“God does teshuva” → theologically inaccurate in mainstream Judaism. ] The Xtian God does not do t’shuva b/c God cannot repent. But the local god of Sinai ALL about forever doing t’shuva b/c this requires remembering the oath sworn specifically to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they and they alone would father the chosen Cohen people.

   To cut a Torah brit requires swearing a Torah oath. Covenant does not mean Torah oath. Covenant the “sign of a new religion”. Both bible and koran religious books. Torah: the Written Constitution of the Cohen Bnei Brit Republic which specifically mandates a Sanhedrin common law court system. No Sanhedrin court system has jurisdiction outside the borders of an Independent Cohen nation wherein the Cohen people rule the land – cut through a Torah oath – as the eternal inheritance of the Chosen Cohen People.

   [ “God does teshuva” → not standard or textually precise] Moshe caused HaShem “”to remember”” the oath sworn to the Avot. That’s straight from the language of the Torah and the basis of t’shuva required for Yom Kippur and the dedication of all korbanot time oriented commandments which most definitely require k’vanna based upon the precedent that HaShem chose the korban of Hevel and rejected the korban of Cain-despite him being the born first-born son. The korban of Cain – offered without k’vanna, Cain did not remember the oath sworn to Adam that he would father the chosen Cohen people. בראשית links this oath brit of the chosen Cohen people through Noach → Avram. Just as Adam the father of all Humanity → Avram the father of a multitude of nations. Just as the Torah brit alliance applicable only to the “chosen Cohen seed of Adam – specifically through the seed of through Seth.

   Seth too had three sons. Just as the seed of Cain excluded from being the “brit chosen Cohen people” so too the seed of Ham, son of Noach.

   Just as 10 generations separated Adam → Noach. So too 10 generations separated Noach → Avram.
   Just as the Sinai oath brit alliance cut only with the 12 Tribes of Israel — excluded specifically both “first born” children of Yishmael Avraham and Esau Yitzak — Isaiah 53 “nationalizes” the suffering servant to g’lut Israel forced to remember the sworn oath brit alliance in order to do t’shuva. The fundamental distinction which amplifies the Sinai oath brit from the creation of Adam through a sworn oath brit, (both Adam and Noach and Avram in the Book of בראשית would father a “multitude of nations/Goyim”, but not till the revelation of the Torah at Sinai/Horev would HaShem understood through בטול which restricted the Horev revelation of 13 Tohor רוח הקודש-spirits which fundamentally reject the Golden Calf word translation אלהים, because the Tzimtzum (A Ari kabbalah chiddush which describes the Creation metaphor as a wisdom time-oriented commandment → based upon “Talmud which means ‘learning’” the k’vanna of the 7 days of Creation which the Torah calls “Shabbat”. The Siddur itself “learns” shabbat as the entire week, not limited to a single day – יום ראשון בשבת → יום שני בשבת וכו.

   The primary source for the six‑days/one‑day structure in the בראשית creation story introduces first and foremost the difference between Torah wisdom commandments from positive and negative secondary-toldot commandments through the משל of 6 days מלאכה and one day לא תעשה מלאכה — metaphor which requires its נמשל which the other Books of the Torah “interpret” the הבדלה required which separates time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna.

   The בראשית creation motif as a paradigmatic משל that establishes a fundamental הבדלה: six days of מלאכה versus one day of not‑doing (שבת) that functions as the archetype for distinguishing time‑oriented, kavanah‑dependent mitzvot (the “wisdom/time” commandments) from ordinary positive/negative mitzvot. Textual anchors for that reading: Bereishit 2:2–3; the Shabbat formula in Ex. 20:8–11 and Ex. 31:13–17 (Shabbat as the “ot”/sign); and the Torah’s tefillin passages (Ex. 13:9,16) and later rabbinic rulings that treat Shabbat’s sign as superseding the weekday sign. That hermeneutic — reading creation as a organizational/systemic dimension that generates halakhic and liturgical הבדלה — defensible within classical and medieval exegetical streams, for example Ashkenazi Siddurim write יום ראשון בשבת, יום שני בשבת יום שלשי בשבת וכו.

   Texts that support this framing include Bereishit 2:2–3, the Shabbat commandments (Ex. 20:8–11; 31:13–17), the Torah passages about signs/ot (e.g., Ex. 13), and the rabbinic rulings about tefillin and Shabbat; many liturgical formulations and some sidduric insertions reflect that theological/halakhic logic. Hence all this stands upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and the masoret of פרדס inductive reasoning logic as the definition of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, inclusive of the 7 middot of Hillel, 10 middot of Akiva, 13 middot of Yishmael and 32 middot of Ha’Galilee.

   Bibliography that supports this interpretation: B’HaG — readings where it aligns with Rosh against Rambam on the primacy of Shabbat’s sign and the liturgical implications located in Menachot/Exodus. Rashi — comments on Menachot 36b (on the status of tefillin and the “ot” of Shabbat) and on Genesis 2:2–3 regarding שבת as creator’s rest. Tosafot — glosses on Menachot 36b and Eruvin 96a (discussing tefillin, the sign/ot, and Shabbat/weekday distinction) where the dialectic with Rashi and geonic positions – developed. Rif (Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi) — Hilchot Tefillin and related halachot in his compendium across tractates Menachot, Eruvin, and Shabbat. Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher) — his halachot and responsa treating tefillin and Shabbat; Menachot/Eruvin and his Hilchot Tefillin rulings, where he explicitly challenges Rambam’s formulations about signs and practice.

   Peshat commentators (Ibn Ezra, Radak) — treat creation‑Shabbat as literal/grammatical, not primarily as a systematic hermeneutic for kavanah‑dependent vs. non‑kavanah mitzvot. Ramban/Nachmanides — while he gives theological weight to Shabbat, he develops different juridical/theological grounds (prophetic/mystical elements) rather than making the creation motif the sole organizing rule for kavanah‑dependence. Halakhic codifiers (Tur/Shulchan Aruch and standard poskim) — legislate practical rulings (e.g., tefillin on weekdays, not on Shabbat) from Talmudic precedent and exegesis, not by adopting a general rule that creation’s six/one model systematically classifies all mitzvot by kavanah requirement. These many example dispute the interpretation learned above.

   Mainstream Jewish theology treats HaShem as not subject to sin, so saying “HaShem does teshuva” requires deeper investigation. Biblical translations whose language replaces “repentance” (נחם) read as God changing a course in relation to creation’s unfolding precisely fits in with Xtian and Muslim replacement theologies. Phrases like נחם, interpreted only as anthropomorphisms or as relational shifts in response to human behavior—not as literal repentance implying moral change in God. Translating נחם straightforwardly as “repentance” (in the sense of God changing morally) aligns more easily with Xtian and Muslim theological frameworks that recast divine mutability; such renderings therefore reflect distinct doctrinal anti-Israel prejudices which graft Goyim unto the Jewish root or assume that prophets sent to all Goyim – who never accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

   The Mishnah warns, any human attempt to define God—who is above, below, or beyond human grasp—risks presumptuousness; better that such a person to have never been born, than to project arrogate knowledge of the Divine essence which makes a בטול הבדלה which separates Divine Names such as אלהים, אל שדי as found in בראשית from the first commandment שם השם לשמה which limits to לא בשמים היא-Yatzir Ha-Tov לבבך\כם of kre’a shma-Shekinah. Rendering נחם simply as “repentance” (in the sense that God changes morally) affixed to substitute theologies of Xtian and Muslim theological worship of other Gods/2nd Sinai commandment. The worship of these other Gods permits divine mutability. Translating נחם as literal repentance defines substitute theologies whose worship permits divine mutability.

   The Torah repeatedly frames divine action in oath brit memory language (e.g., God “remembering” the Avot) — this is central to readings of Yom Kippur, korbanot, and the role of human teshuva combined through all the 13 tohor middot Spirits/רוח הקודש. Mainstream tradition locates efficacy in human teshuva + ritual/korban + divine covenantal remembrance (expressed via the 13 Attributes – Oral Torah revelation of רוח הקודש at Horev – and related doctrines), rather than literal divine moral repentance. Kabbalistic/midrashic streams elaborate purified רוח הקודש frameworks that connect the 13 middot, kavanah, and sacrificial/time‑bound efficacy.

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓