The shofar [blown in the Temple] at the New Year was [made from the horn] of the wild goat, straight, with its mouthpiece overlaid with gold. And at the sides [of them that blew the shofar] were two [that blew upon] trumpets. The shofar blew a long note and the trumpets a short note, since the duty of the day fell on the shofar.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:3
This is peculiar because it suggests that the horn notes
on the first of Tishri were long.
Perhaps it only meant long relative to the sound of the trumpets, because the sort of sound decreed on that day in Leviticus and Numbers was a t’ruah. It was a short blast on the horn used as an alarm signal, not a long or prolonged sounding, which went by an entirely different name. The biblical texts refer to the New Year as the Day of T’ruah or a Rememberance by T’ruah (see Mishnaic Musings 7), which specifically means a day of short, alarm-like blasts. And it is fairly evident that what is in mind is not short trumpet blasts, but short ram’s horn blasts.
And it came to pass when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed (Exod 17:11). But could the hands of Moses promote the battle or hinder the battle!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they prevailed; otherwise they suffered defeat. After the like manner thou mayest say, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a standard, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he seeth it shall live (Num 21:8). But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed; otherwise they pined away.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:8
I would be interested in studying these two events more closely to try and figure out what might actually be going on with the raising of Moses’ hands and the making of the serpent. The Rabbinic interpretation offered here in the Oral Law is pleasing from a theological perspective, but not entirely satisfactory. The quote itself would seem to suggest that there were those who actually believed something more was going on in terms of the serpent itself or the raising of Moses’ hands than merely a way for the people to turn their thoughts and hearts to heaven, which one would presume them to be doing anyway when they were in the midst of peril and had seen YHWH work wonders on their behalf already.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
Because of two New Moons may the Sabbath be profaned: [the New Moon] of Nissan and [the New Moon] of Tishri, for on them messengers used to go forth to Syria, and by them the set feasts were determined. And while the Temple still stood the Sabbath might also be profaned because of any of the New Moons, to determine aright the time of the offerings.
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:4
The New Moon of Tishri is, of course, what the Rabbis referred to as Rosh Hashanah, the head of the year,
or what the biblical texts refer to as Yom T’ruah, the day of horn blasts (Num 29:7-11), and Zikron T’ruah, a remembrance by horn blasts (Lev 23:24-25). By fixing that day, it also enabled the date of the Festivals of Purgation and Booths to be determined. The New Moon of Nissan was significant because it determined when the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Passover occurred. Because the Sabbath injunction was to not do any work, there were various rules about what constituted work. One of these rules fixed the amount of journeying or walking one could do before they violated the Sabbath. Unfortunately, that distance was often less than had to be done for witnesses to communicate to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that they had seen the New Moon. However, because there was a biblical command to proclaim the holy convocations in their appointed seasons, Jewish sages and authorities who supported the extra Sabbath regulation believed they had a loophole which allowed those who enabled them to keep this commandment to travel as far as possible to do so:
For it is written, These are the set feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season (Lev 23:4).
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:9
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
While visiting Seattle, I recently attended a service of Calvary Fellowship Mountlake Terrace. It is always enlightening to attend the services of other Christian traditions and denominations to see the particular ways that different bodies of Christ identify and define themselves in distinction with or against others, to get a taste of their unique methods and means of expression, and to learn a little about what and how they think in terms of their faith and the world.
I’ve been to a few Calvarys
now so I kinda knew what was coming. For instance, I expected a strong, if not pivotal and definitive, view of eschatological Futurism. Their desire to see people accept Yeshua as their personal Lord and Savior is invigorated by an anticipation of Christ’s (soon Second) coming, a sort of end or historical resolution that will bring about what their faith proclaims. For Anabaptists, there is a present eschatology that embraces sacrifice and suffering on the part of the church and working to restore creation now more than a future one looking for the coming time when evil will be destroyed, the church redeemed, and things set right. Early Anabaptists definitely had an end times perspective, but it was their own end that they anticipated. Every time they met together, it was a very real possibility that it would be their last time doing so. They accepted the way of the cross (persecution, suffering, and death) as part of the present kingdom of God. Instead of eagerly anticipating and preparing for a future time when the world would be changed, Anabaptists saw themselves as being that change in the present among themselves and those who followed them in the way of Christ.
When worship
time began, it appeared that there would be another loud Calvary rock fest, which destroyed any possibility of participation on my part. But then things suddenly changed. We sang old hymns to a single, simple, acoustic guitar. It was wonderful. Thank you, Calvary Fellowship, for your willingness to diversify for the sake of others among you.
After worship,
there was an extended period of prayer led by a senior pastor of the church. During this, the pastor gave a very short, general prayer that threw me as a Mennonite into sharp distinction from that Christian body. When prayer time was over, I could not say amen when it was asked of all the people.
I can’t remember the specific words of the prayer, but it went something to the effect of asking God to keep the troops safe from harm, which was perfectly acceptable, and then added that God should be with the troops or help them as they fought for the freedoms that we enjoy. I was shocked and stunned by this prayer. While it could have meant quite a number of things, one thing that was not ambiguous about it was the fact that this pastor and congregation in union with him had just prayed that God would bring violence against our perceived or unperceived enemies. As a Mennonite, I was unable to grasp how a Christian could pray any such a thing. I quote here a few short declarations from two other Peace traditions (Brethren and Quaker) that explain the grotesque and unholy contradiction I perceived.
Christ says, Love your enemies.
War says, Hate them.
Christ says, Do them good.
War says, Do them harm.
Christ says, Pray for them.
War says, Slay them.
Christ says, I come not to destroy men’s lives but to save them.
War says, I come to destroy men’s lives, and for this purpose I want the most effectual weapons that can be invented.
Paul says, If thine enemy hunger, feed him.
War says, Starve him.
Paul says, If he thirst, give him drink.
War says, Destroy his wells, cut off his supplies of every kind.
Paul says, We wrestle not against flesh and blood.
War says, We do wrestle against flesh and blood. Crown them to the wall, and into the last ditch; utterly destroy them if they don’t submit.
Christ and War by Daniel Vaniman, 1900, taken from Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective by Dale Brown, p. 28
Whoever can reconcile this, Resist not evil,
with Resist evil by force
; again, Give also thy other cheek
with Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and sword
; or Pray for those that persecute you
with Persecute them with fines, imprisonment, and death itself
; whoever can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Anti-Christ, light with darkness, and good with evil.
Robert Barclay, 1676, taken from Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective by Dale Brown, p. xi
What was even more inconceivable to me as the service went on was how another pastor explained a core tenet of the church to be to love the world.
I could not comprehend how loving the world meant asking God to shed its blood. This is no definition of love I ever heard, let alone any definition given by scripture. Apparently, loving the world only meant sharing the gospel message with them hoping they would choose to believe it was something true and valuable, not sharing with them the reality of what the gospel is. Calvary Fellowship was adamant in doing good for the poor in material wealth, like feeding the homeless, which was commendable, but when it came to the poor in spirit, like those who would plot evil against us or others, it seemed to feel the best thing to do was support violence and death against them! Is Satan in league with the church of God? As a Mennonite, I have to seriously question the words and intent of anyone who would say in one breath, let us do good and love the world which does not know God
and in the next, let us pray for violence and destruction to come upon those who have turned away from him.
If a man cries out [to God] over what is past, his prayer is vain. Thus if his wife was with child and he said, May it be thy will that my wife shall bear a male,
this prayer is vain. If he was returning from a journey and heard a sound of lamentation in the city and said, May it be thy will that they [which make lamentation] be not of my house,
this prayer is in vain.
m. Berakoth 9:3
This seems to suggest a closed relationship between cause and effect in certain ancient Jewish perspectives. Certainly it was believed God could interfere to bring change, but perhaps some believed any such interference would only take place within the relationship between cause and effect that already existed. Perhaps a pulling and tugging of the strings to bring about a new design without actually destroying one string or creating another. If true, God would be bound to work within and by the rules of his own creation and nothing new could be inserted from outside. It is certainly attractive in a number of ways. It means, for instance, that anything we could know about God would be entirely based on the world in which we exist. No leaps of imagination or non-rational, existentialist propositions required. And yet, if so, it could also have a serious disadvantage in that it might make it difficult for one to comprehend what in the natural order was moved or purposed by God from what in the natural order wasn’t, because in both cases, the evidence one was measuring might be exactly the same. A miracle would cease to be a miracle in any sense other than that its natural order was not discernible.
It reminds me of a question I asked a good friend not too long ago about whether he believed creation was a one-time event after which nothing new was interjected or whether God did or could create something new and creation could be more than a one-time event. He favored the one-time creation, and would therefore probably agree with this quote. What say you, Mit the Destroyer?
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
They tell of R. Hanina b. Dosa that he used to pray over the sick and say, This one will live,
or, This one will die.
They said to him, How knowest thou?
He replied, If my prayer is fluent in my mouth I know that he is accepted; and if it is not I know that he is rejected.
m. Berakoth 5:5
Sounds pretty crazy, doesn’t it? And yet I believe it could be possible. I, myself, have experienced some pretty weird foreknowledge. Just a couple weeks ago, in fact, I dreamed that a friend had broken up with his girlfriend. Somehow I just knew it was true. So I called him up and was about to say, this is going to sound really weird, but I just dreamed you broke up with your girlfriend,
and the first thing he said was, I just broke up with my girlfriend.
See my posts Premonitions and Extra-Sensory Knowledge Part I and Part II for more. Whether this was possible in Hanina b. Dosa’s case, I couldn’t say.
Women or slaves or minors may not be included [to make up the number for the Common Grace].
m. Berakoth 7:2
I can understand slaves and minors not being included in ceremonial obligation…but women? This is offensive to me. Women were second-class citizens—or maybe even third-class citizens—in ancient Israel and most of the ancient world (indeed, even in much of the modern world). But just because that’s the way it was doesn’t mean I have to like it. I have a feeling that reading through the entire division of the Mishnah on women is going to be a bit challenging. The misogynistic perspectives in the biblical texts can be quite taxing as well. The trick is to remember that one is dealing with cultures that are different than our own and thus not to hold those different cultures up to standards we’d expect of ours.
No benediction may be said over a lamp until one can enjoy its light.
m. Berakoth 8:6
There we go, a beautiful saying to make up for an ugly one. The basic idea is one can only call something blessed when they have partaken of its goodness.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
If he that says the Tefillah falls into error it is a bad omen for him; and if he was the agent of the congregation it is a bad omen for them that appointed him, because a man’s agent is like to himself.
m. Berakoth 5:5
Agency is a fascinating concept that shows up throughout the Oral Law and its commentary. The basic saying is a man’s agent is like to himself.
What this means is an agent and the agent’s sender function as if they were the same person. So here we see that an error introduced by the agent is considered the error of the one who sent the agent. Whatever the agent does is considered the doing of the sender, for the agent has taken on the role, function, and identity of the sender. Sometimes the sender is an entire congregation:
Rabban Gamaliel says: The agent of the congregation fulfills the obligation that rests upon the many.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:9
When an agent of the congregation fulfills an obligation on behalf of the congregation, the congregation is believed to have fulfilled that obligation itself.
I believe that Yeshua spoke often about himself and YHWH in terms of agency and because most people do not understand this ancient Jewish concept, they misunderstand what Yeshua is saying in the gospels either about himself or about his Father. The monumental error of Trinitarianism could have been avoided if ancient Christians understood Jewish agency more than they did NeoPlatonism. Instead of speaking about Yeshua being YHWH in terms of hypostases and other such Greek philosophic nonsense, they would have more easily understood that Yeshua was presenting himself as YHWH’s unique royal agent. I have written more on agency and Yeshua in my Introduction to Categoricalism.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
If he was riding on an ass he should dismount [to say the Tefillah]. If he cannot dismount he should turn his face [toward Jerusalem]; and if he cannot turn his face, he should direct his heart toward the Holy of Holies. If he was journeying on a ship or a raft, he should direct his heart toward the Holy of Holies.
m. Berakoth 4:5-6
You will find as you read through the Oral Law that the object of directing one’s heart comes up fairly often and that this is the ultimate goal of all the practices and traditions set forth—for if one has not directed their heart, even though they have done what they should, they have not fulfilled their lawful obligation.
Though one may have heard [the blowing of the shofar] and another may have heard [the blowing of the shofar], the one may have directed his heart and the other may not have directed his heart.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:7
The directing of one’s heart is what fulfills holy obligation. In the first quote, the object of dismounting from an ass or from turning one’s face to Jerusalem is in order to direct one’s heart away from where they are going or what they are doing and set it on God. In scripture, we see Daniel setting his face
toward God when he went to pray, which may refer to facing Jerusalem, directing his heart to God, or both:
In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Then I turned to the Lord God, to seek an answer by prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.
Daniel 9:2-3, NRSV
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
A bridegroom is exempt from reciting the Shema’ on the first night, or until the close of the [next] Sabbath if he has not consummated the marriage.
m. Berakoth 2:5
Recitation of the Shema’ was a holy and righteous act that had many strict limitations upon it. All these requirements are annulled on the night of a wedding. Why? One word: sex. And if a husband is unable to make love to his wife the first day, he is exempt then from the Shema’ on the second day so he and his new wife may romp and roll. And if not the second, so the third. And so on and so forth up until the Sabbath. Of course, it should be kept in mind that sexual intercourse actually made one unclean, and it took some time to become clean afterwards, which probably factored into the decision to not say the Shema’ when one was defiled by lovemaking. But oh what a glorious and righteous defilement! Nonbelievers think we can’t really celebrate and enjoy defilement. If only they knew. Why we even postpone our religious duties to do it! Of course, in the ancient world, that was a major difference—sexual activity was often a part of religious activities outside Israel. In Israel, such things were separate.
R. Eliezer says: He that makes his prayer a fixed task, his prayer is no supplication.
m. Berakoth 4:4
I know a lot of Protestants who dislike Catholicism (and others) because of the rituals, the formalism, the fixed prayers, and such. In fact, my father (a former Catholic) said he disliked those structured and ordered prayers because it felt like a demand instead of a delight—something he was supposed to do instead of something he wanted to do. I’ve never understood that. Rather than being felt compelled by ritual and fixed, traditional prayers, I’ve found a unique sort of freedom—particularly a freedom to voluntarily join my voice and my heart with many others so that we stand together as one instead of apart as individuals.
This saying that is remembered of or attributed to R. Eliezer exposes another benefit of ritualistic, fixed, formal prayers. As a Protestant, I am all too familiar with the very common way Protestant prayer turns into little more than supplication and self-focus. When you have a fixed task and a traditional prayer, if it means something to you, it more often turns your heart, mind, and will away from yourself and outward to God. I have found that as my prayers become more formal, they become more focused on the person of God.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
