Yeshua and oral tradition

http://www.ed-nelson.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=67
The esteemed, late Jewish professor, David Flusser, in his book, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (MOD Books, 1989) suggests that Yeshua (Jesus) did not do “away with the rulings of the Sages and [thereby] put an emphasis only on the Written Law” (p. 23).




If Flusser had written, instead, that Yeshua (Jesus) did not do “away with many of the rulings of the Sages,” his statement would be true. Yeshua (Jesus), indeed, did reject outright some major segments of the tradition. What were these laws and why did He reject them?



Like the Pharisees and scribes who lived according to traditional law, Yeshua (Jesus), likewise, did not reject the Prophets and Writings, as did the Sadducees. Again, like the Pharisees, He did not reject the reality of angels and the resurrection of the dead, as did the Sadducees. His affinity with the Pharisees and scribes is without doubt.



Nor did He reject the totality of oral tradition, recognizing instead its wisdom and judgment in several cases. At times He cited the wisdom of the oral tradition, not “throwing the baby out with the bath wash.”

Not surprisingly, Yeshua (Jesus) affirmed traditional law when it was in accord with the Word of God. Because the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the full Talmud, and Midrash Rabbah later captured much of the oral law and its exposition, we may compare some of these sayings of the sages with the sayings of Yeshua (Jesus):






Yeshua: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”

(Mark 2:27)

Talmud: “It is lawful to save oneself at the cost of

his life—how much more may one suspend the laws of the Sabbath to

save human life!” (Yoma 85a).



Yeshua: “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not

commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the

court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother

shall be guilty before the court” (Matthew 5:21).

Talmud: “He who publicly shames his neighbor is as though he shed

blood” (Baba Metzia 58b).



Yeshua: “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman

with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his

heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Talmud: One who gazes lustfully upon the small finger of a

married woman, it is as if he has committed adultery with her

(Minor Tractate Kallah 1).



Yeshua: “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and

throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts

of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If

your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from

you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body,

than for your whole body to go into hell” (Matthew 5:29-30).

Talmud: “‘It is preferable’, he replied, ‘that his belly shall be

split rather than that he should go down into the pit of

destruction’” (Nidah 13b).



Yeshua: “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ [or] ‘No,

no.’ Anything beyond these is of evil” (Matthew 5:37).

Midrash Rabbah: “The yes of the righteous is yes, and their

no, no” (Ruth VII:6).



Yeshua: “I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those

who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

Talmud: “Has it not been taught: Concerning those who are

insulted but do not insult others [in revenge], who hear them-

selves reproached without replying, who [perform good] work

out of love of the Lord and rejoice in their sufferings, Scripture

says: ‘But they that love Him be as the sun when he goes forth

in his might?’” (Yoma 23a; cf. Gittin 36b,

Shabbath 88b).



Yeshua: “For He causes His sun to rise on [the] evil and [the]

good, and sends rain on [the] righteous and [the]

unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45).

Talmud: “…rain is both for the righteous and for the wicked”

(Ta’anith 7a).



Yeshua: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men

to be noticed by them. Otherwise you have no reward with your

Father who is in heaven” (6:1).

Talmud: “May we conclude from this that Rabban Simeon b.

Gamaliel deprecates showing off and the Rabbis do not deprecate

it? … In the case of the month of Ab, since everybody else does

work and he does no work, it looks like showing off”

(Berachoth 17b).



Yeshua: “And when you give to the poor, do not let your left

hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving

will be in secret” (Matthew 6:3-4).

Talmud: “When a man gives without knowing to whom he

gives. and the beggar receives without knowing from whom he

receives. ‘He gives without knowing to whom he gives’: this

excludes the practice of Mar ‘Ukba. ‘The beggar receives without

knowing from whom he receives’: this excludes the practice of

R. Abba. How is a man then to do? — He should put his money

into the charity box” (Baba Bathra 10b).



Yeshua: “And when you are praying, do not use

meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that

they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them.

For your Father knows what you need before you ask Him”

(Matthew 6:7-8).

Talmud: “If one draws out his prayer and expects

therefore its fulfillment, he will in the end suffer vexation of

heart”

(Berachoth 55a).



Yeshua: “Do not be worried about your life, [as to] what you

will eat or what you will drink… You of little faith! Do not worry

then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’

(Matthew 6:25, 30-31).

Talmud: “Whoever has a piece of bread in his basket and says.

‘What shall I eat tomorrow?’ belongs only to them who are little

in faith” (Sotah 48b).



Yeshua: “Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matthew 6:34).

Talmud: “… sufficient is the evil in the time thereof!”

(Berachoth 9b).



Yeshua: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You

have hidden these things from [the] wise and intelligent and

have revealed them to infants” (Matthew 11:25).

Talmud: “Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken

from prophets and given to fools and children” (Baba Bathra 12b).



Yeshua: “But do not be called Rabbi” (Matthew 23:8).

Mishnah: “Shemaiah used to say: Love work, hate acting

the superior, and do not bring thyself to the knowledge of the ruling

authority” (‘Avoth 1:10).



Yeshua: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given

in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

Talmud: No marital union shall occur in the world to come

(cf. Ma'asroth 4:5-6).



Yeshua: “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son

of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think” (Matthew

24:44). Talmud: “Three come unawares: Messiah, a found article and

a scorpion” (Sanhedrin 97a).



Yeshua: “But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers

and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to

death …” (Luke 21:16).

Talmud: “It has been taught: R. Nehorai said: in the generation

when Messiah comes, young men will insult the old, and old

men will stand before the young [to give them honor]; daughters

will rise up against their mothers, and daughters-in-law against

their mothers-in-law” (Sanhederin 97a).



What He rejected was the assigning of divine or supreme authority to oral tradition in matters of exegesis, interpretation of the Bible and “binding” laws that fenced out the people from the kingdom of God revealed in the Torah, Prophets and Writings (Tanakh). He further rejected the idea that lawmakers may make laws for others but preserve their own immunity from obeying them.

In Yeshua’s own words, He admonished obedience to those seated in Moses’ chair, even when they lived by a double standard without integrity towards the laws they made for others. Better for them, Yeshua taught, was to lighten the “heavy burden” of traditional law than to lay more burdens on the people’s shoulders:



“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. Therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe. But do not do according to their deeds [i.e., their double standard]. For they say [things] and do not do [them]. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with [even] a finger …





“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the

chair of Moses. Therefore, all that they tell you, do and

observe. But do not do according to their deeds [i.e., their

double standard]. For they say [things] and do not do

[them]. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s

shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with

[even] a finger …



“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you

shut off the kingdom of heaven from people. For you do not enter

in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”

(Matthew 23:2-4, 13)

The old is better than the new. One of Yeshua’s (Jesus’) famous twin parables, often misinterpreted and misapplied, addressed this issue. The first parable concerns sewing new cloths on old cloths. The second parable addresses the putting of new wine into old wineskins.




Most today, it seems, teach that “the new wine” that figures in the parable is better than “the old wine.” Yeshua did not. Luke’s Gospel (5:30-39) preserved the larger context where the last line spoken clinches the case for the preference of “the old wine” in “the old wineskin”:





The Pharisees and their scribes [began] grumbling at his disciples

[for violating traditional law], saying, “Why do you eat and

drink with the tax collectors and sinners?”



And Yeshua [Jesus] answered and said to them, “[It is] not those

who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not

come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”



And they said to Him, “The disciples of John often fast and offer



prayers, the [disciples] of the Pharisees also do the same [in keeping

with traditional law], but yours eat and drink [disobeying post-Mosaic

traditional law].”



And Yeshua [Jesus] said to them, “You cannot make the

attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is

with them, can you? But days will come, and when the bride-

groom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those

days.”



And also He was telling them a parable [in this regard]: “No one

tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old

garment. Otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from

the new will not match the old.



And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the new

wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins

will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.



And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new [wine]; for

he says, ‘The old is [what is] good.’”

Jewish Sages Point to Messiah II

Jewish Sages Point to Messiah II


Philo



The Memra as a cosmic power was such a prevalent understanding among Jewish sages that this teaching furnished the Jewish philosopher Philo the cornerstone upon which he built his philosophy. Philo saw the Memra as “divine thought,” thus “the wisdom of God” (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:24). He wrote of the Memra as being “the image” of the invisible God and “first-born son of God” over all creation (cf. Colossians 1:15). Other titles he gave the Memra was “the archpriest,” “intercessor,” and “paraclete” of humanity, the “arch type of man.”



Philo’s philosophy that anticipated the incarnation of “the Word became flesh” in Messiah Jesus and the later church doctrine of the Trinity.



In the ancient church liturgy, adopted from the synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term Logos, in the sense of “the Word by which God made the world, or made his Law or Himself known to man,” was changed into “Messiah,” or, in Greek, “the Christ” (see Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.).



Since the widespread message of Messiah Jesus being the Memra, or the Word of God in flesh, and its effective message to Jewish peoples of the first century A.D., Rabbinic theology, outside of the Aramaic Targum literature, made little use of the term Memra.



Apocryphal and Other Rabbinic References:




Book of Jubilees, 12: 22



In this apocryphal book, the Word of God is sent through the Angel of Yahweh to Abraham.



Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 42:15



The apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus shows the prevalent view in ancient Jewish literature to show the Word, or Memra, more and more as a personified agency: “By the Word of God exists his works.”



Mekilta, Beshallah



In the Mekilta, one of the oldest Midrashim and relatively contemporary with the Mishnah, we find the teaching of the Memra still current within the early period of Rabbinic Judaism: “The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the Ma’amar” (10, with reference to Psalm 33:6).



Wisdom



Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, “You who has made the universe with your Word and ordained man through your wisdom to rule over the creatures made by you” (9:1; comp. “Who by your words cause the evenings to bring darkness, who opens the gates of the sky by your wisdom..” Also, “who by his speech created the heavens, and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts.” Also, through whose “words all things were created” (see Singer's Daily Prayer-Book, pp. 96, 290, 292).



“Your Word, O Lord, heals all things” (16:12).



“Your Word preserves them that put their trust in You" (16:26).



Especially strong is the personification of the Word in Wisdom 18:15: “Your Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of your royal throne as a fierce man of war.”



IV Esdras 6:38



So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 (“Lord, you spoke on the first day of Creation: ‘Let there be heaven and earth,’ and your Word has accomplished the work”).



The Mishnah



The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (ch. i.) beginning with "And God said," speaks of the ten ma’amarot (= “speeches”) by which the world was created (Avot 5:1).



Genesis Rabbah



“The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative Ma’amar” (4:2).



Leviticus Rabbah



“The Word [dibbur] called none but Moses” (1:4, 5).



Canticles Rabbah 1:13



“The Word [dibbur] went forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel.”

Jewish Sages Point to Messiah

http://www.ed-nelson.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57


Jewish Sages Point to Messiah






Memra—the Word of Yahweh

by Ed Nelson



During the Second Temple Era a significant Messianic anticipation held by many Jewish sages is summarized in their usage and interpretation of the Aramaic word Memra. This word embodies the fullness of how “the Word of Yahweh” was understood and valued at the time in relationship to both Israel and the nations.



Before the advent of Yeshua of Nazareth, these sages interpreted the Hebrew Bible in such a way that they taught that the coming Messiah was “the Word of Yahweh,” or “the Word of the LORD.” Their ancient interpretation methods led to a profound anticipation of what the Messiah would be like and who He would be when He came.



We will look at this significant Hebraic thinking personified in Memra before and during the first century pre-AD 70.



Tracing the Semitic word Memra. The word memra comes from the Aramaic verb ‘imrah. It is traceable through ancient Semitic languages including biblical Hebrew where it appears in verb form as ‘amar (“to say”).



Generally it means “commandment,” “speech, decree” or “word” issued by a top authority or poet of lofty words. It includes prophetic speech of prophets of Yahweh who utter, “Thus says Yahweh.” To ancient sages, the word memra came to embody more than lofty speech, or eloquence. It dynamically represented the spoken Word of the Most High.



This idea of loftiness or height is implied in the Hebrew verb ‘amar (“to say”). The emphasis on height may be found in the name of the ancient people group of Canaan known as Amorites, or, in Hebrew, the Amori (cf. Deuteronomy 3:9).



Some suggest that the Amorites, or the Amori, means “mountain-dwellers,” where the root word ‘amar (“to say”) is also a variant word for “height.” The idea behind the name of this people group is that they are, in some way, a lofty people.



In the context of the biblical text, the strong suggestion is that Amori may mean “tall peoples” rather than “mountain-dwellers. It fits well within the scope of available meanings for Amori. Og of Bashan, an Amorite king, who opposed Israel was physically tall. His “bedstead … was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit” (Deuteronomy 3:11)—thirteen feet long and six feet wide!



In the piedmont of the Himalaya Mountains in northern India is the city Amora. A picturesque city “above the clouds,” it is a virtual Shangri-La nestled about a large mountain lake. The city’s Hindi name is akin to the ancient Semitic word for Amorites and suggests a city elevated above the ordinary towns and villages far below. In Hindi “Amora” means “mountainous,” “height, elevated.” This is not unusual. Many of India’s languages, especially Tamil and Hindi, have words common to ancient Hebrew.

Yet in the Semitic languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, the association of speech with height seems clear. The meaning indicates speech that rises above common talk.



Hebrew. In Hebrew, memra is akin to the Hebrew root verb ‘amar (“to say”) and its several derived words. The masculine noun ‘emer in Hebrew means “speech”, “word”, “command” and “decree.” In Hebrew poetry, ‘emer is a word that exalts, or lifts up wisdom and deity. Likewise, the feminine noun ‘imrah is derived from ‘amar. It means “utterance,” “speech”, “word,” “command,” or “eloquence.” It is spelled the same as the Aramaic word ‘imrah from which is derived memra.



Personal Hebrew names of Omar and Immer were derived from the verb ‘amar. They are “lofty” names. In Genesis 36:11 we learn that Esau’s grandson, a sheik of Edom, was named Omar, perhaps meaning “eloquent speaker,” or “of flourishing speech.” In 1 Chronicles 24:14, a priest during King David’s time was named Immer, possibly meaning “one of lofty speeches,” or “poetic speaker.” The father of the high priest Zadok was also given the name of Immer (cf. Nehemiah 3:29).



In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the word amora, the same spelling as the name of the mountainous city of northern India, means “speaker, interpreter.” During the Second Temple Era, it applied to the interpreter who loudly repeated the teaching of the Jewish sage teaching his students in the academy. Between A.D. 220 to about A.D. 500, the term was applied to the rabbinic scholars who wrote the Gemara (commentary) of the Talmud.



Another Hebrew word derived from the verb ‘amar that means “speech” is ma’amar. The spelling of the Aramaic noun memra and the Hebrew noun ma’amar are almost the same.


Arabic. In Arabic, the familiar name Omar which we found among ancient Hebrew names means “eloquent (or lofty) speaker” as well. Among the Arab people, the superlative title of Emir is given to the person who is “top” among them. He is at the “summit” of respect and authority, issuing decrees and commands.




Greek. The Greek language, of course, is a Western language and not Semitic. It does not build off the Semitic root word for “to say” (‘amar) or any equivalent Semitic language. When Jewish sages translated the word memra into Greek they sought for a dynamic, cross-language equivalence instead.



The philosophical word logos of classical Greek thought was selected by translators to bear the weight of meaning and value of the Aramaic word memra. The equivalence was not exact between memra and the Greek word logos, but certainly the word logos is important to the idea of lofty wisdom.



The translators of the Septuagint (LXX), the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, predating the first century by 250 years, translated the Word of Yahweh as logos. For example, in Numbers 11:23 we read from the LXX:



And the Lord [kurios] said to Moses, “Shall not the hand of the Lord [kurios] be fully sufficient? Now you shall know whether my word [logos] shall come to pass unto you or not.” In 2 Chronicles 11:2 (cf. 12:7) we find a more direct statement: “And the Word [logos] of the Lord came to Samaias the man of God …”

To understand the meaning of the Greek word logos when it appears in the Greek New Testament (cf. John 1:1), every effort should be made to understand the Hebraic concept of memra underlying the Greek word logos. Attempting to understand the word logos from a Greek worldview will mislead in regard to the original Hebraic intention of the biblical text.




Synonymous Hebrew phrase—Dabar-Yahweh. When Second Temple Era sages reflected on the concept and application of the word memra in relationship to and understanding God’s past, present and future revelation, they determined that the Aramaic word memra was dynamically equivalent to the Hebrew phrase Dabar-Yahweh—the “Word of Yahweh.”



The connection was simple. The Hebrew verb dabar means “to speak” like the verb ‘amar means “to say.”



In Genesis 12:1-4 we find the familiar Hebrew verb ‘amar (“to say”) translated into English as “Yahweh said.”



Now Yahweh said [‘amar] to Abram, “Go forth from your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house to the land which I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great. And so you shall be a blessing.



“And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”



So Abram went forth as Yahweh had spoken [deber] to him; and Lot went with him. “Yahweh said” (‘amar Yahweh) and “Yahweh spoke” (dabar Yahweh) are synonymous expressions here in Genesis 12:1-4.



The phrase, “Yahweh said” repeats a total of ten times in the story of Yahweh’s dealings with Abraham and his wife, Sarah (cf. Genesis 12:7; 13:1; 17:1; 18:3, 17, 20, 26, 32; 21:1). Each of these times the common Hebrew word ‘amar is used. As explained, it simply means “to say” and may be found in such expressions as “he said,” “she said,” or “he was saying.”



What catches attention is Genesis 15:1 where the text reads:





After these things the Word [Dabar] of Yahweh

came to Abram in a vision, saying [‘amar], “Do

not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you. Your reward shall be

very great.”



The word for “saying” is the familiar Hebrew word ‘amar as found several times already in the Bible before this occurrence. But we are introduced for the first time in the Bible to the phrase “the Word of Yahweh”—Dabar-Yahweh. Here the word Dabar means more than “to speak.” As a noun it means the dynamic “word.” In biblical Hebrew Dabar-Yahweh (“Word of Yahweh”) was hyphenated to indicate two words joined together as one.

In Genesis 15:1 the Word of Yahweh (Dabar-Yahweh) does the speaking (‘amar). We are introduced to a unique and profound presentation of Yahweh as Yahweh and “the Word of Yahweh” as if they are separate. How can this be? How can Yahweh God and also “the Word of Yahweh” be referred to as God? But here it is for us all to read. And it astounded and delighted the ancient sages of Israel.




Yahweh is God and the Word of Yahweh is God. “The Word of Yahweh” is the personification of Yahweh, one and the same, but separate.



Look at the next words in this passage of Genesis 15 in verse two as to how Abraham replied to this divine visit. He refers to “the Word of Yahweh” as “O Lord Yahweh [Adonai Yahweh] …” Your Bible may say “O Lord God,” but in Hebrew it is Adonai Yahweh—“Lord Yahweh!”



Again, in Genesis 15:4, we read: “Then behold, the Word [Dabar] of Yahweh [Yahweh] came to him, saying, “This man [referring to Abraham’s servant Eliezer] will not be your heir, but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.”



The Word of Yahweh (Dabar-Yahweh) speaks to Abraham again, but this time the Word of Yahweh (Dabar-Yahweh) takes him outside his tent and shows Abraham the starry sky above. The text speaks for itself (15:5).

And He [Dabar-Yahweh] took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He [Dabar-


Yahweh] said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”



Thus far the Word of Yahweh is speaking to Abraham. But now we learn that the Word of Yahweh actually takes Abraham physically outside his tent to show him the heavens. The Word of Yahweh is given personality and dynamic movement, an essence that distinguishes the Word of Yahweh from Yahweh yet maintains the unity of Yahweh and the Word of Yahweh at the same time as being one and the same. One is two personalities; two personalities are One.



Then the Word of Yahweh speaks again and promises Abraham a son of his own flesh. The Word of Yahweh appeared so significantly that Abraham was convinced to trust Yahweh because of what He heard and believed from the Word of Yahweh. Let the text speak for itself in the next verse (15:6):





Then he believed in Yahweh; and He reckoned it to him

as righteousness. And He said to him, “I am Yahweh who

brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this

land to possess it.”



The phenomenon of the dual-Presence of Yahweh. “The Word of Yahweh” heard and announced by the prophets often became, in the conception of these seers, an efficacious power apart from Yahweh. A similar understanding was given to the manifestations of the Angel of Yahweh.



The prophet Isaiah said of the Word of Yahweh: “The Lord sends a Word into Jacob, and it falls on Israel” (Isaiah 9:8). Again, the prophet wrote: “So will my Word [Dabar] be which goes forth from my mouth. It will not return to me empty without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (55:11).



Similarly, the Psalmist sings: “He sent his Word and healed them” (Psalm. 107:20). Again, in Psalm147:15 we read:





He sends forth his command [‘imrah] to the earth.

His Word [Dabar] runs very swiftly.



This passage not only shows the Psalmist applying attributes of personality to the Word, but also shows its parallelism to the word “command,” (‘imrah) from which the Aramaic word Memra is derived.



This dual-Presence of God as Yahweh and the Word of Yahweh, at the same time different but at the same time being One, aroused much discussion among the ancient Jewish sages. It is this discussion that eventually gave us the Aramaic word Memra to describe the uniqueness of the relationship between Yahweh and the Word of Yahweh.
Memra came to mean “the Word of Yahweh” as a distinctive persona of Yahweh that convinces those to whom He reveals Himself to trust in Yahweh—like a Son to a Father reflecting everything of the Father to others yet drawing others to the Father. To many of the ancient sages before the time of Jesus of Nazareth, the Memra was nothing less than the Messiah who would come and dwell among his people.




Aramaic interpreters and Aramaic interpretations of the Torah. Jews who went into exile in Babylon at the time of the destruction of the first Temple, took on the language of their conquerors—the Aramaic language. This was the language of Babylon common during Israel’s 70-year exile. It became influential among the Jewish people from then on throughout the first century.



After the seventy years of exile, many Jews, including Torah scholars, did not return to Jerusalem where the Hebrew language was revived at the time of the rebuilding of the temple. Those who remained in Babylon, perhaps the majority, adopted Aramaic as their public and private language. Hebrew waned as the language of public discourse.



Synagogues were developed in Babylon and Persia where Torah study was conducted in Aramaic through interpreters of the Hebrew. This was regretful to some large extent, but it gave us some advantages as well in interpreting the Scripture. A notable advantage was that another Semitic language, namely Aramaic, was used to explain Hebrew meanings and thoughts. This gave us another witness from another Semitic language as to what Hebrew words meant and how they were applied.



Aramaic was the official and legal language in Babylon just as English is the official and legal language of Great Britain, Australia, Canada and the United States of America. English-speaking believers in Messiah Jesus mostly study the Bible in English without much reference at all to the source language, Hebrew. The Bible wasn’t written in English, of course. Overwhelmingly it was written in Hebrew with some portions in Aramaic and, in the New Testament, often in Greek.

Likewise, the Jews born in Babylon and later in Persia were raised to speak Aramaic, the scholars, scribes and Temple priests preserving the Hebrew language.




Few of us who speak English ever take the time or discipline ourselves to read the original languages of the Bible. We trust others to interpret it for us into English. It was the same for the Jews following the Babylonian exile. They trusted the few Bible scholars who could read Hebrew to interpret it into Aramaic for them to read.



Here’s how the Jewish people studied the Hebrew Bible in Aramaic. They went to the synagogue meeting on the Sabbath. At the appropriate time a selected portion of the Bible was publicly read in Hebrew. Very few knew Hebrew well—mainly some older Bible teachers and their young students. Often a younger person may read in Hebrew without knowing the language well. An older, more accomplished Hebrew reader stood near the younger Hebrew reader to assure the audience the text was read accurately and properly. This kept the language alive, passing it on from generation to generation through worship in the synagogues.



The majority of Jewish listeners hearing the Hebrew Bible portion read aloud did not understand it well, though familiar terms and phrases were enjoined. Though it was a foreign language, it was not so far apart they couldn’t catch the essence of it in many ways. The languages Hebrew and Aramaic were close in understanding like Dutch is to German. An interpreter was needed.



Therefore, accompanying the Hebrew reader was an interpreter. These interpreters were called meturganim in Aramaic or amoraim in Hebrew. They restated the Hebrew into the Aramaic tongue so all could understand what they heard, or thought they heard, in Hebrew.



The role of the interpreters was critical to the general worship service and to the study of the Bible as a high form of worship. After the public reading of the Hebrew Scriptures and their interpretation into Aramaic, sometimes the older Hebrew scholar would offer commentary on the passage. This was particularly true at the afternoon academy where men and boys gathered on Sabbath afternoons to attend Bible study. When Hebrew Bible scholars spoke, because their teachings were difficult unless interpreted, they spoke with a low or whispering voice into the ears of the Aramaic interpreters. The interpreters, in turn, gave the interpretation to the students.



Thus, the Hebrew-speaking Torah scholars and their Aramaic interpreters painstakingly interpreted the Torah aloud in Aramaic while preserving as best possible the original Hebrew thought, concepts and meanings.

The Torah in Aramaic—the Targum. In time, in order to explain the sense of the Hebrew Bible better to Aramaic-speaking Jews, the Torah was translated with notes into Aramaic. Where the interpreters felt necessary, they added brief explanations to the Torah’s words and phrases, embedding them in the Torah’s text, thus, paraphrasing the meaning.




These added words or phrases are much like the footnotes in some of our English Bibles, except they were placed within the text to explain the meaning and intention of the original Hebrew Bible. A close parallel in English would be The Living Bible.



These translations of the Torah, or paraphrases, are, in fact, ancient interpretations of the Torah, and help us gain amazing insight into what was being taught and understood by Jews from a few centuries before the coming of Messiah to his appearance.



These translations, or paraphrases, of the Torah were called Targum, which is plural for Targum. They were written by the meturganim, or the interpreters.



To sum, when Aramaic-speaking Jews in Babylon studied the Hebrew Torah in the synagogues, they had it read to them by interpreters, called meturganim. The meturganim also committed the Torah to writing in the Aramaic language, what we call Bible translations, or paraphrases. These paraphrased versions of the Torah were called Targum, plural for Targum, and give us a fresh understanding of what was taught and believed by Jews a few centuries before Messiah came.

As you may well imagine, the first chapter of Genesis was translated into Aramaic with occasional clarifying notes included in the translation. This offers us valuable interpretive material consistent with the Hebraic perspective of the Bible.




Memra is the Word of Yahweh. Memra was a popular Aramaic word among Jewish people who studied Torah. Sometimes, but not always, it was a translation of the Hebrew word haDabar which means “the Word.” Whereas the Hebrew word dabar can mean any word, special notice was given to those places in the Hebrew Bible where “the Word of Yahweh” was mentioned—haDabar Yahweh. Therefore, the Aramaic word Memra didn’t mean just any word. It was Aramaic for a peculiar and singular kind of “word”—the Word of Yahweh. Memra, therefore, is an important concept that helps us understand and appreciate the context of the unique biblical phrase, “the Word of Yahweh.”



But Memra was not used exclusively to translate this unique phrase “the Word of the LORD.” It was also used to translate other words that refer to God. In the Targum, the Memra figures constantly as the revelation, the manifestation or the disclosure of the power of God as well as God’s living message to Israel and the world—“the Word of Yahweh.”



Often in the Targum of Scripture, Jewish interpreters understood Memra to be the unique revelation of Yahweh worthy of distinction from Yahweh, but indivisibly united to Him and always of Him. As we learn from studying the Targum, the Aramaic version of books of the Old Testament, the word Memra is used in every instance where Yahweh appears to men, or whenever He speaks at all.



To say it another way, the Memra was from Yahweh, was of Yahweh, was in Yahweh, and was Yahweh.



The Memra is experiential. The Aramaic Scriptures show about 750 occurrences in the Old Testament where Yahweh is understood as “the Memra of Yahweh.” This is utterly overwhelming to the Hebrew mind because of the personal nature of the Memra who manifests and discloses the Yahweh Almighty in a very personal and intimate way—a way of not only God knowing us, but of us knowing God experientially. Memra is the personal revelation of God experiential for us. When you know, understand or experience Him, it is his Memra you experience.



For starters, let’s look at some examples in the Torah and Prophets of how personally and corporately experiential God is in the word Memra:

The Memra is the shield of Abraham (Genesis 15:1), is present with Moses (Exodus 3:12; 4:12, 15) and with Israel (Targum Yerushalayimi of Numbers 10:35, 36; Isaiah 63:14).


Through the Memra Israel shall be justified (Targum of Isaiah 45:25)

With the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targum of Joshua 22:24, 27)

In the Memra man puts his trust, or faith (Targum of Genesis 15:6; Targum Yerushalayimi of Exodus 14:31; Jeremiah 39:18; 49:11)

“The Memra brings Israel near unto God and sits on his throne receiving the prayers of Israel” (Targum Yerushalayimi of Deuteronomy 4:7)

The Memra shielded Noah from the flood (Targum Yerushalayimi of Genesis 7:16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (11:8)

The Memra is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. 28:20-21, 35:3) and of Israel (Targum Yerushalyim of Exodus 12:23, 29)

The Memra works all the wonders in Egypt (Exodus 13:8, 14:25), hardens the heart of Pharaoh (13:15), and goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targum Yerushalayimi of Exodus 20:1)

The Memra blesses Israel (Targum Yerushalayimi of Numbers 23:8)

The Memra battles for the people (Targum of Joshua 3:7, 10:14, 23:3)

The Memra rules over the destiny of man (Targum Yerushalayimi of Numbers 27:16)

The Memra is in the creation of the earth (Targum of Isaiah 45:12) and in the execution of justice (Targum Yerushalayimi of Numbers 33:4)

The Memra is the comforter (Targum of Isaiah 66:13)

“The Memra will roar to gather the exiled” (Targum of Hosea 11:5, 10).

“In the Memra the redemption will be found” (Targum of Zechariah 12:5)

“The holy Word [Memra]” was the subject of the hymns of Job (Testament of Job, 12:3, ed., Kohler)

The Memra is the Word of Creation. Before we add further definitions and clarifications to the meaning of Memra, we first should understand that the Memra often means the “Word” (Memra) of Yahweh in creating the heavens and the earth.

In an ancient Jewish Bible commentary known as Midrash Rabbah, Genesis III:2, we read:






R. Berekiah spoke in the name of R. Judah b. R. Simon:

By the word [Memra] of the Lord were the heavens made,

and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth (Ps. 33:6):

not by labor or toil but only by a word [Memra]; thus, AND

GOD SAID: LET LIGHT BE.

This understanding of the rabbis is straight from Genesis 1:1-3. The interpretation is that the creation came about by the Word of Yahweh, by the word of his mouth. Though the interpretation is accurate it is implied rather than clearly stated in Genesis 1:1. From where, then, does it clearly derive? Look at the source Scripture cited by the rabbis in Psalm 33:6. The Psalmist David wrote:






By the Word of Yahweh the heavens were made,

and by the Spirit [breath] of his mouth all their host.

We see that the Word of Yahweh is directly connected to and responsible for creation of the earth. In the Targum of Isaiah 45:12, we read: “It is my Memra who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with my hands and ordained all their host.”






Memra is God speaking.



In Genesis 3:8 we read: “They heard the sound [voice] of Yahweh Elohim walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Yahweh Elohim among the trees of the garden.” The Targum reads: “They heard the voice of the Memra of Yahweh.”

In Deuteronomy 4:33 we read: “… has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and survived?” The Targum reads: “Has any people heard the voice of the Memra of Yahweh speaking from the midst of the fire, as you heard, and survived?”

In Deuteronomy 4:36 we read: “Out of the heavens He let you hear his voice to discipline you; and on earth He let you see his great fire, and you heard his words from the midst of the fire.” The Targum reads: “Out of the heavens He let you hear the voice of the Memra to teach you …”

In Isaiah 6:8 we read: “Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’ Then I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’” The Targum says that Isaiah “heard the voice of the Memra of Yahweh.”
The Memra is the Hand of God.




In Exodus 33:22, the Scripture reads: “and it will come about, while my glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.” The Targum substitutes “my Memra” for “my hand.”

In Isaiah 48:13, the “hand” of Yahweh becomes in the Targum the Memra that “has laid the foundation of the earth.”

The Memra is the Manifestation of Deity.



In Exodus 25:22, the Scripture reads: “There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.” In the Targum it reads: “There I will order my Memra to meet with you.”

In Deuteronomy 1:32 we read: “But for all this, you put no faith in the LORD your God.” The Aramaic interpreter rendered the text, “But for all this, you put no faith in the Word [Memra] of Yahweh” (cf. Targum, Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)

In Deuteronomy 5:5 Moses says: “I stood between Yahweh and you at that time, to declare to you the word of Yahweh; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain.” The Targum reads: “I stood between the Memra of Yahwew and you.”

In Deuteronomy 18:19 we read: “It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” The Targum reads: “It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, my Word [Memra] shall require it of him.”

In Deuteronomy 9:3 we read: “Know therefore today that it is Yahweh your Elohim who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire.” The Aramaic Targum reads: “Know therefore today that is the Memra who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire.”

In Isaiah 30:27 we read: “Behold, the name of Yahweh comes from a remote place; burning is his anger and dense is his smoke; his lips are filled with indignation and his tongue is like a consuming fire.” The Targum instead reads that “his Memra is like a consuming fire.”

In Exodus 32:35 we read: “And Yahweh smote the people because of what they did with the calf which Aaron had made.” In the Targum it reads that the Memra “smote the people" (Targum, Targum Neofiti, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)

In 2 Samuel 6:7 instead of “the LORD smote him,” it reads “The Memra smote him.” The same is found in 1 Kings 18:24, Hosea 13:14, et al.

In Exodus 19:17 the text reads: “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet Elohim, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.” The Targum reads that “Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet “the Memra.” We find an interesting difference here in Targum Yerushalayimi. It reads instead that Moses brought the people out to meet “the Shekinah.” This is significant because the Memra is compared to the Shekinah in other places, adding to the weight of meaning represented by the Memra. They become synonymous terms.
In Exodus 31:13 the “sign between me and you” becomes a “sign between my Memra and you.” The same is the case in 31:17. (cf. Leviticus. 26:46; Genesis 9:12; 17:2, 7, 10; Ezekiel 20:12).


Instead of the LORD, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Genesis 20:3) and to Balaam (Numbers 23:4)

His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targum of Numbers 23:21; Deuteronomy 1:30; 33:3; Isaiah 63:14; Jeremiah 31:1; Hosea 9:10)

The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isaiah 45:12)

Yahweh swears by his Memra (Genesis 21:23; 22:16; 24:3; Exodus 32:13; Numbers 14:30; Isaiah 45:23; Ezekiel 20:5 et al.)

It is his Memra that repents, or turns (Targum of Genesis 6:6; 8:21; 1 Samuel 15:11, 35)
The Memra is “the Soul”—the Life, the Self, the Passion—of God.




In Leviticus 26:30, we read: “I then will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and heap your remains on the remains of your idols, for my soul [nephesh] shall abhor you.” Instead of “my soul” which can also mean “my self,” “my passion,” the Targum reads: “My Memra shall abhor you.”

In Isaiah 1:14 we read: “I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to my soul [nephesh]; I am weary of bearing them.” The Targum substitutes “my soul” with “my Memra.”

In Jeremiah 6:8 we read: “Be instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul [nephesh] depart from you; lest I make you desolate, a land not inhabited.” The Targum reads: “Be chastised, O Jerusalem, lest my Memra depart from you …”

In Ezekiel 23:18 we read: “She uncovered her harlotries and uncovered her nakedness; then my soul became disgusted with her, as I had become disgusted with her sister.” The Targum reads: “Then my Memra withdrew from her just as my Memra withdrew from her sister.”

The Memra is God Acting in Covenant with Israel.



In Leviticus 26:9 through the Memra God turns to his covenant people. In Leviticus 26:9 we read: “So I will turn toward you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will confirm my covenant with you.” The Targum reads: “And my Memra will turn to you to favor you to favor you with room and give you increase, and He will confirm my covenant with you.”

In 2 Kings 13:23, again through the Memra God turns to his covenant people. The Hebrew text reads: “And Yahweh was gracious to them and had compassion on them and turned to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them or cast them from His presence until now.” The Aramaic Targum reads: “And Yahweh pitied them and had compassion on them and his Memra turned to them because of his covenant …”

Memra is the Shining Light of Yahweh. We’ve learned that the Word of Yahweh and the Memra are the same, but the word Memra unfolds other divine attributes. In a Targum Fragment of Genesis 1:3 we read:





And the Word [Memra] of Yahweh said:

“Let light be!”

And light was in his Word [Memra].



Notice the idea expressed in this Targum that the Light was in Yahweh’s Memra—the “Word” of Yahweh. This supports the notion that the Word of Yahweh contains light. If the Word of Yahweh contains light, it stands to reason that this Light is from and of God.



In Targum Neofiti on Exodus 12:42, we continue to see the direct connection of Memra—the “Word” of Yahweh—to the Light of Elohim in creating the heavens and the earth:





The first night was when Yahweh was revealed above the

earth to create it:

the earth was void and empty

and darkness was spread over the face of the deep.

And the Word [Memra] of Yahweh was the Light

and it shone [in darkness];

and he called it the first night.



Not only do we see the Aramaic interpretation of Memra as being the Light of creation in the Word of Yahweh, but now we see the Memra as being the same as and identical to the Light of creation. This is a remarkable statement. The Light of the first day of creation is more than cosmic light, it is the Memra shining forth, the Word of Yahweh being revealed in the very act of creation. We readily see that God revealed Himself in his invisibility in the visible creation, not as material stuff as the pantheists claim, but as the pure Light that lights up the whole of creation and enlightens mankind.

If we were to use the synonymous parallelism of meanings of “Word” and “Light” for the one word Memra we come to understand better the Jews who read Psalm 119 without distinguishing between “Word” and “Light”:






Your word [Memra] is a lamp to my feet

and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105)



The unfolding of your words [Memra] gives light;

it [Memra] gives enlightenment to the simple.

(Psalm 119:130)



Light cannot be seen, but without light, nothing is seen. Because God’s Word is Light, and this same Light reveals the invisibility of God’s attributes, we have the Hebraic teaching that in creation was revealed two general attributes of the Word of God that should be common knowledge to all peoples of all nations—God’s power and God’s deity. We find this ancient Hebrew worldview in the teachings of the apostle (shaliach) Paul (Sha’ul) when he wrote to the Roman believers:





For his [Elohim’s] invisible attributes from the creation

of the world have been clearly understood—his eternal

power and divine nature. (Romans 1:20)



How is this so? God who is invisible speaks. He speaks his Word. When He speaks, Light becomes—there is Light. Those who listen are enlightened. This Light that enlightens is the Word [Memra] of Yahweh that enlightens all men to God’s power and deity. Of this truth the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians:





And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who

are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has

blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might

not see the Light [Memra] of the gospel of the

glory [shekinah] of Messiah, who is the image

of Elohim.

For we do not preach ourselves but Messiah Yeshua as


Adonai, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Yeshua’s

sake. For God who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,”

is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light

[Memra] of the knowledge of the glory [shekinah]

of Elohim in the face of Messiah. (2 Corinthians 4:3-6)

The Memra, therefore, is the Light of the spoken Word of God. This Light, according to a Targum, is “in the Word of Yahweh.” Further, according to the Targum, this Light is not only in the Word of Yahweh, it is the Word of Yahweh.



Put another way, the Memra is not only the Word of Yahweh, not only the Light of God’s Word spoken, He is the Light of the revelation of Elohim. His Word is Light and that Light gives light to the whole world. From before the beginning of creation the Word of Yahweh is of Elohim. At the beginning of creation the Word of Yahweh is the Light of God’s radiance. Therefore, the Word of Yahweh is also understood to be Elohim—or more exactly, the living radiance of Elohim.



The Memra is the Shekinah Radiating God’s Power and Presence. As shown earlier, in Exodus 19:17 the text reads: “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet Elohim, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.”

The Targum reads that “Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the Memra.”



We find an interesting difference here in Targum Yerushalayim. It reads instead that Moses brought the people out to meet “the Shekinah.”



This is significant because the Memra is compared to the Shekinah as if they are one and the same. They are interchangeable terms. We find this also in Leviticus and Numbers, adding to the weight of meaning represented by the Memra. They become synonymous.





“My Shekinah I shall put among you, my Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto my Name a holy people” (Targum Yerushalayim)

In the Targum of Numbers 23:21 we read: “He has not observed misfortune in Jacob; nor has He seen trouble in Israel. The Memra of Yahweh Elohay will help him, and the Shekinah of a king is among them.”

The Apostle John understands Memra as Word and Shekinah. We see the strong influence of the ancient Aramaic teaching of Memra being the Word of Yahweh and the same as the Light of Yahwewh in the teachings of the apostle [shaliach] John [Yochanan].



John understood clearly Genesis 1:1. He saw it as a prophetic text pointing to the Messiah. He understood the historic connection of the Word of Yahweh as the Memra creating the heavens and the earth. He knew that the promise of Genesis 1:1 was that the Messiah would appear, not once, but twice in history as the Word of Yahweh of Father God.

Read the first nine verses of John’s Gospel and substitute the words “Word” and its equivalent meaning of “Light” with the Aramaic word Memra:






In the beginning was the Word [Memra],

and the Word [Memra] was with God,

and the Word [Memra] was God.

He [Memra] was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him [Memra],

and apart from Him [Memra] nothing came into

being that has come into being.



In Him [Memra] was life,

and the life was the Light Shekinah] of men.

The Light [Shekinah] shines in the darkness,

and the darkness did not comprehend it.



There came a man sent from God whose name was John.

He came as a witness to testify about the Light

[Shekinah], so that all might believe through him [Memra].

He was not the Light [Memra/Shekinah],

but he came to testify about the Light [Shekinah].

There was the true Light [Shekinah] which,

coming into the world, enlightens every man.



He [Memra] was in the world,

and the world was made through Him [Memra],

and the world did not know Him [Memra].

He [Memra] came to His own,

and those who were His [Memra’s] own did not receive Him [Memra].

But as many as received Him [Memra],

to them He [Memra] gave the right to become children of God,

even to those who believe in His [Memra’s] name,

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh

nor of the will of man, but of God.



And the Word [Memra] became flesh and dwelt among us,

and we saw His [Memra’s] glory [Shekinah],

glory [Shekinah] as of the only begotten from the Father,

full of lovingkindness and faithfulness.



John testified about Him [Memra] and cried out, saying,

“This was He [Memra] of whom I said,

‘He [Memra] who comes after me has a higher rank than I,

for He [Memra] existed before me.’”



For of his [Memra’s] fullness we have all received,

and lovingkindness upon lovingkindness.

For the Torah of lovingkindness was given through Moses;

lovingkindness and faithfulness were completed in Messiah

Yeshua—the Memra.



No one has seen God at any time;

the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,

He [Memra] has explained Him,

i.e., is his Word [Memra].


The Memra is the Royal, Spirit-filled Servant of God. In Isaiah 42:1 we read: “Behold, my Servant, whom I uphold; my chosen one in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.”




The Targum reads: “Behold, my Servant whom I offer, my chosen one who reconciles, my Memra in whom I delight. I will give Him my Holy Spirit; He will bring forth justice to the nations.”



The Memra is the Light of Torah. In John’s Gospel we find another connection of Memra as being not only the Word of Yahweh and the Light of Yahweh, but the Light of Torah. This teaching did not originate with John but was well understood long before. In Proverbs, for example, we find this same teaching in the following synonymous parallelism:





For the commandment [mitzvah] is a lamp,

and the Torah is light [Memra] (Proverbs 6:23)



What John does clarify is that not only is the written Torah the Torah of lovingkindness, the Torah is also the written expression of the Memra—the Word of Yahweh.



Further, John shows, Yeshua is the fullness of the Torah being the Living Torah—the Memra in flesh. Not only is the Torah the expression of God’s lovingkindness, or grace, but with Yeshua the lovingkindness, or grace of God, is in flesh. The lovingkindness, of grace, of the written Torah that came through Moses is now complete in the lovingkindness and faithfulness of the Messiah Yeshua.

Summary




Messiah Jesus [Yeshua] is the Memra written and spoken of in the ancient Aramaic tongue, and He is “the Word of Yahweh” in Hebrew—haDabar Yahweh. He convinces us to believe in Yahweh as He convinced Abraham to put his trust in Yahweh. For they are different in personality in that a distinction exists between Yahweh and the Memra—the Word [haDabar]. Nevertheless, they are One—Adonai Yahweh (Genesis 15:2)—the Lord Yahweh!











Midrash Rabbah - Genesis III:4




4. AND GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT, etc. R. Simeon b. R. Jehozadak asked R. Samuel b. Nahman: ‘As I have heard that you are a master of haggadah, tell me whence the light was created?’ He replied: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, wrapped Himself therein as in a robe and irradiated with the lustre of His majesty the whole world from one end to the other.’ Now he had answered him in a whisper, whereupon he observed, ‘There is a verse which states it explicitly: Who coverest Thyself with light as with a garment (Ps. CIV, 2), yet you say it in a whisper!’ ‘Just as I heard it in a whisper, so have I told it to you in a whisper,’ he rejoined. R. Berekiah remarked: Had not R. Isaac taught it,1 could we have said it!2 Before this, what did they say [on the matter]? R. Berekiah said in R. Isaac's name: The light was created from the place of the Temple, as it is said, And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the east; and His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth did shine with His glory (Ezek. XLIII, 2). Now ’ His glory ' is nought else but the Temple, as you read: Thou throne of glory, on high from the beginning, Thou place of our sanctuary (Jer. XVII, 12).

Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 119b




R. Eleazar said: How do we know that speech is like action? Because it is said, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made. Midrash Rabbah - Genesis III:2



2. R. Berekiah commenced in the name of R. Judah b. R. Simon: By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth (Ps. XXXIII, 6): not by labour or toil but only by a word; thus, AND GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT.


Midrash Rabbah - Genesis III:5




5.R. Simon said: ' Light’ is written five times [in this paragraph], corresponding to the Books of His Torah. Now GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT corresponds to Genesis, in which is recorded that the Holy One, blessed be He, engaged in the creation of His world; AND THERE WAS LIGHT, to Exodus,3 in which it is told how the Israelites went forth from Egypt, out of darkness into light; AND GOD SAW THE LIGHT, etc., to Leviticus, which is filled with numerous laws; AND GOD DIVIDED THE LIGHT,to Numbers, whiCh divides between those who departed from Egypt and those who entered the [holy] land; AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT [DAY],to Deuteronomy, which is filled with numerous laws. But, they [his hearers] objected, ‘Is not Leviticus filled with numerous laws’4 - This passage,too,has,a repetition, viz. AND GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY: now surely light and day are identical!

Midrash Rabbah - Genesis III:6


6. It was taught: The light which was created in the six days of Creation1 cannot illumine by day, because it would eclipse the light of the sun, nor by night, because it was created only to illumine by day. Then where is it? It is stored up for the righteous in the Messianic future, as it says, Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sewenfold, as the light of the seven days (Isa. XXX, 26). Seven! surely there were but three, seeing that the luminaries were created on the fourth day!2 It is like a man who says, ' I am pro-viding so much for the seven days of my [wedding] feast.’

Midrash Rabbah - Genesis III:8




For R. Johanan said: The angels were created on the second day, as it is said, Who layest the beams of Thine upper chambers in the waters, and it is written, Who makest the spirits Thine angels (Ps. CIV, 3f). R. Hanina said: The angels were created on the fifth day,4 as it is written, And let fowl fly above the earth (Gen. I, 20), and it is written, And with twain he did fly (Isa. VI, 2). R. Luliani b. Tabri said in R. Isaac's name: Whether we accept the view of R. Hanina or of R. Jobanan, all agree that none were created on the first day, lest you should say, Michael stretched [the world] in the south of the firmament and Gabriel in the north, while the Holy One, blessed be He, measured it in the middle; but I am the Iord that maketh all things; that stretched forth the heavens alone; that spread abroad the earth by Myself-me-itti (ib. XLIV, 24): mi itti (who was with Me?) is written; who was associated with Me in the creation of the world?

Back_to_1942 pt 2

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Back_to_1942/70263888?trkid=8133737
Great epic movie and visuals....




A film that affects you, it is not for the timid. It is dark and grim and tells us about a horrendous event in WW2 that few of us knew about. Having been in a war, it shows the hopelessness and extreme fear that I have seen in the eyes of refugees fleeing war and death. The ineffectiveness and rampa...read morent corruption that plaques the Governments and Armies of war torn countries is dramatically shown here. The best reason to see this film is to realize as an American how lucky we are that we have never been through anything as horrific as this in our countries history and that our problems as a nation and a people pale in comparison. I would have given it 5 stars, but because of the grim nature of the film, it seemed ludicrous to say I Loved It. I strongly recommend this film to all people to see and ponder the implications of war both on innocents and those that are not so innocent. As the young disillusioned priest said Why does it seem like the Devil always wins?


Not a movie that you "enjoy" but a picture of suffering, piled onto more suffering in a really no-win situation. War is "hell" and so are famines and both combined are almost unbearable. Might be a difficult watch for those less interested in history and how mankind has survived terrible difficult...read moreies.


This is a very stark and factual account of the Henan Famine which took place in 1942. The government at the time, through denial and corruption, failed miserably to help aid millions of fleeing refugees and also tried covering it up. Around 3 million Chinese people starved to death. Theodore White,...read more played by Adrien Brody, was a photo journalist for Time magazine and took dozens of pictures which exposed this horrible situation to the world. He wrote about it in his 1946 book, "Thunder Out of China". This is a very dark period in China's history and this film certainly reflects that with complete candor. It shows in great and grisly detail the tremendous hardships and suffering the refugees endured during their plight to find food and shelter. Well worth a watch but don't look for any happy endings.


I gave it all the stars, 5 stars. because it was an excellent movie. It was extremely depressing because it portrayed realistically people dying, killing eachother, selling eachother, and of course corruption and evil. It also showed how some people shine in the middle of a war, starvation and disas...read moreter. Watch it for the education but NOT a feel-good movie. The movie-making itself and acting was superb.


This is a sweeping historical piece aptly described in the movie synopsis. As a movie, it does a good job in shifting between characters to show the larger picture at a government and world view, and the suffering and loss of the refugees by focusing on two family groups. Well made, and well paced f...read moreor a fairly long movie. Robbins and Brody have only small roles in this, though Brody's character helped shape events historically as a Time magazine correspondent reporting the events. An interesting watch, especially for those with an interest in historical films

Back to 1942

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/nov/11/back-to-1942-review

The Henan province disaster was one of the darkest eras in 20th-century Chinese history – a humanitarian crisis first sparked by drought and then compounded by a combination of windstorms, government corruption and the war with Japan. Feng Xiaogang's sledgehammer epic wants the world to know just how dark, precisely, and it leaves no arm untwisted, no emotion unmilked in its bid to drive its message home. Back to 1942, which screened as the "surprise film" at the Rome film festival, gives us history written in banner headlines and trumpeted by bugles. If it could bring itself to quieten down, it might be more successful.

Our tour guide through the inferno is stoical Fan (Zhang Guoli), a wealthy landowner in Yanjin county who loses everything and joins the caravan of refugees surging out of Henan in search of grain, with his fading family in tow. But the way ahead is stripped bare and treacherous, plus there are rumours that the nationalist army is poised to pull back and abandon 30 million of its citizens to the advancing Japanese. All around him, the people are starving. They're eating donkeys; they're munching on tree bark. When a hapless bandit is knocked head first into a pot of boiling water, it's a safe bet that they're going to eat him, too.


Feng previously scored a $100m (£629,069) domestic hit with his earthquake saga Aftershock, and Back to 1942 is already being tipped to break records at the Chinese box office. And yet the film's casting choices together with its grand unveiling in Rome suggest it has its sights set on the western market, too. The director shrewdly cross-cuts Fan's odyssey with the tale of Theodore White (Adrien Brody), an American journalist on hand to witness the carnage. Elsewhere, Tim Robbins crops up playing an Italian priest who seems to turn Irish halfway through. It is one of the few mysteries the film is content to leave unresolved.






There's no denying Feng knows how to lay on a big, populist spectacle. Back to 1942 has the teeming hordes, the widescreen vistas and the sense of a tangled, complex drama made simple; boiled down to bullet points. Even so, its ongoing marriage of bombast and sentiment does grate after a spell. On screen, the bombs rain down in loving closeup, sending the refugees off in vast explosions of offal. Then up come the strings on the soundtrack to remind us how tragic this is. Look: there's an innocent toddler jetting blood and breathing her last. And look: there's a winsome teenaged girl desperately hunting for her cherished pet cat amid the craters. Will she find it? Happily she does. "Meeow," says the cat as she takes it in her arms. No one, thank heavens, has seen fit to eat it yet

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/reviews/specialty-releases/e3i82e7d6da199499c75447647acb5b4ed9

A tragedy from World War II gets blockbuster treatment in Back to 1942, with middling results. Clearly a huge undertaking, the film is a relatively even-handed account of a famine which killed three million people. But the storytelling in Back to 1942 is so careful that it fails to build much interest or emotion.

The screenplay by Liu Zhenyun, based on his memoir, opens in 1942, after a drought has devastated farms in Henan. The story focuses on two families: one led by the wealthy Landlord Fan (Zhang Guoli), who controls the local granary; and the other by tenant farmer Xialu (Feng Yuanzheng). When their village is overrun by neighboring farmers, the two families join a long line of refugees heading west, away from the invading Japanese army.



A separate plot puts the newly appointed province governor Li Peiji (Li Xuejian) on the spot when he is ordered to supply Chinese troops with 750,000 tons of grain. Li appeals to Chiang Kai-shek (Chen Daoming) for relief, but soon realizes that political situation has doomed the people of Henan.

A third storyline follows Time magazine correspondent Theodore H. White (Adrien Brody), who tries to raise concern over the refugees after trips into the countryside. At a remote monastery, Father Thomas Morgan (Tim Robbins) warns White to return to Chungking, the capital of wartime China. But first the journalist documents Japanese atrocities as well as the effects of mass starvation. White finagles a meeting with Chiang Kai-shek, but despite his efforts and the appeals of other humanitarians, no one can work out a solution for the people of Henan.




The bulk of the film documents the increasing degradation suffered by wealthy and peasants alike as they make their way west. Japanese bombers strafe refugee lines, Chinese soldiers steal food and money, desperate women trade sex for crackers, and the poorest resort to eating twigs and bark.



Feng Xiaogang, director of the enormously popular romance If You Are the One and its sequel, as well as the earthquake disaster epic Aftershock, marshaled an amazing production teeming with extras, period props and exotic settings in Back to 1942. But the air raids, refugee camps and forced marches tend to blur together. Dramatic interludes, staged like vignettes, also seem repetitive

What works best in Back to 1942 are the political scenes, in particular those involving Chiang Kai-shek. Chen Daoming portrays the leader as intelligent and caring, but also a victim to forces outside his control. Chen's expression as he virtually condemns millions to death in order to concentrate on the war effort crystalizes the moral choices politicians face.




While Adrien Brody brings enthusiasm to his role as White, later a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, both he and Robbins feel out of place here. From the rest of the cast, only the venerable Li Xuejian and Fiona Wang as a spoiled schoolgirl make much of an impression.



It may seem heartless to complain that Back to 1942 isn't very moving. The subject is certainly important enough to merit a big-budget film. But in his 1973 film Distant Thunder, using an understated technique, the great Bengali director Satyajit Ray turned a similar famine in India into a story of unimaginable heartbreak.



Plot[edit]It is the winter of 1942. The film opens with Master Fan as a wealthy landlord in wartime Henan. When the village is suffering from famine, Fan still has plenty of food to feed his family and the villagers. A group of bandits come and rob the village, eventually burning it down to the ground. Fan's son died in the process of stopping the bandits.



Fan flees his hometown with his daughter, wife and daughter-in-law. They are also accompanied by a servant, Shuanzhu. Along their way west, they meet Xialu, a fellow villager, and the latter's family. They decide to flee together, but Fan's food supply and money are robbed by NRA soldiers amid the chaos caused by Japanese bombing.

Brother Sim insists on preaching his faith in the starving province. After suffering a few Japanese bombings and witnessing many innocent people dying, he takes refuge under Father Megan but starts doubting the presence of God.




Meanwhile, TIME correspondent Theodore H. White treks to Henan to investigate the famine. He discovers that while people are dying every day and some have even resorted to cannibalism, the Nationalist Government is still not doing anything to help the refugees. Chiang Kai-shek even wants to give up defending Henan, leaving the refugees to the Japanese. White's report is eventually published in the magazine, causing the Nationalist Government to make a U-turn on their policy. However, when relief supplies are being distributed in the province, the local officials and soldiers start fighting over who will receive a larger share.

The plight of Master Fan continues as his family members die one by one. He is eventually forced to sell his daughter into prostitution in return for food. Losing hope on life, he retreats eastward, planning to die somewhere near his home. On his way back, he meets a little girl who has just lost her mother. He adopts the girl as his granddaughter and they carry on their journey.

my-best-enemy

http://www.themovingarts.com/my-best-enemy-one-of-the-berlinales-best-films/
Wolfgang Murnburger’s latest film tells the story of two lifelong friends, Rudi and Victor: when World War II breaks out, Rudi joins the Nazis and betrays Victor, who is Jewish. This is all I knew going into My Best Enemy (Mein bester Feind, 2010): if you, too, would like to enjoy a tense, original, emotional and darkly humorous film, trust me when I tell you that My Best Enemy is excellent—don’t spoil the surprises this film has in store by reading more about it.




If you are still curious, unconvinced or just can’t wait to see this film, I’ll fill you in on a few details. Victor Kaufmann comes from a wealthy family of Viennese art dealers. His friend Rudi Smekal grew up alongside him, as Rudi’s mother worked as the Kaufmanns’ housekeeper for 25 years. When the film begins, it is the early 1930s and Rudi has just returned from Germany where he became familiar with Nazi politics. At this point, acting as a good friend he warns Victor’s father to start transferring the family’s valuables to Switzerland for safekeeping. However, he also starts to show his self-interest, warning Victor’s girlfriend Lena that it isn’t a good time to marry a Jew. Rudi makes it clear that he would like Lena for himself.



Victor, meanwhile, completely trusts Rudi, and lets him in on a secret: the Kaufmanns own a valuable Michelangelo sketch. Rudi has just joined the SS, and to gain prestige he shares the Kaufmanns’ secret, but asks that the family be allowed to emigrate to safety. Rudi’s request is ignored: the drawing is confiscated and the Kaufmanns are taken to a concentration camp…but not before Victor’s father commissions a few fake Michelangelos to thwart the Nazis. Later in the war, the Germans want to present the Michelangelo to Mussolini as a symbol of solidarity. When they find out that their sketch is a fake, it is Rudi who is charged with finding out where the original sketch is. Rudi is taking Victor to Berlin for interrogation when their plane is shot down by Partisans, and Victor saves Rudi’s life. Fearing that partisans will find and shoot him, Rudi agrees to share Victor’s concentration camp uniform. When Victor sees that it is not the Partisans but the Nazis coming to find them, he hastily puts on Rudi’s SS uniform and steals his identity.



What makes My Best Enemy so original among WWII films is that rather than restricting all Jewish characters to the role of victims, it offers Victor the chance to take control of his situation, and even the option of revenge. He begins the film as a cocky and fun-loving young man and retains his pride and humanity even when he is in a concentration camp: it is both fitting and gratifying when Victor seizes the opportunity to control his own fate, to save himself and his loved ones. Victor, in fact, is very much like his father: although Jakob Kaufmann does not have the same opportunity to take action after he is interned, before he is sent to the concentration camp he takes the audacious step of having copies made of the Michelangelo. Later, at the concentration camp, he not only sends a cleverly coded message to his son to tell him where the original drawing is hidden: he also becomes renowned as a source of comfort and support to his fellow prisoners.



Victor’s irrepressible ironic humour makes My Best Enemy an unexpectedly funny film, not just a chilling and thrilling one. The director points out that there is an element of farce in the Nazis’ inability to get a hold of the right drawing. This comedy of ineptitude is reminiscent of the British approach to WWII humour, which focuses on the enemy’s ridiculousness. It is also reminiscent of Jaroslav Hašek’s Švejk, which is actually quoted in My Best Enemy.



The film courts controversy on three fronts. First, for incorporating comedy when treating a subject as grave as World War II. The film is unlikely to face much criticism on this account, however, as Roberto Benigni already took a much lighter, if bittersweet, approach with Life is Beautiful (La vita è bella, 1997). My Best Enemy is also safer with its use of comedy than Life is Beautiful because humour is never used in the context of concentration camps, where the film spends very little time. My Best Enemy‘s humour is ironic, and directed against the Nazis

, so the film is unlikely to be accused of making light of the Holocaust.



Another possible point of criticism is that the film creates a fantasy situation for the entertainment of the audience. One counter to this criticism is that the scriptwriter, Paul Hengge, is Jewish and so is unlikely to have chosen this scenario for a WWII film without good reason. In his statement and interviews about the film, director Wolfgang Murnberger has also thought a great deal about the narrative: he felt reassured when he understood that some Jews don’t like that they are invariably portrayed as victims in WWII films. Even if the particular scenario that this film presents is fictional, it offers another way of communicating the bravery and determination that were necessary to survive.



There is additional interest in the fantasy scenario of the SS officer and the prisoner switching roles: it allows for more well-rounded and complex characters than in WWII films which create a black-and-white distinction between good victims and evil aggressors. When Victor dons the SS uniform, he experiences all the privileges and power that come with it, which provide a certain relief after the suffering and degradation of the concentration camp. He says that he can see why Rudi enjoyed it so much: it gave him the illusion of being a big-shot. In recent years there have been several WWII films that have moderated the traditional Manichean distinction by including unpleasant characteristics in some resistance fighters, and/or redeeming qualities in a few SS officers: Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book (2006) is one example. In an interview, Murnberger observed that if the film was going to be criticised, it would probably be because ‘the Nazis are depicted with too much humanity’. I think that he need not worry. For the most part, the Nazis in this film are as terrifying as usual: violent androids devoid of kindness and sympathy (at least towards those arbitrarily identified as their enemy, and often towards each other). It is only Rudi who has any redeeming characteristics, and still the audience will probably end up despising him: just because they can see why he acted the way he did, it doesn’t mean that they will excuse his behaviour. Ultimately, the film’s title is My Best Enemy, not My Best Friend, In Spite of Everything.

http://www.amazon.com/My-Best-Enemy-Moritz-Bleibtreu/dp/B00BCJR9D4/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1374303349&sr=1-1&keywords=my+best+enemy
Editorial Reviews


Victor (Moritz Bleibtrau, Run Lola Run, Munich), the son of wealthy Jewish art dealers, and Rudi, the son of their servant, are best friends despite their class differences and the fact that they both love the same girl, Lena (Ursula Strauss, Revanche). But World War II upends everything, turning Rudi into a Nazi and Victor into a helpless pawn. Helpless, that is, until a priceless drawing by Michelangelo becomes crucial to Nazi plans and only Victor s family knows where it is. The ensuing game of cat and mouse between the two old friends results in plane crashes, stolen identities and solving the biggest mystery of all: the key to Lena s heart. Combining the dangers of World War II with the twists and turns of Ocean s Eleven, MY BEST ENEMY is an entertaining tale of turmoil and triumph.

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4c2BvtRWAL4#at=28
Published on Mar 27, 2012




Daron Acemoglu of MIT discusses his book, "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty." "Why Nations Fail" answers the question that has stumped the experts for centuries: Why are some nations rich and others poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, food and famine? http://forum-network.org




failed states related to extractive institutions, infighting, spills into civil war

gradual transition 19th c England
revolutionary transition -reigns of terror
 bolshevik revolution  and that of rance =extreme transitions
role of level playing fields and equality  of access