Political Crossfire Forums

JimT · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 37

Perhaps you know Tzafun bracha, when the following blessing is said: "Lesjem jichoed Kodsha Barich hu we shinteyh al yadei Hahu tamir we neelam basjem kol Yisrael."

Btw: Yes, I'm a Christian and I believe that "tamir we neelam" refers to Jesus. But if you disagree, then who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah? An angel?

Tim J

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Why Jesus?

JimT · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 37

Duchifas wrote: Why Jesus?

Shalom Duchifas,
Because there is a third powerful and hidden (Tamir we Neelam) "person" in this blessing who unites G-d (Kadosh Baruch Hu) and His Shekhinah (we schinteyh).

"Mitzwat Akhilat ha Afikoman.
Lesjem jichoed Kodsha Barich hu we schinteyh
Al yadei Ha HU Tamir we Neelam
basjem kol yisrael"

Btw: and why is that particular part sometimes removed from the Haggadah? :!?:

Two questions:
1) Do you have a better explanation? What is the meaning of the Tzafun bracha? -> Afikomen
2) Is this bracha still in your Haggadah?

Jim

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

I don't quite see why I need a better explanation. You make an affirmative proposition as to why it is Jesus, and I am supposed to accept it for lack of better answer.

I don't get that approach. If you make an assertion, it seems to me that you should back it up.

For example, if I take that little verse and say that it refers to a pink unicorn...and they I say...well, do you have a better answer? What would you respond?

You'd say why a unicorn, and why a pink one?

As to the questions:

I haven't checked the Haggadah, but this verse is present in other contexts too. Or one very similar to it. And before dealing with tamir neelam, the more basic question is why is there a separation between HKB and His schehina in the first place? Is such a separation consistent with the idea ONE G-d? That is the primary point of this verse, and the tamir neelam is only secondary. Meaning, without the answer to the question I posed, there is no answer to your question. :)

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3395 Location: Haifa

This has been a strange week. First John is agreeing with me on something, next Duchifas is using the IPU analogy.

You alright Duchifas? Survived the fasting well? :)

I know, I know, off-topic.

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Secondary Oak wrote: This has been a strange week. First John is agreeing with me on something, next Duchifas is using the IPU analogy.

I knew you'd like it. :)

Quote: You alright Duchifas? Survived the fasting well? :)

Yeah, thank G-d. You?

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3395 Location: Haifa

Duchifas wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: This has been a strange week. First John is agreeing with me on something, next Duchifas is using the IPU analogy.

I knew you'd like it. :)

Quote: You alright Duchifas? Survived the fasting well? :)

Yeah, thank G-d. You?
Yep, hardly noticed it till the very last hours. Managed to complete "The Selfish Gene" again. Pretty ironic when you think about it :wink:

I really, really like taking a stroll outside in Yom-Kippur... the average is like 1 car per hour, and that's on the main roads. A really fun experience... of course, you still have to watch out for the kids on bicycles, but late at night the streets really become ultra-quiet.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

Quote: the more basic question is why is there a separation between HKB and His schehina in the first place?

Doesn't the Old Testament make reference to the LORD God and the Holy One of Israel in the same sentence on many times?

Why is there a difference implied between the LORD God and the Holy One?

Here are a few examples.

Psalm 16:10
For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.

Isaiah 31:1
Woe to those who go down to Egypt for helpAnd rely on horses,And trust in chariots because they are manyAnd in horsemen because they are very strong,But they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD!

Isaiah 55
1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters;
And you who have no money come, buy and eat
Come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without cost.
2 "Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And delight yourself in abundance.
3 "Incline your ear and come to Me
Listen, that you may live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
According to the faithful mercies shown to David.
4"Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
A leader and commander for the peoples.
5"Behold, you will call a nation you do not know,
And a nation which knows you not will run to you,
Because of the LORD your God, even the Holy One of Israel;
For He has glorified you."

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Quote: Why is there a difference implied between the LORD God and the Holy One?

Different names signify different aspects/attributes of G-d. Not different identities.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

Duchifas wrote: Quote: Why is there a difference implied between the LORD God and the Holy One?

Different names signify different aspects/attributes of G-d. Not different identities.

Well you know that I believe in One God.

But the text is interesting because it has the LORD referring to the Holy One and calling Him "He" instead of "Me".

Yet there are other sections of the OT that clearly have the LORD God claiming to BE the Holy One.

JimT · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 37

Duchifas wrote: ...and I am supposed to accept it for lack of better answer.

So, you agree there is no better answer? I thought you'd say tamir neelam is G-d Himself. However, that’s no option, because "it" clearly refers to an external second (or third) "person".

Quote: I don't get that approach. If you make an assertion, it seems to me that you should back it up.

Because tamir neelam - the powerful and hidden one - has all characteristics of Jesus.

Quote: For example, if I take that little verse and say that it refers to a pink unicorn...and they I say...well, do you have a better answer? What would you respond?

You'd say why a unicorn, and why a pink one?
No, why should my response on a question depend on your answer? I have my own answer. I'm just curious to your answer. But o.k., I "cancel" my assertion and ask the same question:

“who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah? An angel?”

Quote: As to the questions:

I haven't checked the Haggadah, but this verse is present in other contexts too. Or one very similar to it. And before dealing with tamir neelam, the more basic question is why is there a separation between HKB and His schehina in the first place? Is such a separation consistent with the idea ONE G-d? That is the primary point of this verse, and the tamir neelam is only secondary. Meaning, without the answer to the question I posed, there is no answer to your question. :)

As to your question: "why is there a separation between HKB and His schehina in the first place?", I'd say: there is no real seperation. But that is also the answer Christianity would give you if you ask: "why is there a separation between G-d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the first place?"

The verse probably isn't in your Haggadah anymore, and I wonder why not. Maybe there is something to hide?

Peace!

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

JimT wrote: Duchifas wrote: ...and I am supposed to accept it for lack of better answer.

So, you agree there is no better answer? I thought you'd say tamir neelam is G-d Himself. However, that’s no option, because "it" clearly refers to an external second (or third) "person".

I don’t agree with anything you say, I am merely expressing my incredulity at your ridiculous line of reasoning.

Quote: Quote: I don't get that approach. If you make an assertion, it seems to me that you should back it up.

Because tamir neelam - the powerful and hidden one - has all characteristics of Jesus.

Aha. All of them? So Jesus has no more characteristics? That’s interesting. I will keep that in mind.

Quote:
Quote: For example, if I take that little verse and say that it refers to a pink unicorn...and they I say...well, do you have a better answer? What would you respond?

You'd say why a unicorn, and why a pink one?
No, why should my response on a question depend on your answer? I have my own answer. I'm just curious to your answer. But o.k., I "cancel" my assertion and ask the same question:

“who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah? An angel?”

Quote: As to the questions:

I haven't checked the Haggadah, but this verse is present in other contexts too. Or one very similar to it. And before dealing with tamir neelam, the more basic question is why is there a separation between HKB and His schehina in the first place? Is such a separation consistent with the idea ONE G-d? That is the primary point of this verse, and the tamir neelam is only secondary. Meaning, without the answer to the question I posed, there is no answer to your question. :)

As to your question: "why is there a separation between HKB and His schehina in the first place?", I'd say: there is no real seperation. But that is also the answer Christianity would give you if you ask: "why is there a separation between G-d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the first place?"

That is the most nonsensical answer I have heard. You cite to me a verse stating that there is a separation, and when I ask you what you think that separation means, you tell me that there is no real separation. Doh.

Is that how you usually think about things, just ignore the parts you don’t like? Sure, if you want an answer using YOUR approach I can give you one:

There is no real tamir ve’neelam.

That’s a satisfactory answer for you, right? After all, your approach is to just ignore something if you don’t understand it. So why not ignore tamir ve’neelam? If the verse talks about a separation, and you quickly waive that part off by saying there is no real separation…ok, so waive off the rest of the verse then. There is no real tamir ve’neelam.

It just amazes me how some people can narrow their minds to the degree that they see only one word in the sentence while ignoring the rest of the sentence and the context. You do it here, just as you do it with Isaiah 7:14, which you parade around as proof of Jesus being something or other.

Quote:
The verse probably isn't in your Haggadah anymore, and I wonder why not. Maybe there is something to hide?

Peace!

First of all, I don’t appreciate the not-too-subtle implication that Jews are hiding something. I am not an idiot, and please don’t take me for one. Just because you phrase something as a question, doesn’t mean that I will miss the very clear and very clearly nasty implication.

You demonstrated above that you have zero understanding of this verse by explaining half of it with utter nonsense. In that position, one should hopefully not be too quick to offer negative implications, as you did. I am sure you understand what I mean.

Second of all, I don’t quite understand your fixation on the Haggadah, and particularly the Tzafun. That is not the only place the verse is found. For example, it is also found in the Siddur (daily prayer book). Unlike the Haggadah, which is read only once on Passover, the Siddur is used by Jews every day, throughout the year. So if someone were to hide something, surely the Siddur would be the last place this verse will be found.

For your viewing pleasure, I have found a Siddur online.

http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/siddur_kol_yakov.pdf

If you scroll down to page 96 of the pdf file, you will find your beloved verse…smack in the middle of DAILY morning prayers. It is in the second paragraph from the top, the one set out in regular Hebrew print. If you don’t know Hebrew, you can whip out a Hebrew dictionary and go letter by letter to confirm for yourself.

This version prayer book was published in 1859, a time at which I am sure you will agree there wasn’t much point in hiding anything. Traditional Jewish theology, and its understanding of Christianity has not changed an iota since then. So if someone wanted to hide something, one would not put it in the prayer book. And surely, one would not put it in the daily prayers said by Jews EVERY morning. If that’s what you call hiding, well, then Jews are quite horrible at it.

So, in summary, if you were looking for someone hiding something from you, you are barking up the wrong tree.

However, if you are interested in barking up the right tree, you can open up the NASB to Psalms 110:1. Then you can open up the original version of the Psalms in Hebrew. Then you can get yourself a Hebrew dictionary, and figure out what the translators at NASB hide from you. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Hebrew would figure it out in less than a minute. I assume, that with your level of interest in the subject, you DO know elementary Hebrew, right?

Lastly, for 64 million dollar question, perhaps you can tell us where your beloved verse originated from. Hint: even Ester and Britney might know the answer to this one.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

Quote: However, if you are interested in barking up the right tree, you can open up the NASB to Psalms 110:1. Then you can open up the original version of the Psalms in Hebrew. Then you can get yourself a Hebrew dictionary, and figure out what the translators at NASB hide from you. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Hebrew would figure it out in less than a minute. I assume, that with your level of interest in the subject, you DO know elementary Hebrew, right?

Duchifas thinks that the "L" capital L in Lord is a bad translation. BUt if you think about it.....you'll be amazed in just how cool it really is. It's the right translation.

BTW...Duchifas, why change the subject. Just answer the question he asked. Who care if the Jews tried to hide something....the question about the particular use of wording is an interesting one.

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

John wrote: Quote: However, if you are interested in barking up the right tree, you can open up the NASB to Psalms 110:1. Then you can open up the original version of the Psalms in Hebrew. Then you can get yourself a Hebrew dictionary, and figure out what the translators at NASB hide from you. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Hebrew would figure it out in less than a minute. I assume, that with your level of interest in the subject, you DO know elementary Hebrew, right?

Duchifas thinks that the "L" capital L in Lord is a bad translation. BUt if you think about it.....you'll be amazed in just how cool it really is. It's the right translation.

Bad translation? Oh, my friend, that's an understatement of the millenium.

Quote: BTW...Duchifas, why change the subject. Just answer the question he asked. Who care if the Jews tried to hide something....the question about the particular use of wording is an interesting one.

First of all, I did not change the subject. His subject was the very clear implication that Jews are somehow hiding something (unlike Christians). He implied it in his first post, and then again in his last post. As you know, I don't like those kinds of tactics -- which go in the same bag as -- it's not that I can't convince you with my nonsensical arguments, it's that you are blinded by a veil stumbling in the dark.

Secondly, I did answer his question. He doesn't think that the separation is a separation, ok, so I don't think that tamir neelam is a tamir neelam. That answer should appeal perfectly to his logic.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

Quote: Secondly, I did answer his question. He doesn't think that the separation is a separation, ok, so I don't think that tamir neelam is a tamir neelam. That answer should appeal perfectly to his logic.

No you didn't answer the question. Who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

John wrote: Quote: Secondly, I did answer his question. He doesn't think that the separation is a separation, ok, so I don't think that tamir neelam is a tamir neelam. That answer should appeal perfectly to his logic.

No you didn't answer the question.

Well, if you need me to paste for you from above, here you go:

Quote: That is the most nonsensical answer I have heard. You cite to me a verse stating that there is a separation, and when I ask you what you think that separation means, you tell me that there is no real separation. Doh.

Is that how you usually think about things, just ignore the parts you don’t like? Sure, if you want an answer using YOUR approach I can give you one:

There is no real tamir ve’neelam.

That’s a satisfactory answer for you, right? After all, your approach is to just ignore something if you don’t understand it. So why not ignore tamir ve’neelam? If the verse talks about a separation, and you quickly waive that part off by saying there is no real separation…ok, so waive off the rest of the verse then. There is no real tamir ve’neelam.

Quote: Who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?

As I said above, there is no meaningful answer to that question unless one understands what the "separation" is. Or for that matter, what the difference is between HKBH and His Schinah.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Secondly, I did answer his question. He doesn't think that the separation is a separation, ok, so I don't think that tamir neelam is a tamir neelam. That answer should appeal perfectly to his logic.

No you didn't answer the question.

Well, if you need me to paste for you from above, here you go:

Quote: That is the most nonsensical answer I have heard. You cite to me a verse stating that there is a separation, and when I ask you what you think that separation means, you tell me that there is no real separation. Doh.

Is that how you usually think about things, just ignore the parts you don’t like? Sure, if you want an answer using YOUR approach I can give you one:

There is no real tamir ve’neelam.

That’s a satisfactory answer for you, right? After all, your approach is to just ignore something if you don’t understand it. So why not ignore tamir ve’neelam? If the verse talks about a separation, and you quickly waive that part off by saying there is no real separation…ok, so waive off the rest of the verse then. There is no real tamir ve’neelam.

Quote: Who is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?

As I said above, there is no meaningful answer to that question unless one understands what the "separation" is. Or for that matter, what the difference is between HKBH and His Schinah.

Well just say, "I don't know" then....

As for the "separation".... An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one. Hence separation yet unity of One.

You could even say that the present unites the past and the future.

Do you think it's possible that God invented things like "time" in order that we better understand Him?

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Quote: Well just say, "I don't know" then....

Why? I wanted to be as helpful as I could. So I tried to provide an answer that appeals to the Christian mindset. :)

Quote: As for the "separation".... An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one. Hence separation yet unity of One.

You could even say that the present unites the past and the future.

That merely analogizes the separation to something else, why time I have no clue. You neither attempt to answer what this separation is, nor why HKB and Shchinah are separated.

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

And of course, the 64 million dollar question.....

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

Quote: That merely analogizes the separation to something else, why time I have no clue. You neither attempt to answer what this separation is, nor why HKB and Shchinah are separated.

Maybe this "separation" is part of His very nature. Could the word “distinction” be a better description?

Kinda like your soul is "separate" or "distinct" from your body...yet it is still just ONE you.

Past is a distinction from future but there is no denying that they are part of the very nature of time. Time has to just be ONE thing, YET it can't exist without there being three distinctions. That's the very nature of Time.

Well maybe God's nature is similar to this analogy.

Adonai Echad. Look at it. Literally it says "Lords is One" and echad is the word for one used to describe a union. It's the same word used when Adam and Eve are said to come together to form one (echad) flesh.