The Urim and the Tummim
Maimonides rules[1] that the Urim and Thummim existed in the Second Holy Temple, however, the Holy Spirit of G-d did exist within them, and so they did not have the power to answer questions prophetically. He proves that they existed in the time of the Second Holy Temple because had they not existed, then the Kohen Gadol would have never been considered fully clothed because the Urim and Thumim are halachikly considered part of the eight holy vestments, which the High Priest must wear while performing the services in the Holy Temple[2]. Maimonides writes that the Urim and Thumim, although present in the Second Holy Temple, did not perform they intended function because in order for one to receive a message through the Urim and Tumim, one must posses the "holy spirit", Ruach HaKodesh[3], which no one possessed during that time period. The Ra'avad, Rabbi Avraham ben David (1125-1198), argued[4] with Maimonides on this point and felt that the Urim and Tummim were not essential components in the High Priest's holy garments. Therefore, according to the Raavad, it is possible that they did not exist in the times of the Second Holy Temple, because their absence does not disqualify the Kohen Gadol from performing the sacrificial services in the Holy Temple. The Raavad asked according to Maimonides who understood that the Urim and Tumim existed in the Second Holy Temple but they did not properly work because noone had Ruach HaKodesh, why does that Talmud list[5] both the Urim V'Tumim and Ruach HaKodesh in the five elements which existed in the First Holy Temple but were absent in the Second. According to Maimonides, both the absence of the Urim V'Tumim and Ruach HaKodesh produced the same effect because the Urim V'Tumim were not actually, they merely did not function because of the lack of Ruach HaKodesh, so why then does the Talmud list the two separately? Perhaps one can answer that Maimonides employed a variant text of this Talmudic passage, which is consistent with the Midrashic parallel to this Talmudic passage that did not list the Urim and Tumim as part of the five things, which existed in the First Temple but not in the Second Temple[6].
Rabbi Yoseph Karo (1488-1575) explains[7] the root of this dispute between the Rambam and Raavad. He explains that the Raavad understood that Urim VeThummim refer specifically to the parchment containing a special name of G-d, which was slipped into the folds of the Choshen breastplate. However, Maimonides understood that Urim VeThumim simply refers to the Choshen breastplate when used for divination. Therefore, Maimonides ruled that the Urim and Tummim were essential to the Kohanic garb, while the Raavad did not. Rabbi Shlomo Machlamah of Karlin explains[8] that according to Maimonides, the term "Urim and Tummim" does not necessarily refer to the actual breastplate, but rather to the stones, which are adorned upon the breastplate. This is evident from the fact that Rabbi Karo attempts to prove Maimonides' stance against the Raavad that the Urim and Tummim existed in the Second Holy Temple from the Talmud[9], which records a story detailing how the Sages attempted to procure the required gems for the breastplate from a gentile whose father was asleep. Had Rabbi Karo meant literally that the breastplate itself was called Urim and Tummim, then from there would have not have needed to offer proof to Maimonides' view that the Urim and Tummim existed in the Second Holy Temple. Rather he must have understood that Maimonides learned that Urim and Tummim refer specifically to the precious stones, which adorned the golden breastplate. In fact, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1907) wrote[10] that according to Maimonides the Urim and Tummim were the stones on the breastplate, while the Raavad understood like Rashi[11] that the Urim and Tummim refer to the parchment containing the secret name of HaShem.
Indeed, Rashi[12] understands like the Raavad that the Urim and Tummim were not essential components of the High Priest's dress. However, Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzburg of Metz (1700-1785) asked[13] on this passage in Rashi that if the Urim and Tummim were not essential, then why the concept of Urim and Tummim was not used by the Talmud as the practical difference in an otherwise only seemingly theoretical dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish[14]. From here, Rabbi Ginzburg offered a proof to the view of Maimonides, against the opinion of Rashi and the Raavad[15]. The view of Maimonides is also the view shared by the Tosafists[16] and Rashi's own grandson, the Rashbam[17]. According to Rabbi Yosef Karo, Maimonides holds that Urim and Tummim means the stones of the breastplate, while the Raavad understands that the Urim and Tummim refer to the parchment containing the holy name. However, why then does the Rashbam—who rules like Maimonides—explain like Rashi and the Raavad that the Urim and Tummim are the parchment with His name inscribed[18], instead of the jewels like Maimonides would explain and Maimonides' son, Rabbi Avraham ben Moshe (11850-1237), himself actually explained[19]? This difficulty remains yet unanswered.
Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer (1870-1953) explains[20] that even according to the understanding of the Raavad, it is possible that the Urim and Tummim did exist in the Second Holy Temple. He explains that perhaps the parchment with the Holy Name of G-d was indeed inserted into the Choshen even in the Second Holy Temple, but the Urim and Tummim produced no effect because Ruach HaKodesh did not exist during that time. Since the purpose of the Urim and Tummim was to be used as a means of communication with G-d, the lack of Ruach HaKodesh in the Second Holy Temple rendered the Urim and Tummim useless. This is because the raison d'etre of the Urim and Tummim are to "enlighten" people with G-d's messages[21]. The Raavad was merely pointing out that this loss of the Urim and Tummim's purpose does not render the High Priest disqualified from service in the Holy Temple because of a lack of clothing. This is because there is nothing wrong with the physical Urim and Tummim, rather the spiritual level of the nation was so degenerate that Ruach HaKodesh did not exist, which technically rendered the Urim and Tummim useless. However, since the Ruach HaKodesh could have theoretically returned at any given time during the Second Holy Temple, had the nation's spiritual condition improved, then the Urim and Tummim were not totally considered lost. Nonetheless, the Talmud considered them lost during the age of the Second Holy Temple because in practice the Urim and Tummim did not perform their function.
The Raavad asked according to Maimonides, why the Talmud lists the absence of the Urim and Tummim and the absence of Ruach HaKodesh in the Second Holy Temple as two separate facts, if the former is really an outcome of the latter. Rabbi Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik of Brisk (1886-1959) explained[22] the opinion of Maimonides: He explains that the Talmud says[23] that the Urim and Tummim ceased to function after the destruction of the First Holy Temple, while prophecy continued to exist until the deaths of Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi, a few years after the construction of the Second Holy Temple. Therefore, assuming that Ruach HaKodesh is the same as prophecy[24], one can conclude that the Urim and Tummim stopped working before the cessation of prophecy. Therefore, it could not have been a direct result of the stoppage of prophecy. According to this, Rabbi Soloveitchik reconciles a seeming difficulty in the wording of Maimonides. Maimonides wrote[25] that during the time of the Second Holy Temple, "the Urim and Tummim did not answer [questions] and they did not ask of the Urim and Tummim because there was no Ruach HaKodesh." Logically, one would have thought to place the fact that they did not ask of the Urim and Tummim before the fact that the Urim and Tummim did not answer any questions. However, Rabbi Soloveitchik explains that with the destruction of the First Holy Temple, the Urim and Tummim stopped working and even had someone asked it the Urim and Tummim a question, the Urim and Tummim would not have supplied an answer. Additionally, after the deaths of Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi, when prophecy ceased, not only would the Urim and Tummim not supply an answer if asked a question, but no one fitting to ask a question to the Urim and Tummim lived because one needs Ruach HaKodesh to communicate with the Urim and Tummim, and at that time prophecy already ceased. Consequently, the cessation of the Urim and Tummim took place in two steps, which explains Maimonides' phraseology.
In this explanation, the Brisker Rov assumes that even during the time of the Second Holy Temple prophecy still existed until the deaths of Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi. However, this assumption is not necessarily justified because Rashi[26] understood that from the second year of the Persian King Darius II—the year that the Second Holy Temple was built—prophecy stopped. Rabbi Yaakov Emden explains[27] that the source of this opinion of Rashi is a Talmudic passage[28], which states that Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi prophesied in the second year of the reign of King Darius the Second. However, Rabbi Emden asks that there is Scriptural verse that explicitly refers[29] to a vision shown to Zechariah in the fourth year of King Darius' reign, which implies that prophecy continued to exist even beyond the construction of the Second Holy Temple. Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel Weiser (1809-1876) explains[30] that in that one instance G-d spoke to a prophet even after the cessation of prophecy. This explanation has deep implication for the nature of prophecy in contemporary times, and implies that even after HaShem stopped prophecy, He might continue it. The simplest explanation, which the Brisker Rov probably understood in the opinion of Maimonides, is that explanation of Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter (1847-1905)[31] who understood that prophecy continued in the time of the Second Holy Temple until the deaths of all previous prophets (i.e. Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi). Thus, between the destruction of the First Holy Temple and the deaths of the trio of prophets, the Urim and Thomum stopped working, but Ruach HaKodesh maintained its existence.
Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) offers[32] a proof to the view of Maimonides based on an inference in a scriptural verse. The Torah describes "putting the Urim and Tummim into the Choshen"[33]. Rabbi Meir Simcha says that this implies that without the Urim and Tummim, the Choshen is viewed as incomplete, thus the Urim and Tummim must be a part of the Choshen and are necessary for the High Priest's garments. However, this is not necessarily a clear-cut confirmation of Maimonides' stance because Rabbi Yaakov Emden (1697-1776) infers[34] the exact opposite from that self-same verse. Rabbi Emden understood that since the verse still refers to the Choshen as the Choshen even if it does not contain the Urim and Tummim, the Urim and Tummim must not be essential components of the Choshen, as the Raavad explained. Nonetheless, Rabbi Meir Simcha offers another proof to the position espoused by Maimonides from the Targum who referred to the wearing of the Urim and Tummim, which implies that they are a segment of the Priestly apparel worn by the High Priest[35].
Rabbi Usher Weiss[36] explains the root of the dispute between Maimonides and the Raavad. Rabbi Yosef Ben Moshe Babad (1800-1874) writes[37] that there was no Holy Ark created for the Second Holy Temple, because King Josiah already hid the Tablets that Moses received on Mount Sinai, and therefore, there was no need for the Ark of Covenant, which is merely meant to house the Torah Scrolls and Luchos tablets. Rabbi Asher Weiss explains that Maimonides understood that the relationship between the Choshen and the Urim V'Thumim is analogous to the relationship between the Aron HaKodesh and the Luchos. Just as when there are no tablets, there is no Ark, and then if there is no Urim V'Tumim then there is no Choshen, for its purpose is to house the Urim V'Tumim. Since the Choshen was surely one of the essential eight garments of the Kohen Gadol, then Maimonides had to explain that the Urim V'Tumim existed during the period of the Second Holy Temple. However, the Raavad understood that although the Ark served as a mere receptacle for the tablets, the golden breastplate did not serve as a vessel for holding the Urim V'Thumim. This is because the Torah calls the Ark, "The Ark of the Covenant[38]" which implies that entire purpose of the Ark is to serve as a means of holding the covenant, which is physically represented by the tablets given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Nevertheless, the Torah never said concerning the breastplate that its entire purpose is to house the Urim V'Tumim, therefore, even without the Urim V'Tumim, the Choshen is still considered complete[39].
Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains[40] that the Torah does not use the word Tamid, "continuously", in regarding to the wearing of the Choshen, as it does in regard to the wearing of the other garments because the Urim V'Tumim, a portion of the Choshen, were not used/did not exist during the period of the Second Holy Temple. He also explains that the Torah says, "It should be on the heart of Aaron", but does not say that Aaron should carry the Choshen on his heart. Perhaps one can explain this anomaly according to the Rabbi Asher Weiss' explanation that the Choshen was analogous to the Holy Ark. Since the carriers of the Ark did not actually carry the Ark, but the Ark rather carried them[41], perhaps the same can be true of the Choshen, that is, the Kohen Gadol did not carry the Choshen, and rather the Choshen carried itself upon the heart of the Kohen Gadol. Rabbi Simcha Meir himself explained that the Choshen is analogous to the tablets: Until the letters of the tablets flew up, Moses miraculously was able to hold onto the heavy slab of sapphire, but once the letters flew up, the weight of the object was too massive and he dropped it[42]. The same is true concerning the Choshen; as long as the Choshen contained the Urim V'Tumim, the Choshen carried itself on the Kohen Gadol's chest, while after the Urim V'Tumim ceased to work or were gone, the High Priest had to actually wear the Choshen.
[1] Laws of the Beis HaBechirah 4:1 (The same is true according to Tosafos to Yoma 21b)
[2] See Maimonides, Laws of the Vessels of the Sanctuary 10:10
[3] Yoma 73b
[4] Hasagos HaRaacad to Laws of Bais HaBechira 4:1
[5] Yoma 21b
[6] See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Behaaloscha, End of §6
[7] Kesef Mishnah to Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1
[8] Markeves HaMishnah to Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1
[9] Kiddushin 41a
[10] Aruch HaShulchan HeUsid to Laws of Beis HaMikdash §8:15
[11] Exodus 28:30
[12] Yoma 5b
[13] Gevuras Ari to Yoma 5b
[14] Yoma 4b-5a
[15] See Chiddushei Maran HaGriz to Yoma 5b and Avi Ezri to Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1 who proposes an alternate understanding to Rashi's of that Talmudic passage. Their explanation follows Tosafos Rid to Yoma 5b and according to their explanation, the Talmud in Yoma 5b does not refer to the Urim and Tummim and thus one can say like the Raavad that the Urim and Tummim are essential to the services. However, Rashi explicitly does not follow this explanation, so it is difficult to reconcile Rashi's opinion according to the Raavad, especially if one follows the Shulchan Aruch HaUsid who understood that Rashi and Raavad follow the same opinion.
[16] Tosafos to Yoma 21b
[17] To Bava Basra 133b
[18] See Rashi and Nachmanides to Exodus 28:30. This explanation is also quoted by Rabbi Yom Tov ben Avraham Ashevilli (1250-1330); see Chiddushei HaRitva to Yoma 73b.
[19] See the "Commentary of Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam to the Torah" to Exodus 28:30
[20] Even HaEzel to Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1
[21] See Brachos 4a which says that the word Urim comes from the word Ohr, meaning light
[22] Chiddushei Maran HaRiz HaLevi to Laws of the Vessels of the Sanctuary 10:10
[23] Sotah 48b
[24] Which Maimonides himself says in his Guide to the Perplexed, Chapter 42. However, Rabbeinu Bachaya argues on this point (see Rabbeinu Bachya to Leviticus 8:8) and he feels that Ruach HaKodesh is a lower level of divine inspiration, but is not prophecy.
[25] Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1
[26] Yoma 21b
[27] Hagahos Ya'avetz to Yoma 21b
[28] Megillah 15a
[29] Zechariah 7:1
[30] Malbim, Gayah Chazayon, to Zechariah 7:1
[31] Sfas Emes to Yoma 21b
[32] Ohr Somayach to Laws of Beis HaBechirah 4:1
[33] Leviticus 8:8
[34] Hagahos Ya'avetz to Yoma 21b
[35] See Targum Yonason ben Uziel and Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy 33:8
[36] Minchas Usher/Minchas Asher to Bava Basra §60:8
[37] Minchas Chinuch, Commandment #95
[38] Exodus 30:7, see Rashi there
[39] Although Rabbi Asher Weiss questions whether this explanation can fit with Rashi to Exodus 28:30 who explained that the breastplate is referred to as the Choshen Mishpat because of the divination powers of the Urim V'Tumim, which can serve as a jury to rule judicial cases fairly.
[40] Meshech Chochmah to Exodus 28:30
[41] See Sotah 35a
[42] Pesachim 87b
31 comments:
URIM and the THUMMIM
I'm no biblical scholar, but if you check the ancient Hebrew alphabet at the time "Urim & Thummim" were in use, there is no letter "u" or letter "h".
So the question arises, where did the spelling originate in the words: Urim and Thummin? Now we do know that "im" in the Hebrew means plural or like us adding the letter "s" at the end of a word.
If you drop the "im" from each word, you are left with "Ur and Thum", or "Tum" depending on which spelling you choose. These would be the ROOT words, less the "im" which merely stand for the plural form of the root words.
If the history books are true, that the Hebrews were taken captive by the Babylonians, didn't Abraham live near the city of Ur, more comnonly referred to as: "Ur of the Chaldeans"?
We know that the Chaldeans used divination, magic, and sorcerers.
Is it possible that the High Priests were introduced to divination by the Chaldeans, and began to use it in their own religion? Maybe the UR in URIM stands for something that came out of the city of Ur. Or some form of divination that originated in the city of Ur.
I think somebody who specializes in the study of the ancient city of Ur might be able to research or trace the meaning of the root words Urim and Thummim. I wonder what Thumm or Tumm or Tum means? I am guessing it is a Chaldean word.
I recall reading that divination was outlawed by God (He commanded against using it). Therefore, if divination was absolutely forbidden by God, why would the High Priests be using a form of divination unless they had TOTALLY STRAYED from God's precepts and commands! If they had strayed, and taken up pagan religious practices, that would explain why God had to deal severely with all Isreal, and the High Priests of that time especially, by allowing the sacking of the Temple.
Divination is currently recognized as an occult power given from Satan or the dark side (spirit). The question remains: Why were the high priests using Divination, when they should have been consulting their prophets? Possibly because the prophets source (the Holy Spirit) had dried up due to Isreal's sin and lack of repentence.
I don't know, just a guess---but worth investigating.
In Hebrews 10, it tells us that the old law of Moses had only a shadow of the good things to come. In Hebrews 9 it says, That verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly santuary, in verse 7- 8 it says But into the second went the high priest alone once every year not without blood which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people. The Holy Ghost (or Urim and Thummin) this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing. Hebrews 10:15-16 Whereof the Holy Ghost (or Urim and Thummin) also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.
And now we are told in Ephesians 3:10-20 to put on the whole armor of God. Which are the new vestments. Stand therefore having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness. (Which replaced the breastplate of judgement that was under the old testament) And having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace (replacing the old preparation of feet), above all taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. (or the urim and the thummin which is the Holy Spirit.)
The urim and the thummin which have been debated as the light of truth and the breastplate of judgement was symbolic of that which was to come the Holy Spirit and the breastplate of Righteousness.
In a reading of the article listed on Sunday, June 24, 2007, as "The Urim and Thummim", at first I just thought wow what a great witness to a certain reality of life during the time of the second temple. My second thought became, but why do they not mention the ephod, or do they mean the ephod when talking abouot the breastplate. No that does not seem right. A point here being so many instances of somebody saying bring the ephod here in order to enquire. I do not see them saying bring the breast piece here. For example, 1 Samuel 23:9And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring hither the ephod". The reason David asks Abiathar to bring the ephod to him is so that he can enquire of the Lord. Now is he asking for the ephod because it holds the breastpiece which holds the Urim and thummim as per Exodus 39:21 "And they did bind the breastplate by his rings unto the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it might be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and that the breastplate might not be loosed from the ephod; as the LORD commanded Moses." ?
I believe you answered your own question. The apron (ephod) and the breastplate (choshen) are reckoned as one unit.
Dear "wise student", I hope you can work with me using the King James Version, I trust that you can and will, I thank you now for what ever your answer is. But before I ask let me first make mention it is written (1 Samuel 21:9), "And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me."
This is the only mention of the ephod during the conversation between David and Ahimelech at Nov, in the First Book of Samuel. In other words, during David's visit, David never asks Ahimelech to inquire for him , nor is there any mention of Ahimelech inquiring for David, and yet it is written Doeg, the Edomite says to Saul, "Then answered Doeg the Edomite, which was set over the servants of Saul, and said, I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nov, to Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub. 10And he enquired of the LORD for him, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine." (1 Samuel 22:9)
Why does Doeg the Edomite tell King Saul "he enquired of the Lord for him", when the text clearly only mentions Ahimelech gave him the shewbread, and the sword of Goliath, the Philistine"? In other words, Doeg accuses Ahimelech of doing three things, but the text only mentions two of the three things.
So, why does King Saul believe what Doeg says about Ahimelech, and does not believe Ahimelech, even after his own high priest says, (1 Samuel 22:15) "Did I then begin to enquire of God for him? be it far from me: let not the king impute any thing unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father: for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more." ?
Shalom,
Rich
Indeed Doeg had lied and according to Jewish tradition he was punished for this great lie which brought about the destruction of Nob. If I'm not mistaken, I think that King Saul was also punished for believing Doeg over the High Priest.
Thank you for taking the time to read my essays.
Dear "Wise Student",
I have made a few small "typo" corrections in the following text:
"Maimonides writes that the Urim and Thumim, although present in the Second Holy Temple, did not perform their intended function because in order for one to receive a message through the Urim and Thumim, one must possess the "holy spirit", Ruach HaKodesh[3], which no one possessed during that time period."
If you compare your blog to the above you will find where I have made a few "typo" corrections. Have a nice day.
Your friend,
Rich
Thank you for your correction. It has already been fixed on my personal copy.
Who is the first one anointed to be a Seer of the Urim and Thummim?
P.S. at this point I believe that it was Moses is the first Seer. I believe that Moses received his anointing at the burning bush, and when he balked at the idea of being the Seer and spokeman, a deal was made, and Aaron was brought into the anointing. Wherefore Moses was anointed Seer and his elder brother Aaron his spokesman. This is the way that was established in the wilderness prior to going into Egypt. This is the way coming out of Egypt, at Massah, at the test of hunger. But at Mt. Sinai, Aaron is anointed Seer and Moses his spokesman. And at the test of thirst, at the waters of Meribah, Moses does not sanctify the word of HaShem. Instead he rails at the people. His anger gets in the way which is probably why he balked at the idea of being spokesman at the burning bush. He was not simply slow of speech, he had a short fuse. And therefore both Moses and Aaron were replaced by Joshua and Eleazar respectively prior to going into the promised land.
In regard to the Urim and Tumim, I think that Aaron was the first seer. Although it is first mentioned by Elazar. Perhaps Moses was actually the first Seer because during the seven days of miluim, he served as the Kohen Gadol
By the way, who are you?
At this point I am simply no one of any importance. I am someone who is trying to understand the word of G-d. I am an old man who still needs to learn more.
For example, when you say: "Perhaps Moses was actually the first Seer because during the seven days of miluim, he served as the Kohen Gadol". Could you please amplify what is "the seven days of miluim"?
P.S., I am pretty much limited to the King James Translation of the Bible. And, one day while reading the first book of Samuel, I noticed Chapter 9, verse 9,in the KJV, says: "(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)" I thought wow that is quite a paranthetical comment. So I began to look in what you call the Torah, or the first five books in my Bible, to see if I could find whatever is there that has to do with "Seers".
One of the verses that jumped out at me, early on, is what I call Deuteronomy 33:8, "And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;"
The thought that came to mind is that originally this verse was a blessing prayed by Moses, one of two blessings having to do with the way of the Seer established in the wildernes. The other blessing being the one I found in Numbers 27:15-17,
"15And Moses spake unto the LORD, saying,
16Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,
17Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd. "
Notice both blessings relate to the way of the Seer. The first has to do with the anointing of the Seer, Deut. 33:8, and the second with the anointing on the Seer's spokesman or Prophet.
And so on. Let me stop here and wait for your response.
Who am I? I am a Christian.
Could it be that the wrong question is being asked. Perhaps the questions should be, how was it used and what were the results? When applying the stones in the decision process one should consider their value to discern G-d's will through the High Priest prior to the availability of the written word.
Could it be that the wrong question is being asked. Perhaps the questions should be, how was it used and what were the results? When applying the stones in the decision process one should consider their value to discern G-d's will through the High Priest prior to the availability of the written word.
How come you never responded to my post, and instead asked who am I and put the spotlight on me and then never responded to my comments regarding, inter alia, two blessing prayed by Moses - ?
I'm sorry for not responding. I didn't realize that you had a question. It was written with a "PS" and I didn't really understand what you were trying to ask. The seven days of miluim were the seven days before the inauguration of the tabernacle in the desert when Moses served as the Kohen Gadol and performed the ritual services as a way of starting off the services.
Here are some notes I took in a Bible study on Ezra. A bit wordy, but at the end there is a question for you:
Notes on The Book of Ezra Bible Study~
When reading your comment, beemanlee, i.e., "In Ezra, The Priests are starting pre-exile Temple practices before the dedication in order to authorize The Second Temple as an authentic restoration of Solomon's Temple, The First Temple.
Lee... http://www.ccel.org/node/5537/29946#comment-29946 -
Some thoughts come to mind, including the following notes to myself and lastly a question that asks when was the water ceremony made a part of Sukkot? First some thoughts: When Jesus attends the feast of Sukkot, "a harvest festival and a holiday in memory of the period of the "Wandering of The Jews" in "The Desert" with Moses" (per your note, beemanlee), he does so on the last day, as John 7 indicates, in verse 37,: "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
Apparantly, Jesus stood and cried, or shouted out the above saying, in response to a water ceremony in progress at the time. John Wesley tells us in his commentary upon verses 37-38:37 "On the last, the great day of the feast - On this day there was the greatest concourse of people, and they were then wont to fetch water from the fountain of Siloam, which the priests poured out on the great altar, singing one to an other, With joy shall ye draw water from the wells of salvation. On this day likewise they commemorated God's miraculously giving water out of the rock, and offered up solemn prayers for seasonable rains.
38 He that believeth - This answers to let him come to me. And whosoever doth come to him by faith, his inmost soul shall be filled with living water, with abundance of peace, joy, and love, which shall likewise flow from him to others. As the Scripture hath said - Not expressly in any one particular place. But here is a general reference to all those scriptures which speak of the effusion of the Spirit by the Messiah, under the similitude of pouring out water. Zec 14:8."
Interestingly enough, is the information that tells us that the priests would "... fetch water from the fountain of Siloam, which the priests poured out on the great altar, singing one to another, 'With joy shall ye draw water from the wells of salvation'." In other words, the priest have a water ceremony wherein they pour water from the fountain of Siloam into a golden urn which is taken to the great altar and poured out, and perhaps while pouring the water upon the great altar they sing a verse or verses from Isaiah 12:3,"Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation."(KJV).
And Isaiah 12 goes on to say, in verses 4-6, "4And in that day shall ye say, Praise the LORD, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted.
5Sing unto the LORD; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth.
6Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee." And so Jesus, caught up by the joyful singing during this water ceremony, cries out, shouts,"If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow a fountain of living water." (Note: KJV has "rivers of living water" but in a context of the water ceremony "a fountain of living water" would be consistent with an actual water ceremony that draws water from the fountain of Siloam.)
At any rate, I am wondering when or how this water ceremony came to be instituted as a key part of the festival of Sukkot "In the last, that great day of the feast"- ?
Please do not post comments discussing selections from the New Testament. My readers might find this offensive. If you want to discuss this via email you can email me to rchaimqoton@gmail.com
I think the Urim and Thummim is a device for essentially channeling the power of G-d into a beam of light in order to destroy, as in destroy the wall of Jericho, or "cut", as in cutting large stones for construction of buildings. I think the Urim is a crystal "spike" and the Thummim is a crystal "coil" of some sort that the Urim slides into before it is seated in the ephod. When the priest has consumed the "bread of the presence" (See ORMES), his body would be at a higher metabolic "spin rate" that would allow him to ground himself to the Ark and channel the high energy beam at a target...be that a stone to be cut or a wall to be knocked down.
The Ark of the Covenant, when you get past it's origins, is a magnificent capacitor of static electricity due to its gold composition; just jiggling it in the open atmosphere would create quite the energy field. The rules for Aaron were VERY specific regarding wearing the priestly garments, the ephod and no sandals due to the need to be grounded at all times when near it; hence the poor fellow who touched it when the ox stumbled and he got "lit up"!
It would have been present in the first Temple because the Ark was at the first Temple, but to my knowledge the Ark was NOT at the second Temple so there would be no need for it. Besides, wherever the Ark is, it would be best that the Urim and Thummim either be with it for its protection or no where near it for "our" protection. ;-)
Everything you wrote is simply speculation, you cite no sources. The walls of Jericho were miraculously destroyed through the power of the Shofar and the seven circuits around the city. It would be interesting if you could back up your theory with more sources and proofs...
Oh I so know what you mean, and I really wish I could. :-) It is ALL speculation, but the physics of the described Ark are what they are; gold is one of the best conductors of electricity and the sheer weight of what was described would be several thousand pounds...the lid was solid gold and three and a half inches thick and that is before you consider the weight of the Cherubim above. I study everything I can get my hands on from ancient stories, texts, novels, conspiracies, the Koran, The Bible everyday, two Old Testament and one New Testament readings...and I also picked up quantum physics as a silly little hobby. ;-)
As you can see, I am searching for Information in order to acquire Knowledge that with the grace of G-d will one day be considered Wisdom. :-)
I hear.
For me, that is my leap of faith. I keep my eyes and ears open and G-d has always provided for my protection...even when I don't deserve it. :-)
G-d is Love :-)
I would like to send you something I drew a few years back that symbolizes my journey thus far. You have my email, so please send me something and I will attach it. I would like to know what you think of the image. :-)
Warm Regards,
Brad
Since I am not allowed to cite new testament scripture, and I was not asked if it is o.k. to publish my name, the fair thing to do is to remove my name from your web page.
Vi, if you are concerned about "fair" then I don't think you really understand the new testament. Please don't let your pride stop you from seeking information from those with different perspectives and values. The only way we can truly learn from others is by listening to them tell their "truth" instead of telling them our own. :-)
There is only one place we can ever expect or demand fair treatment, and that is from ourselves.
Peace
IKW, if it's wisdom you seek, I believe you've found her. There is great wisdom in your last post. We need to listen more talk less and love always. Thank you for your comment.
Happy New Year, may be you find health and happiness and things like that!
I have been thinking about the question, who am I? My first answer indicates I am a Christian. And then someone indicated Vi, if you are concerned about "fair" then I don't think you really understand the new testament. Please don't let your pride stop you from seeking information from those with different perspectives and values.
I find this comment interesting in the sense that this is exactly why I began to get involved with this web site. It is because I seek information regarding the perspective that is in the Torah, and the Prophets, and things like that, that is why I am here striving to engage in a conversation on scripture, the word of the Father and His Family.
I remember at one point reading in the second book of the law, that is in Deuteronomy, Chapter 8, verse2, "And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no."
And so that is what I was doing here, I was asking about one of the ways the Hashem led the children of Israel out of Egypt. That is to suggest one of the ways is by the way of the Seer of Urim/Thummim. This is why I began correcting some of your English translation on the subject, and why I began writing to you asking questions. This is who I am, and I am sorry that we never went very deeply into the subject as I had hoped. At any rate, may the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord lift up His countenance upon and give you peace. Amen.
Post a Comment