Covenants & Blood: Making/signing an agreement/pact/treaty (b'rit)

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
ProfBenTziyyon	Covenants & Blood: Making/signing an agreement/pact/treaty (b'rit)	Lead	[-]
Posts: 302 (04/12/08 13:03:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Recently there has been a great deal of discussion in another thread of this particular forum about "covenants" with various christians erroneously claiming that "blood" is critical to the making of one, so I thought it was time to make a fresh thread where I could explain, once and for all, exactly what it is all about. Now, as is well-known, christians love to use obscure words, whose meanings are not properly understoood by most people, in order to obfuscate the issue and in order to mislead and deceive. The Hebrew word בְּרִית b'rit means an agreement or a pact or a treaty - and far from being rare, the latter usage occurs frequently in the T'nach... here are some examples of it in the text: וַיֹּאמְרוּ: רָאוֹ רָאִינוּ כִּי הָיָה יְיָ עִמָּךְ, וַנֹּאמֶר תְּהִי נָא אָלָה בֵּינוֹתֵינוּ - בֵּינֵינוּ וּבֵינֶךָ - וְנִכְרְתָה בְרִית עִמָּךְ׃ ...so they said: "Because we've seen for sure that Adonai was with you, we said, 'There should be an Oath between us - between us and you - so let's make a treaty with you....'." (B'reshit 26:28-29) וְעַתָּה, לְכָה נִכְרְתָה בְרִית - אֲנִי וָאָתָּה; וְהָיָה לְעֵד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ׃ "...so now, come on, let's make a treaty - I and you - and it will be a proof between me and you..." (B'reshit 31:44) וַייָ נָתַן חָכְמָה לִשְׁלֹמֹה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לוֹ, וַיְהִי שָׁלֹם בֵּין חִירָם וּבֵין שְׁלֹמֹה, וַיִּכְרְתוּ בְרִית שְׁנֵיהֶם׃ So Adonai gave wisdom to Shlomoh as He had promised him, and there was peace betweeen Hiram and Shlomoh because they had made a treaty between the two of them" (M'lachim Alef 5:26). בְּרִית בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ בֵּין אָבִי וּבֵין אָבִיךָ - הִנֵּה שָׁלַחְתִּי לְךָ שֹׁחַד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֵךְ הָפֵרָה אֶת בְּרִיתְךָ אֶת בַּעְשָׁא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיַעֲלֶה מֵעָלָי׃ "Look, there's a treaty between us and between my father and your father - I've even sent you a gift [literally 'a bribe'] of silver and gold, so go and repudiate your treaty with Ba'asha, the king of Yisrael, so he will go away and leave me alone!" (M'lachim Alef 15:19) Next point: in the Hebrew language, the verb that is used for "making" a b'rit is כרת, which literally means "to cut". In English you "make" or "sign" an agreement or a treaty - in Hebrew you "cut" one. But this doesn't mean that there HAS to be any actual "cutting" involved - in modern, colloquial English one can also "cut a deal" but it's just an expression; and it's the same in Hebrew. I am not saying that the symbolism of cutting or tearing an object in halves and each party keeping one half - a little like Little Orphan Annie's broken locket - to signify the agreement between them was never practised, but that was only ONE way that agreements were formally legalised. For example: וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל הַתְּמוּרָה... לְקַיֵּם כָּל דָּבָר: שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ - וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ Now this is how things used to be done in Yisrael regarding sales and exchanges, or to confirm anything - one person would take off his shoe and give it to the other, and this was how matters were confirmed in Yisrael (Rut 4:7) The exact procedure that used to be adopted is not clear from this verse and the Talmudic authorities had differing opinions as to whether it was the buyer or the seller who handed over his shoe - some maintained that it had to be the acquirer's object (so that Bo'az gave his shoe to the "redeemer"), but others said that the act of acquisition has to be performed with the seller's object (and so the "redeemer" gave his shoe to Bo'az). But either way, as the verse states, *anything* could be "confirmed" by this exchange of a shoe, no "blood" being required; and remember that Ya'akov and Lavan symbolically formalised their treaty by building a cairn of rocks and sharing a meal together on top it it--- וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְאֶחָיו "לִקְטוּ אֲבָנִים" וַיִּקְחוּ אֲבָנִים וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גָל וַיֹּאכְלוּ שָׁם עַל הַגָּל׃ וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ לָבָן "יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא" וְיַעֲקֹב קָרָא לוֹ "גַּלְעֵד"׃ ...then Ya'akov said to his kinsmen, "Fetch some rocks"; so they fetched some rocks and built a cairn... they ate a meal together on top of the cairn: Lavan said it was a y'gar sahaduta^[1] while Ya'akov called it a gal'éd^[2]. (B'reshit 31:46-47) 1. יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא y'gar sahaduta is an "evidence pile" in Aramaic. 2. גַּלְעֵד gal'éd is an "evidence pile" in Hebrew. Last Edited By: ProfBenTziyyon 04/30/08 08:38:56. Edited 9 times.
Sophiee1		#1	[-]
Posts: 10436 (04/15/08 17:18:05) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Are you lonely? Isn't it amazing that the most obvious and important posts are totally ignored while we rehash "70 weeks" in Daniel 9 for the umpteenth time? And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Genesis, 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#2	[-]
Posts: 352 (04/15/08 17:20:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	? http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
UriYosef		#3	[-]
Posts: 1319 (04/15/08 17:37:24) Director of Education Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mordochai - I think what Sophie means by her (rhetorical) question "Are you lonely?" is explained by her comments that follow the question. She is pointing out that your wonderful explanation of "covenants" and "agreements" has not been responded to by Christians who keep pounding away at topics that have been rehashed here ad nauseum. UriYosef Our raison d'être: WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!
Sophiee1		#4	[-]
Posts: 10438 (04/15/08 17:40:10) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Precisely. Thank you, Professor, for explaining my meaning to the Professor! And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Genesis, 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#5	[-]
Posts: 354 (04/15/08 17:49:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I didn't expect them to respond to it, Uri and Sophie - why try to defend the indefensible when you can ignore it so it will go away and you can continue regurgitating the same old same old? I don't know if you noticed, but this is why I kept bringing this thread to the top of the list! Anyway, christians hate discussing anything with me because they know I can - and DO - always back up everything I say with quotes that prove my points - something they can never do. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל Last Edited By: ProfBenTziyyon 04/16/08 13:16:03. Edited 1 times.
DW Duke		#6	[-]
Posts: 40 (04/23/08 05:48:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	ProfBenTziyyon wrote: Recently there has been a great deal of discussion in another thread of this particular forum about "covenants" with various christians erroneously claiming that "blood" is critical to the making of one, so I thought it was time to make a fresh thread where I could explain, once and for all, exactly what it is all about. Now, as is well-known, christians love to use obscure words, whose meanings are not properly understoood by most people, in order to obfuscate the issue and in order to mislead and deceive. The Hebrew word בְּרִית b'rit means an agreement or a pact or a treaty - and far from being rare, the latter usage occurs frequently in the T'nach... here are some examples of it in the text: וַיֹּאמְרוּ: רָאוֹ רָאִינוּ כִּי הָיָה יְיָ עִמָּךְ, וַנֹּאמֶר תְּהִי נָא אָלָה בֵּינוֹתֵינוּ - בֵּינֵינוּ וּבֵינֶךָ - וְנִכְרְתָה בְרִית עִמָּךְ׃ ...so they said: "Because we've seen for sure that Adonai was with you, we said, 'There should be an Oath between us - between us and you - so let's make a treaty with you....'." (B'reshit 26:28-29) וְעַתָּה, לְכָה נִכְרְתָה בְרִית - אֲנִי וָאָתָּה; וְהָיָה לְעֵד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ׃ "...so now, come on, let's make a treaty - I and you - and it will be a proof between me and you..." (B'reshit 31:44) וַייָ נָתַן חָכְמָה לִשְׁלֹמֹה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לוֹ, וַיְהִי שָׁלֹם בֵּין חִירָם וּבֵין שְׁלֹמֹה, וַיִּכְרְתוּ בְרִית שְׁנֵיהֶם׃ So Adonai gave wisdom to Shlomoh as He had promised him, and there was peace betweeen Hiram and Shlomoh because they had made a treaty between the two of them" (M'lachim Alef 5:26). בְּרִית בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ בֵּין אָבִי וּבֵין אָבִיךָ - הִנֵּה שָׁלַחְתִּי לְךָ שֹׁחַד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֵךְ הָפֵרָה אֶת בְּרִיתְךָ אֶת בַּעְשָׁא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיַעֲלֶה מֵעָלָי׃ "Look, there's a treaty between us and between my father and your father - I've even sent you a gift [literally 'a bribe'] of silver and gold, so go and repudiate your treaty with Ba'asha, the king of Yisrael, so he will go away and leave me alone!" (M'lachim Alef 15:19) Next point: in the Hebrew language, the verb that is used for "making" a b'rit is כרת, which literally means "to cut". In English you "make" or "sign" an agreement or a treaty - in Hebrew you "cut" one. But this doesn't mean that there HAS to be any actual "cutting" involved - in modern, colloquial English one can also "cut a deal" but it's just an expression; and it's the same in Hebrew. I am not saying that the symbolism of cutting or tearing an object in halves and each party keeping one half - a little like Little Orphan Annie's broken locket - to signify the agreement between them was never practised, but that was only ONE way that agreements were formally legalised. For example: וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל הַתְּמוּרָה... לְקַיֵּם כָּל דָּבָר: שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ - וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ Now this is how things used to be done in Yisrael regarding sales and exchanges, or to confirm anything - one person would take off his shoe and give it to the other, and this was how matters were confirmed in Yisrael (Rut 4:7) The exact procedure that used to be adopted is not clear from this verse and the Talmudic authorities had differing opinions as to whether it was the buyer or the seller who handed over his shoe - some maintained that it had to be the acquirer's object (so that Bo'az gave his shoe to the "redeemer"), but others said that the act of acquisition has to be performed with the seller's object (and so the "redeemer" gave his shoe to Bo'az). But either way, as the verse states, *anything* could be "confirmed" by this exchange of a shoe, no "blood" being required; and remember that Ya'akov and Lavan symbolically formalised their treaty by building a cairn of rocks and sharing a meal together on top it it--- וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְאֶחָיו "לִקְטוּ אֲבָנִים" וַיִּקְחוּ אֲבָנִים וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גָל וַיֹּאכְלוּ שָׁם עַל הַגָּל׃ וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ לָבָן "יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא" וְיַעֲקֹב קָרָא לוֹ "גַּלְעֵד"׃ ...then Ya'akov said to his kinsmen, "Fetch some rocks"; so they fetched some rocks and built a cairn... they ate a meal together on top of the cairn: Lavan said it was a y'gar sahaduta^[1] while Ya'akov called it a gal'éd^[2]. (B'reshit 31:46-47) 1. יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא y'gar sahaduta is an "evidence pile" in Aramaic. 2. גַּלְעֵד gal'éd is an "evidence pile" in Hebrew. Excellent discussion. So often covenants and treaties are repudiated in the modern world often by inserting interpretations unrelated to the original promise. It seems to be a common practice today to try to violate a promise by asserting an interpretation that alters its meaning.
Douggg		#7	[-]
Posts: 2524 (04/23/08 08:19:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mordochai, no one is responding because what's to respond to? What are you trying to prove... a simple explanation please?
Douggg		#8	[-]
Posts: 2525 (04/23/08 08:29:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mordochai, Anyway, christians hate discussing anything with me because they know I can - and DO - always back up everything I say with quotes that prove my points - something they can never do. could be....or it could be that we can't post freely at this particular site like you can. Last Edited By: Douggg 04/23/08 08:37:49. Edited 1 times.
Sophiee1		#9	[-]
Posts: 10476 (04/23/08 08:31:22) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The only posts that are edited or removed are those that violate the forum rules. And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Genesis, 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#10	[-]
Posts: 435 (04/23/08 08:36:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Douggg wrote: could be....or it could be that we can't post freely at this particular like you can. You would also be able to post freely if you stop repeating the same old interpretations that have been proven to be untrue. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל Last Edited By: UriYosef 04/28/08 09:52:54. Edited 2 times.
ProfBenTziyyon		#11	[-]
Posts: 436 (04/23/08 08:46:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	DW Duke wrote: Excellent discussion. So often covenants and treaties are repudiated in the modern world often by inserting interpretations unrelated to the original promise. It seems to be a common practice today to try to violate a promise by asserting an interpretation that alters its meaning. Maybe so, but I was talking specifically about how contracts, agreements, treaties etc were actually formalised - how they were MADE - in ancient Yisrael and I showed that, contrary to the the false claims made by christians like Doug, blood was not a required "ingredient" for the signing of ANY contract. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
DW Duke		#12	[-]
Posts: 2000 (04/24/08 09:58:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	ProfBenTziyyon wrote: DW Duke wrote: Excellent discussion. So often covenants and treaties are repudiated in the modern world often by inserting interpretations unrelated to the original promise. It seems to be a common practice today to try to violate a promise by asserting an interpretation that alters its meaning. Maybe so, but I was talking specifically about how contracts, agreements, treaties etc were actually formalised - how they were MADE - in ancient Yisrael and I showed that, contrary to the the false claims made by christians like Doug, blood was not a required "ingredient" for the signing of ANY contract. Yes, I know and you are correct that there was never a blood letting requirement for a covenant in ancient Ysrael. There are many examples of covenants between Israelites in the Torah and Tanach none of which involved blood letting. In fact, if I am not mistaken blood letting as part of an agreement was first invented in the ancient mystery religions and found its hay day among 12th century pirates.
avivai		#13	[-]
Posts: 44 (04/24/08 11:37:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	could you make your case even stronger by showing where in tanach there were covenants (בריתות) made dafka between Hashem and jewish individuals or the jewish nation where blood was not part of the 'deal'?
DW Duke		#14	[-]
Posts: 2002 (04/24/08 12:29:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	avivai wrote: could you make your case even stronger by showing where in tanach there were covenants (בריתות) made dafka between Hashem and jewish individuals or the jewish nation where blood was not part of the 'deal'? How about this one. And David said to Solomon, "Then He called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build a house for HaShem, the G-d of Israel. And David said to Solomon: 'My son, as for me, it was in my heart to build a house unto the name of HaShem my G-d. But the word of HaShem came to me, saying: Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build a house unto My name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight. Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name; and he shall be to Me for a son, and I will be to him for a father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.' " (1 Chronicles 22:6-10).
tyolilums		#15	[-]
Posts: 135 (04/24/08 12:52:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I think it's clear blood isn't always used. God's covenant with Noah and the animals is one that didn't involve blood. God apparently required it in Gen 15:10 where He required Abram to cut all those animals in half. Maybe someone could explain why it would be used in one instance and not in another. To You , O LORD, I lift up my soul; in You I trust. Psalm 25:1
Sophiee1		#16	[-]
Posts: 10488 (04/24/08 13:41:13) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	R' Aryeh Kaplan wrote that the words b'rith (covenant) and bathar (split) appear to be closely related (cf. Radak, Sherashim, s.v. Barath). It symbolized that just as the two halves of the animal were really one, so were the two people making the covenant. Moreover, just as one side cannot live without the other, so the two cannot live without each other (Ralbag; Ikkarim 4:45). It was also seen as a malediction; anyone violating the oath would be torn asunder like the animals (Bachya). You notice that blood isn't mentioned in Genesis 15:10 and indeed the blood isn't sprinkled or used as in sacrifices. It is the act of cutting in half that was the important action. Notice that "he birds, however, he did not split." And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Genesis, 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#17	[-]
Posts: 444 (04/24/08 13:44:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	avivai wrote: could you make your case even stronger by showing where in tanach there were covenants (בריתות) made dafka between Hashem and jewish individuals or the jewish nation where blood was not part of the 'deal'? That's exactly what I did show in the opening post of this thread; בְּרִיתוֹת (b'ritot) between Jews (either individually or collectively) and God are no different to those between one Jew and another - the same rules apply to both. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Sophiee1		#18	[-]
Posts: 10504 (04/28/08 09:54:27) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mordochai, FYI I modified the title slightly so that new readers and lurkers will realize it is about covenants and blood's relationship to covenants. Lots of lurkers scan titles to decide which threads to read. If you disagree with my change feel free to change it back. And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Genesis, 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#19	[-]
Posts: 479 (04/28/08 15:35:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I don't think the precise wording of the thread-title really matters, Sophie. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Arikm7		#20	[-]
Posts: 631 (04/28/08 18:51:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Professor BenTziyyon: Again, another excellent, excellent post! It goes straight to the heart of what covenants really are and what was involved. It's like a rocket missile that blows to pieces xianity's premise and contention of how any covenant in the Tanakh was made in light of THEIR (the xians') blood obsession. Very detailed and yet very concise. Good Post!