1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Still Looking for that Word

Shapira speaks here on Isaiah 9:5 (6).

http://youtu.be/NxhUwZkA0CM

Here is what I have posted on the subject:

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/fifth-response-to-dalton-lifsey-isaiah-956-67/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/thomas-on-isaiah-95-6/

Make your own judgment.

You may find the following facts useful:

1)      Shapira himself (yes, the one with “encyclopedic knowledge”) complains in his book that the Targum does not see this passage as a Messianic prophecy (page 145).

2)      Contrary to Shapira’s assertion, the Talmud twice explains this passage in reference to King Hezekiah (Shabbat 55, Sanhedrin 94).

3)      Contrary to Shapira’s assertion, the Vilna Gaon explicitly says that this passage is talking about Hezekiah. Shapira creates one of his “connections” and he arrives at the conclusion that the Vilna Gaon understood that the passage is speaking of the Messiah. But the Vilna Gaon himself did not arrive at the same conclusion. This should tell you just how reliable Shapira’s “connections” are.

4)      The commentators who explain that the prophecies could potentially have been fulfilled by Hezekiah but ultimately will be fulfilled in Messiah obviously did not see a divine Messiah in this passage. No one, not even Shapira, believes that Hezekiah could “potentially” have been divine.

5)      Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Mahari Kara, Metzudat David and Malbim (all of the standard commentaries printed in the typical Jewish study Bible) explain this verse in reference to King Hezekiah.

So why am I still looking for the word? You see, I pointed out to Shapira (in “The School of Matthew”) that the phrase “Almaya Meshicha” is meaningless. The word “Almaya” is the last word in one phrase while the word “Meshicha” is the first word in the next phrase. Shapira simply missed a critical comma in the text. Yet in this video he goes ahead and proudly makes the same ridiculous mistake again.

Shapira had to outdo himself. He quotes from the tractate “Masechet Zuta” (approx. at the 16:30 mark). There is no such tractate. There is a tractate with a similar name which is probably what confused Shapira here. But there is one thing that Shapira keeps confirming time and again. And that is that he is completely unfamiliar with the basics of rabbinic literature.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/searching-for-a-word/

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Searching for a Word

So Shapira continues with a valiant defense of his book “The Return of the Kosher Pig.” In videos numbers 4 and 5 Shapira takes issue with three points that I raised in my article “Response to Line of Fire #14.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_dkrOLwxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at14uT36OuY

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/response-to-line-of-fire-14/

The first point that Shapira raises is that I accused him of inserting the word “Messiah” into his translation of the Zohar when in actuality it is the word “water” that appears in that text. Shapira defends himself from this charge by stating that in his book he did not commit this crime. But in his radio interview with Dr. Brown he did. You can listen to it right here, you will hear it at the 57 minute mark.

http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/07/25/an-interview-with-messianic-jewish-rabbi-itzhak-shapira-on-his-new-book-the-return-of-the-kosher-pig/

The second argument that Shapira raises against my article relates to his interpretation of the word water in the Zohar. In his book (page 64) Shapira makes the claim that “Water represents the Messiah in Judaism.” I stated that this is false and I stand by that statement. I also stated that Shapira provided no references for his ridiculous assertion and I stand by that statement as well.

Shapira claims that he has provided no less than eight references to support his claim that water is a code word for Messiah in Jewish thought. On the page that he makes this claim (that water = Messiah) he did not bother to provide one reference. Further on in his book he creates some imaginary associations between water and the Messiah and he calls those “references” hence, according to Shapira, my accusation is “false.”

Let me explain what I mean by a “reference.” The rabbis say “water is a reference to Torah” (Bava Kama 17a). The rabbis say that “good is a reference to a righteous person” (Yoma 38b). The rabbis made no such association between water and the Messiah. Shapira’s assertion that “water represents the Messiah in Judaism” has no basis outside of Shapira’s imagination.

The third argument that Shapira brings in his defense is that one of my accusations against him is not relevant to the core of the issue. Without getting into a discussion if he is right or wrong about this particular accusation of mine (and I am more than satisfied to let the audience decide) his argument is empty. If my entire argument would consist of this one accusation (that he used the word “spirit” where he should have used “wind”) then we could have a discussion. But I wrote a comprehensive article demonstrating the emptiness of his entire position. Why does Shapira not tell his audience where they could read the entirety of my article? Is Shapira frightened that the audience might see the truth?

At this point I would like to pause and take stock. What are we discussing? What is this debate all about?

I think that both Jews and Christians can agree that we are dealing with a very serious matter. According to Judaism, devotion to Jesus is the deepest violation of a real relationship with God, while according to Christianity it is rejection of Jesus that carries terrible eternal consequences. This is no laughing matter.

Enter Itzhak Shapira. He is acclaimed by the scholars of Christendom to be a “Jewish insider” with “encyclopedic knowledge” and he is respected as such by crowds of well-meaning people.

But is Itzhak Shapira truly qualified to teach and to guide people in such serious matters?

I have demonstrated that Shapira has difficulty translating a simple verse in Scripture. In his defense he made a video presentation in which he goes ahead and mistranslates two other verses in Scripture. (Read about it here:  https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/as-the-sun-spreads-its-wings-2/ .)

So that would make Shapira an ignoramus. But “ignoramus” is not the right word for Shapira. An ignoramus is someone who lacks knowledge. Shapira is much worse than that.

I could not find a word in the English language for someone who earnestly believes that Maimonides, Nachmanides and Abarbenel believed in a divine Messiah. That is like earnestly believing that Winston Churchill was an admirer of Hitler and that Thomas Jefferson believed that democracy is a bad thing. The word “ignoramus” does not begin to describe such a person.

What word do you use to describe a person who brazenly insists that a given Hebrew word must be referring to a singular entity despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, and then this same person goes and translates the same Hebrew word as a reference to a plural entity several times in the same book. Is there a word to describe such a person?

If there is such a word, I haven’t found it. But that is Itzhak Shapira for you.

If you want to entrust your spiritual welfare in the hands of such a person that is your prerogative. But do not say that you were not warned.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Following the Majority – A Response to Itzhak Shapira

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYAEGJ_jx4

Itzhak Shapira posted a video response to Rabbi Eli Cohen’s accusation against his book. Rabbi Cohen pointed out that Shapira’s attitude toward Israel’s respected teachers is contradictory. On the one hand Shapira praises the rabbis while on the other hand he accuses them of conscious intellectual dishonesty.

Shapira responds to Rabbi Cohen’s argument by using a “straw man.” Shapira pretends that Rabbi Cohen doesn’t understand that you can love someone and disagree with them at the same time as if that is all that Shapira has done.

Shapira doesn’t “disagree” with the rabbis. He ridicules them and he charges them with consciously misleading those who read their words.

Shapira can be compared to someone who claims to love another person but is convinced that the object of his love is a convicted criminal when in fact he is not. Not only is he convinced that the object of his love is a criminal but he broadcasts his accusations to the general public. What kind of love and respect is that?

In his short presentation Shapira presents his belief in a divine Messiah as a valid opinion within the stream of Jewish thought. According to Shapira, it is only the rule that we are to follow the majority that has Judaism rejecting the belief in a divine Messiah. Shapira would have his audience believe that the belief in a divine Messiah is a legitimate minority opinion within Judaism.

This is completely false. The entire concept of following the majority only applies within the framework of a legitimate disagreement that may occur within the parameters of a discussion about the Law.

The belief in a divine Messiah (or of any divine entity aside from the One Creator of the world who is above and beyond all finite existence) is a rejection of the very heart of our covenant with God. No teacher in Israel ever proposed such a belief and anyone who does propose such a belief has effectively cut him or herself off from the covenant community that is loyal to the God of Israel.

Yes, there are those who would love to redefine the God of Israel. But these people cannot consider themselves part of Israel’s covenant with God. Our covenant with God is predicated on the fact that we were appointed as witnesses to the world that no part of finite existence is worthy of worship. And that every facet of finite existence owes all of its devotion to the One Creator of all.

The idolatry that Shapira is promoting stands in direct opposition to everything that Judaism stands for.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/response-to-line-of-fire-15/

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

As the Sun Spreads its Wings

Itzhak Shapira claims that I falsely slander him in my  review of his book. Let me step back and allow you to judge if I indeed  slandered him. All of the information is on the table for everyone to see. You  can read my reviews of his work here https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/the-school-of-matthew/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/spiritual-responsibility/

and you can view his defense here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP5NiPhK90I

You can  read the comments of Shapira together with those of his “expert” witness,  Yehezquel Italqi, in the comments section of the articles related to this  discussion –

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/open-response-to-itzhak-shapira/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/response-to-yehezkel-italqi/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/second-response-to-yehezqel-italqi/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/second-response-to-itzhak-shapira/

The  only piece of information you might be missing is the original comment of the  Metzudat David. If you cannot read Hebrew then you cannot read the words of that  commentator.

I  hereby present you with a word for word translation of the Metzudat David in  question. The Metzudat David is commenting on the words: “and healing in her  wings” from Malachi 3:20 (4:2).

1  Biz’richata – with her shining

2  Yihe’ye – there will be

3  Lachem – unto you

4  Refua – healing

5  V’taanug – and pleasure

6  V’dima – and he (the prophet) compared

7  P’risat – the spreading

8  Ha’or – of the light

9  Uz’richata – and its shine

10  Li’prisat – to the spreading

11  K’nafayim – of wings

12  Ki – because

13  Hashmesh – the sun

14  Yifros – spreads

15  Oro – its light

16  Al – over

17  Ha’aretz –the earth

18  Ki’knafayim – like wings

19  Ha’prusot – that are outspread

20  V’chen – and so it is

21  Ne’enmar – written (in Joel 2:2)

22  K’shachar – as the dawn

23  Parus – spread

24  Al – over

25  He’harim – the mountains

Shapira translated word #22 (k’shachar) with the English  words: “as blackness.”

Now  you have all the information. You can make your own judgment.

Incidentally, it is worth noticing that in his video  defense Shapira insists on translating the word “shachar” in Isaiah 8:20 with  the English word blackness.

Here again I present a word for word translation of the  closing phrase in Isaiah 8:20.

1  Asher – that

2  Ain – there is not

3  Lo – to it

4  Shachar – light

Shapira translates word #4 (shachar) with the English  word “blackness.”

You  be the judge.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Shapira is not a Trinitarian

( – but he is still an Idolater)

Itzhak Shapira published a response to my critique of his interview with Dr. Brown that took place in August of 2013 (https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/response-to-line-of-fire-14/ ). Shapira’s response can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu4EWiw9Os4

Shapira’s video only addresses one word of my critique. That word is “trinity.” I had assumed that Shapira is a Trinitarian Christian.

If you take out the word “trinity” from my critique and you put in the words “worshiper of Yeshua,” every one of my arguments will still stand. It is obvious that Shapira has no response to my arguments so he needs to nitpick on irrelevant words in order to appear as one who is presenting a defense.

Why did I assume that Shapira is a Trinitarian?

Simple; he claims to have been ordained by the IMACS which is a subsidiary of the MJAA. The statement of faith of the MJAA declares that the organization believes in the trinity. Furthermore; Shapira quotes extensively from Trinitarian books (such as “Can Three be One”) and from various Trinitarian Christians (such as Dr. Michael Brown). At no point does Shapira distance himself from the beliefs of those he quotes from.

Is Shapira a Trinitarian? It makes no difference. As long as he directs worship to a man and encourages others to do the same then he has taken a stance against the very heart of what Israel stands for as a nation before God.

P.S. I find it odd that Shapira demands a public debate with me as if he were interested in having his audience hear both sides of the argument. If he would truly be interested in having his audience hearing both sides of the story he would tell his audience where they could read my responses to his works. His failure to take this elementary step makes me wonder.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Itzhak

You  seem to be offended that I “assume” so many terrible things about you. I have  great news for you. I do not “assume” anything about you. Before I wrote  anything about you I read your book from cover to cover several times. And I  have backed up every one of my accusations with quotations from your  book.

If  my accusations are false it should be easy for you to demonstrate your innocence.  Instead of tackling my arguments head on you complain to the audience about your  “victimhood”.

I  asked you the same question several times and you have still not answered it. What was  the Metzudat David trying to teach us when he compared Joel 2:2 with Malachi  3:20?

Your silence speaks volumes.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Yehezqel

In  your response to Annelise you accuse me of “claiming to have a higher  level of samchus (authority) over Tzachi.” In your response to me you tell me  that I am supposed to be the “real rabbi.” (These responses are found in the comment section on this blog.)

Yehezqel, at what point in my critique of Shapira do I  invoke “authority”? Please point out to me where in my critique of Shapira do I  attempt to bolster my credibility by calling myself a rabbi?

It  is Shapira who is claiming authority as a “Jewish insider” with “encyclopedic  knowledge” and who is pulling the wool over the eyes of people who cannot read  the texts that he is quoting.

All  I am doing is exposing his incompetence to the public who cannot read Hebrew. I  do not need to be a rabbi in order to do this. All I need is the ability to read  Hebrew to some level.

Yehezqel, it seems that you are proficient in Hebrew;  perhaps your proficiency exceeds mine. In your response to Annelise you speak of  your commitment to the standard of pursuing righteousness which you define as  demanding accountability. This being the case will you have the integrity to  explain to the audience how obvious it is that Shapira misunderstood the words  of the Metzudat David?

PS  As a postscript I will address one other point that you made in your response to  me. You take me to task for assuming that Shapira did not realize that the word  k’shachar in the context of the Metzudat David can mean “like dawn.”

The  reason I made that assumption is because I was judging him favorably. If he knew  that the word can mean “like dawn” and he still translated it “like blackness”  then his lack of comprehension of the words of the Metzudat David is only more  pronounced.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal