Shalom and Greetings
Greetings saints of the Most High. Rod Thomas coming to you on a warm by beautiful Sabbath in the DFW. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to fellowship with me here on this blessed day of rest in Yeshua Messiah. And as always beloved, it is my hope, trust, and prayer that this installment of the Messianic Torah Observer finds you, your families, and your fellowships well and blessed.
As I am recording and posting this installment of TMTO, it is July 26, 2024. It is the 20th Day of the 4th Month of Yah’s Calendar Year. And this is the 142nd parashah of our 3-year Torah Reading Cycle, which is contained in Deuteronomy/Devarim 21.10-22.7; with the Haftorah in Isaiah/Yeshiyahu 54.1-10 and the Apostolic in Galatians 3. 11-14. I’ve been led to title this teaching: “Operating in Set-Apart Community Relationships.”
Justification for Weekly Torah Studies (Even When the Individual Mitzvot Don’t Seem to Apply to us Today)
Now, I want to mention before we dive into today’s teaching that these mitzvot (i.e. these laws or instructions) are overwhelmingly dismissed and viewed as archaic, even “harmful and dangerous” by denominationalists and not too few members of our Messianic Faith Community. I’ve previously mentioned on this platform that a good many people who claim to be people of faith or people of the Book (in some way or another) reject Yehovah and His Torah because neither the Father or His Torah fit their personal righteous sensibilities. Some of these erroneously refer to Yehovah as the “God of the Old Testament” Whom they unapologetically reject because His ways seem archaic, harmful, and dangerous to them. These go a little further to say that they prefer and love the “God of the New Testament,” Whom they specifically identify as Jesus Christ. They love this God of the New Testament because His ways and teachings resonate with them. But little do these misguided — judgment-bound — disparagers of Yehovah and His Ways realize that their God of the New Testament (i.e. Yeshua HaMashiyach), Whom they revere or love so much, was and is in lockstep with His Heavenly Father (aka the God of the Old Testament Whom they despise and reject – personal experience). For Yeshua our Master was clear when He stated that He and His Father were and are One — that is, He and His Father are united in all things and in all Ways (Joh 10.30; 17.21). Furthermore, the Master taught His inner core of disciples to not misunderstand His position on His Father’s Torah, and that He had in no way come to destroy or annul the Torah and the Prophets, but He came to clarify them and take them to their fullest meaning and potential (Mat 5.17). Certainly, if Master had a problem with Torah, He had every opportunity during His earthly ministry to speak out against it. But He instead not only endorsed Torah, but He also walked and talked it.
Those who hold such a contrary worldview of Torah are too blind of eyes, deaf of hearing, and confused of mind and heart to realize that Yeshua possesses the fullness of His Father’s character (Col 2.9). Yes, we saw the compassionate side of our Creator through His Son when He came the first time as the Suffering Messiah. But wait until Messiah returns as the conquering King who will establish and reign over His Daddy’s Kingdom here on earth (Dan 2.44; 7.14, 27; Rev 11.15). Halleluyah indeed! It will be during the time leading up to the Kingdom Age (so to speak) that the world and all Creation will see the full character of Yehovah on display in the Person and King, Yahoshua HaMashiyach. He will destroy all vestiges of the Kingdom of Darkness and forcibly restore Paradise Lost! Amein and Amein. And He will dismiss from His presence any who have and would reject Him and His Father’s righteousness; their Torah-based government, citing that they’ve never known them (Mat 7.23). From that day forward, everything will be done in accordance with His Way or they will be done His Way. Period. Case closed!
As much as Torah may seem an affront/insult/conflict to our modern-day, western sensibilities, it, Torah, educates us about Yehovah’s exceeding standards and the expectations He has for any who would desire to “enter into an intimate covenant relationship with Him” (Hegg, T.; Commentary on Deuteronomy; p. 141). And as tough as some of these mitzvot (aka laws or instructions) may be for us to swallow today, they, collectively, serve as our lifeline. For the world around us is generally ignorant of the Person Yehovah — Who He truly is; what He likes and dislikes; what He expects from His chosen ones; His plans to restore His human creation back to how He originally intended it to function and exist. The world’s deadly ignorance as it relates to Yah and His holy and righteous ways, unfortunately, is going to lead to its catastrophic end, unless it does a true course correction and turns to Him and His Ways. For Yah cared enough for us—that of our wellbeing and eternal security — that He provided us these safeguards or protections — His Torah — so that we may walk “the path of life to enjoy the blessings Yah intends for His children” (ibid., p. 141). All other paths lead to certain destruction; all other ground is “sinking sand.” Thus, Yehovah has gifted us His Torah. And it is Father Yah’s gifting of Torah that is evidence of just how loving a Father He truly is to us. Our sense of personal, flawed righteousness and justice when compared to Yah’s righteousness and justice are as soiled, disgusting rages (Isa 64.6). In fact, it is our personal, flawed sense of righteousness that will usher us down a path towards destruction. Yah does not want that for us. So, He gave us His loving instructions in righteous living to guard or safeguard against our self-destruction. If we are blessed with the proper, spiritual eyes, ears, heart, and mindset to understand Yah’s Torah from this “loving instructions” perspective, we will have indeed crossed over from death into life. And Yah requires more than us coming into and remaining in this positive, proper mindset towards Torah. Yah requires that we diligently seek His righteousness on His terms and His terms only. That means learning of Him and His Ways in Spirit and in Truth (Joh 4.23-24; 14.17; 16.13) and then walk in those learned ways, neither erring to the right or left — but walk steadfastly and uprightly before Him, as Yeshua our Master taught and modeled for us.
Due to the length of our reading today and our limited time together, we will not read through the parashah. Please read through the parashah as you are so led. We will confine ourselves to commenting and drawing out the salient physical and spiritual points of each.
The Torah of Hebrew Combatants Taking unto Themselves Foreign Wives (aka War Brides) (21.10-14)
Abba Yah permitted us to take unto ourselves as wives of those distant nations whom we conquered. Father Yah required that the taking of foreign war brides by Hebrew combatants be done in such a way as to reduce the influences of combatants’ base, carnal passions (aka lust), and to employ morality towards our conquered enemies.
The would-be foreign war bride (21.14) must go through a regimen of purification that involves shaving her head, trimming her nails, discarding her native clothes, and then be allowed to mourn her loses (21.12-13) in the Hebrew captor’s home for a month (reference Lev 14.8-9; Num 6.9). Then she may become the Hebrew captor’s wife. Interestingly, Rabbinic commentators such as Rashi, Abravanel, and R. Akiba challenged the motivation behind this precept. They contend that Yah intended for the would-be war bride who entered this purification and mourning period to be made to look unappealing to her would be captor husband (reference Rashi ad loc.; Abravanel, 202; R. Akiba’s Sifrei 212). However, from a contextual standpoint, Yah’s desire is to always mitigate the possibilities that His set-apart people who bare His Name would not be led astray or influenced by the religious and cultural practices of these foreign women. Thus, the purpose behind this mitzvah was to physically and spiritually distance the would-be foreign captive wife from her former religion and culture and in the process not influence her would be husband to adopt her former religious practices and culture. It was also designed to give Yah glory and honor as these foreign captive women would see for themselves the love and compassion and justice of the God of Avraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’achov.
The so-called Jewish sages reckoned that the instruction that the would-be war bride discard her native clothes and don Hebrew attire; shave her hair, and cut her nails with Jewish conversion in mind. Now, I don’t buy into such Rabbinic twisting of Yah’s Torah. But suffice to say, the month of purification and mourning provided the would-be war bride an adjustment period whereby she would learn and adapt to her future husband’s Hebrew culture. This period also served as a time of testing our motivations towards our would-be war bride. Were our motivations pure and just? Are our motivations controlled by our love for Yah and respect for human life and the understanding that every man, woman, and child, regardless of whether they were kinsmen of ours, or our enemies in war, were created in the image of our Creator? “Respect for the personhood of captive ones” must be shown.
It is understood that the would-be captor husband would not engage in a sexual relationship with the would-be war bride during this month-long purification, mourning, and adjustment period. To engage in a sexual relationship with the captive woman during her month of mourning before taking her to be his wife would violate Yah’s Torah prohibiting fornication and would also commit him to marry this woman, even if he had a change of heart towards her during that adjustment period.
It must be understood, however, that this mitzvah relating to Hebrew combatants engaging in marriage with foreign captive women did not pertain to those women of the Canaanite nations that were marked or devoted to destruction (see our Thoughts and Reflections on Torah Reading 141). Because those nations’ sins had become so abominable in the sight of Yah, they had become irredeemable. The abominable religious and cultural practices of these Canaanite nations posed an existential spiritual threat to us, and Yah was not willing to chance us turning away from Him over our failure to expunge the Land of its evil. The non-Canaanite nations, however, did not pose such a spiritual threat to us, and thus Yah permitted our intermarrying with those nations if we did so within the confines of His laws. Indeed, there was always the chance that those men who intermarried would be swayed to pursue the ways of their foreign wives, but as long as Torah was the definitive rule of our nation, the influence of paganism would be mitigated. Recall that just a couple or three readings ago, our Torah reading required our community leaders to be intolerable to any paganism within our communities, even to the point of capital punishment being employed to stem the proliferation of such evil within our communities.
If, after the captive woman’s purification, mourning, and observation period, the Hebrew captor decides not to take her as his wife, he must release her with no conditions. He cannot sell her into slavery nor mistreat her because she had already gone through terrible turmoil; she has been humbled and shamed already. Thus, the compassion of Yehovah for woman is shown and manifested through His Torah. It then falls to man to carry out Yah’s instructions in righteousness so that His righteous compassion may be manifested on the earth.
Not to be deprived of the opportunity to add to and subtract from Yah’s perfect Torah, the Rabbis enacted their own laws as related to Jews entering into such foreign marriages. Under the auspices of their so-called “oral-torah,” would be war brides were required to convert, not to the Hebrew Faith of our patriarchs mind you, but to Judaism (i.e. sectarian halachah). Furthermore, the Rabbis strongly discouraged combatants taking unto themselves captive foreign wives. The Rabbis believed that the combatants’ motivations to marry their captive women would be carnal (aka lust-based) (see above regarding the purification and mourning requirements for the captive women; cf. Sifrei 213; Rashi’s comments on verses 12-13 of our Reading; and Maimonides’ Hilkhot Melakhim 8.5). This idea of the combatant taking such a captive foreign woman to be his wife solely because of a physical attraction he held towards her seems to have been a preoccupation of the rabbis. And much of the Rabbinic thinking as it relates to this mitzvah holds that any marriage that a male Jew enters into solely because he is physically attracted to his would-be wife will ultimately fail for obvious reasons. So, the lesson is for Jewish men not to marry solely because of physical attraction.
Probably the biggest Spirit and Truth take-away for me as it relates to this mitzvah would be the importance of choosing a helpmeet wisely; of being equally yoked with either a would-be wife or husband who will walk with us on our Faith journey. Choosing a life-partner who will forsake their former life of sin or religiosity and walk in covenant relationship with Yehovah by our side. It behooves us to question our motivations towards the woman or man that we are contemplating entering into a marriage covenant with: Are our motivations based on our fleshly desires, or are they based on a true love for that person, and is that person willing to enter into a covenant relationship with the Creator of the Universe through the Person and Ministries of Yeshua Messiah? Or maybe the one who Yah has chosen for us is already in a covenant relationship with Him, making such a union blessed and a holy one. Yah’s will must take precedence above and ahead of our personal preference. To mitigate the chance for marital strife, Yah recommends that we be equally-yoke with a would-be spouse (2 Cor 6.14).
The Torah of the Firstborn in Polygamous Relationships
In the event of a polygamous marriage where the Hebrew husband prefers one of his wives over the other, both wives having borne their husband sons and that man’s firstborn is of the least preferred wife, that firstborn must receive the benefit of being the firstborn (i.e. the birthright). He is to still receive a double-portion inheritance over his siblings because “he is the first of his [the Hebrew head of household’s] vigor.” Thus, the established rights of the firstborn (i.e. birthright or “bekhorah” or primogeniture) cannot be superseded by such extraneous factors as, for example, his father preferring the younger mother over his older or least preferred mother. However, there are biblical exceptions to this rule as evidenced in the stories of the patriarchs Avraham and Yitschaq/Isaac. In Avraham’s case, his firstborn was Ishmael and his second-born was Yitschaq/Isaac. Yah’s covenant would be with Yitschaq/Isaac, not Ishmael, and thus, Ishmael did not receive the double-portion inheritance of Avraham. And in the case of Yitschaq/Isaac, through Ya’achov/Jacob’s fool-doggery, he received the firstborn benefits over his brother Esau; not to mention that Yehovah chose Ya’achov/Jacob to perpetuate His covenant as opposed to Esau. So, there are exceptions to the firstborn rules. But in the case of a husband conferring the firstborn rights to the son who is not his firstborn, solely because he prefers the mother of the son who is not his firstborn over the mother of his firstborn, did not fly with Yah.
The firstborn son was viewed by some as “proof of his father’s potency and a token of future fertility” (Tigay, Jeffrey H.; JPS Torah Commentary-Deuteronomy; cf. Gen 38.27-28; 49. 3; Psa 78.51; 105.36; Job 18.12).
This is just one of the many downsides to polygamy. A husband will invariably prefer one wife over the other, and that naturally breeds contempt among the women in that man’s household. Yah did not prohibit polygamy, but He certainly did not encourage it for these and other reasons.
Clearly, the mitzvah of granting the husband’s firstborn son the birthright without bias was, in a sense, a safeguard against the serious deficiencies and challenges that are common to polygamous family structures. However, I strongly disagree with commentators like Torah teacher and author Tim Hegg’s position that polygamy in and of itself is a sin. For if it was a sin, it seems pretty logical, at least it does to me, that Yah would have outright condemned polygamy if it offended His holy and righteous character, as He prohibited the acts of adultery, fornication, idolatry, and rebelliousness. Again, this doesn’t mean that Yah condones polygamy as a family life choice for Hebrews. The practice is certainly fraught with a great deal of challenges to the integrity of the God-ordained institution of marriage. (If you’ve not already read or listened to my post on polygamy entitled “Polygamy and the Bible” and you are so led to do so, here is the link to that post for your convenience.)
Polygamy here in the U.S. is illegal. So, some may question this mitzvah’s relevance to us today. The relevance to us today is clear: we must always do the right thing in relationships, even when doing the right thing may not be convenient or comfortable to us at the time. For indeed we all make a great many choices throughout our lives, some of which are wise ones, while others are not so wise. In living through the fallouts that are associated with those unwise choices we’ve made, the Netzer/Yisra’elite must always do the right thing. Righteousnesss must always be our NorthStar, regardless or despite the consequences of the mistakes we’ve made in life.
The Torah Regarding the Handling of Evil, Rebellious, Disobedient Children (The Most Controversial Mitzvah of our Reading Today)
If a couple has an uncontrollable, evil, rebellious, disobedient son, both father and mother are to bring him before the city’s elders and state their case against their son. (This Torah applied to a child’s disrespect or injury to either or both mother or father.) Torah required that both parents agree to take their unruly, disrespectful, and evil child before the elders. And presuming the elders ruled in favor of the mother and father, the men of that city are to purge evil from their midst/their community by stoning that child.
Certainly, a hard mitzvah for many of us to contemplate. But this mitzvah served the purpose of upholding order and peace in the Hebrew household and deter children from disrespecting and harming their parents. Thus, it is imperative that every Hebrew child, from their earliest ability to understand, be taught and filled with Torah so as to reduce, if not eliminate, the chance of him or her devolving into an unredeemable rebellious son or daughter. The writer of Proverbs counseled: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (22.6).
Torah made allowance for parents to discipline their children (Pro 29.15; 23.13-14; 13.24 speaks to flogging or spanking one’s misbehaving child with a rod to deter them from evil and self-destructive behavior) but prohibited parents from executing them. Yah gave the authority of executing a couple’s rebellious child to the community/city elders, and the actual carrying out of the execution order to the community citizens.
Now, the text implies that the elders who hear the parents’ case against their insubordinate/rebellious child conduct an inquiry into the validity of their complaint. This mitzvah does not demand that all parental claims against their children result in the death of the offending child. It falls to the elders to lean to exercise wisdom and determine whether the home situation is salvageable enough to reconcile the child back to their parents without having to resort to summary execution of the child. In most cases, mediation would be the order of the day with summary execution when all else fails. And if execution is warranted, the parents are absolved of any responsibility in their child’s execution.
Torah demands that children respect and obey their parents at every conceivable level (Exo 20.12; Lev 19.3). Furthermore, Torah requires that a couple’s children care for their parents in the wanning years of their lives (Deu 5.16).
Insubordination and or rebelliousness on the part of children towards their parents (our text cites examples of gluttony and drunkenness; cf. Pro 23.20-21; 28.7) disrupts and undermines the integrity of the God-ordained family unit and order. But it is disobedience that warrants the greatest attention. Disobedience or rebelliousness against one’s parents are, in the sight of the Almighty, a capital offense. Why? Because the family unit and order is one foundation upon which our Hebrew Faith rests. And the Hebrew family unit is the conduit by which we perpetuate the image of Yehovah in the world. Insubordination and rebelliousness by children in the home and in the community “threatens the community’s stability and the penalty of stoning” serves as a deterrent against that evil (Tigay, J.H.; The JPS Torah Commentary-Deuteronomy).
Our western sensibilities cannot fathom such a thing. Instead of seeing the child and their behavior as evil, western society sees Yah’s instructions here as evil. But Yah’s original intent behind this troublesome mitzvah is well stated in 20.21: “So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear” (LSB). Clearly, if this mitzvah were to be followed in our western societies today, we would not see the extent of evil that we see taking place in our streets today. The children/young people of western society have become so evil that they have made many western communities unlivable for their parents and the rest of society. The young people of western society have no respect for the rule of law, nor do they respect human life or their elders. They are not held accountable for their actions. So, they feel free to perpetuate evil and live their lives outside the righteous ways of the Almighty.
And of course, the Rabbis got their grubby little fingers on this mitzvah as well, causing it to be “subjected … to an exceedingly narrow reading, according to which it could hardly ever be carried out. Several rabbis held that it was never actually applied, but was stated in the Torah only for educational purposes” (Tigay, Jeffrey H.; JPS Torah Commentary-Deuteronomy; Mish. Sanh. 8.1-4; Sanh 71a; Maimonides, Hilkhot Mamrim 7).
There is indeed a significant spiritual application to be had from this mitzvah that goes beyond the hard realities of rebellious children in Hebrew homes being punished for their evil. Scripture in multiple places records that Yehovah viewed and called Yisra’el His son (even His firstborn son — Exo 4.22). And scripture also documents in multiple places that Yisra’el was sitffnecked in his demeaner (i.e. Yisra’el would not trust and obey his Father, Yehovah) and rebellious (i.e. he repeatedly engaged in spiritual adultery against his Father by giving themselves over to idolatry — Psa 78.8; Isa 30.1; 65.2; Jer 5.23; Hos 4.16; Zec 7.11). And because His son Yisra’el persisted in his stubborn and rebellious ways, Yah punished and dispatched him from the Land.
Yehovah asserts that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (1 Sam 15.23). And we know the penalty for witchcraft: Death (Exo 22.18).
Even Hebrew adults who rebelled against the authority of Yah’s sanctioned Hebrew courts were subject to execution (Deu 17.12).
The other thing we as Yah’s elect must do is to train our children in Torah and when necessary, not spare the rod of correction when they stray or transgress our righteous house rules. And in the rare cases where those children persist in their evil, rebellious ways and they threaten the integrity, peace, and safety of our homes and the communities we live in, we must make some very hard decisions regarding their future with us, within the confines of the laws of the communities we reside in. Again, for the sake of our homes and the communities we reside in, in those extreme unredeemable situations, they may have to be removed from our midst.
The Curse of the Criminal Hung on a Tree (21:22-23)
A community’s executed criminals may be hung from a tree or wooden stake so as to bring disgrace to their memory and to deter any future proliferation of their evil in the community (Gen 40.19; Jos 10.26; Est 9.6-14). Many English renderings of this text describe the act of hanging a criminal from a tree or wooden stake as “impaling” them. The heinous act of impaling the remains of a criminal seems to have originated or have been tied to the Assyrians and was not a practice that we engaged in. Criminal remains were simply suspended or hung on a wooden pole or tree. And let’s be clear: Not every criminal’s remains were hung from trees or poles. In fact, the practice is believed to have been an uncommon one. But some cultures did engage in this practice (e.g. Gen 40.19). These cultures, however, would not permit the criminal’s remains to be buried. In such cases, the bodies were left hanging to rot in the sun and were given over to flying predators to consume. This gruesome practice is an affront to our Elohim.
Yah instructed us to not allow the remains of one who has been executed to remain hung on a tree overnight. The soul who was executed and hung on a tree is deemed as cursed by the Almighty. To leave such a one hanging from a tree overnight is to defile the Land that Yah has given us. Thus, Yah instructed that the body be removed from the tree and buried before sundown on the same day it was hung on the tree. And thus, to a greater or lesser extent, this is where the Hebrew practice of burying their dead on the same day they died came from. The only exception to this practice is, of course, when more time is needed to provide the deceased special honor before their community and nation.
Interestingly, the ancients believed that leaving one’s remains unburied led to that soul not “finding rest in a future world” (Hegg, T.; Commentary on Deuteronomy; p. 147). Even the so-called Jewish sages recognized that the executed criminal was created in the image of Yehovah, and thus their remains must be treated with dignity.
We can clearly see the spiritual implications that were associated with hanging a criminal’s remains from a tree or stake. The executed criminal that was hung from a tree or pole was considered cursed. And it is this idea or understanding of an executed soul hanging from a tree or stake being cursed that Paul, in our Apostolic reading, teaches us the significance of our Master Yeshua’s death. The apostle wrote: 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”–14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Gal 3:11-14 ESV)
Yeshua, our Redeemer, became cursed of Yah when He was crucified on the stake, not that He deserved to be cursed of His Father because He was sinless, but rather, to vicariously bare or take on our cursed state. In other words, Yeshua died in our stead and became cursed of Yah so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (Hegg, T., Commentary on Deuteronomy; p. 147; reference 2 Cor 5.21). And out of an obedience to this mitzvah, Nicodemus had our Master’s body removed from the cross and buried.
Various Mitzvot (22.1-7)
Return of Lost [Animal] Property
If we see that our neighbor’s livestock has strayed from our neighbor’s property, we must make every effort to return that animal to its owner if known (cf. Exo 23.4-5). If we don’t know who that animal’s owner is, we must take that animal in and care for it (as if it were our own) until the animal’s owner is made known to us, at which point we are to hand the displaced animal over to its original owner. It is understood, of course, that the finder in some way or another publicizes that he/she found the stray/lost animal and its owners, when claiming it, would give some proof that the stray creature belonged to them. And this principle applies to both animal and other material possessions. Found items must be returned to their original owner once we learn who that owner is. This is love for one’s neighbor as ourselves and respect for Yah’s animal creation in action (22.1-3). We must seek to minimize any suffering that the lost animal may incur, as well as spare the owner (i.e. the neighbor whom we are to love) of any potential “economic loss” (Tigay; JPS Torah Commentary-Deuteronomy). That the owner of the lost animal belongs to one of our kinfolks automatically displaces the excuse that we should ignore or take advantage of the situation, even if the owner-kinsman is a personal enemy of ours (cf. Exo 23.4-5; Lev 5.20-26).
Helping our Neighbor Restore Their Animal to Wholeness
If we see that our neighbor’s animal (specifically any beast of burden such as an ox or ass–Exo 23.5) has found itself in a difficult way (e.g. fallen into a ditch or hole or collapsed under a load or burden) we are required to help our neighbor restore his animal to wholeness. This is love for one’s neighbor as ourselves and respect for Yah’s animal creation demonstrated (22.4). We as Yah’s set apart ones are compelled to prevent or mitigate suffering of any kind, be it human or animal suffering (cf. Tractate Bava Metsia; BM 32a-b; Maimonides, Sefer Ha-Mitsvot, positive nos. 202-203; idem, Hilkhot Rotseah 13.1-2, 13).
These mitzvot transcend one’s personal view of their neighbor as they must be obeyed, even when the owner is our enemy. We must love our neighbors, regardless of the personal misgivings we have towards them. Thus, we must love them as much as we love ourselves.
Prohibition Against Transvestitism
Yah sees transvestite (cross-dressing) practices as abominable, and it is not to be tolerated in our midst (22.5). There are at least two very good reasons why Yah may have enacted this prohibition and why He despises transvestism: (1) Yah abhors homosexuality, which we can easily see how the practice of transvestism would be a conduit for homosexual activity; and (2) it was a common practice in various Babylonian pagan cultural and worship activities (reference Tigay; JPS Torah Commentary-Deuteronomy).
This mitzvah is timely as we see in the popularity of “drug shows” and so-called “drag queens” exploding in and around the communities we reside in. We even see occurrences of these in supposed places of worship.
Such activity is an abominable violation of Torah. It must not be tolerated in our fellowships, nor in our midst, despite how unpopular it may be to take such a stand against it in our “woke” culture and communities. Drag shows and the practice of transvestism is evil and it must not be given place in our midst, especially in our set-apart gatherings.
Separating a Mother Bird from Her Babies
If we come across a nest where the mother bird is tending to her babies, we are to release the mother. This mitzvah is intricately linked to Yah’s instructions of Leviticus 22:27-28: “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall stay seven days with its mother, and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable as an offering. No animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its yew.” The one who brazenly violates this mitzvah is cruel or unkind and does not reflect the compassionate and caring character of their Creator.
We must chase or shoo away the mother before we may take the babies into our possession (21.6-7). This, according to Jeffrey H. Tigay in his commentary on this parashah, “spares the mother the painful sight of seeing her offspring taken away” (cf. Maimonides, Guide 3.48). Tigay clarifies, however, that it is impossible to determine the extent that the mother experiences pain at the loss of her young. But the salient point to this mitzvah is the prohibition against the “callous acts themselves” (ibid.). We must not give ourselves over to callous behavior against one another and against Yah’s animal creation, but always give caring consideration to the ramifications of all that we may do.
This is natural justice. Yah requires that His chosen ones respect the natural order and care after the animal creation. When we do so, Yah prolongs our days on this earth.
Concluding Thoughts and Reflections on Torah Reading 142
The Spirit and Truth of our Torah Reading today can be summed up in our Master’s admonition that we love one another, especially within our set-apart communities. To love one another, as we discussed in last week’s reading, is to be loyal to the covenant relationship we have with the Almighty. For we truly love one another as we love ourselves, and we love Yehovah with our whole being, when we are obedient to Yah and His instructions in righteousness. And when we are individually and collectively loyal to the covenant relationship we share with the Almighty, Father Yah blesses us and our families. We then become a light to this corrupt and evil world because we bare and demonstrate Yah’s righteous character to the world. Let us then not grow weary of righteous living as we await the glorious return of our master and soon coming King.
Before I leave you today, beloved, I want you to be aware that we will be on a 3-week hiatus, as we must take care of some important business out on the West Coast. Abba willing, we’ll return sometime around 8/24/2024.
Until then, Shabbat Shalom, Shavu’atov, take care beloved of Messiah.
