Why am I the only one who figured out what Jesus wrote in the dust in regards to the woman accused of adultery? Why didn’t Pope Ratzinger figure it out, or all those million or so virgins locked away in monasteries – at such a cost! Surely they read the Book of Sotah written by Jews.
They knew. They knew? They kept the truth from us for hundreds of years. Why? Because the truth is, Jesus was a great rabbi, even a priest, who had access to the Golden Gate wherein was a stone on the floor, and under this stone was the dust from the altar after the sacrifices. From whom did Jesus get permission to lift this stone – least behold it!
This is the Builder’s Stone, and I bring it down upon all the liars who waged a evil war against Hippie, who did all they could, to destroy me! Bring this war unto me, for I am a Nazarite Judge, as was John, as was Jesus! John the Baptist reborn the Judges of Israel to rule over the Children of God!
What then………….did anyone have need for a king!
Or a Pope, who can not put God’s seed in a woman, can not born a child -and is not a citizen of the United States! What then, is he good for!
I have seen the stone.
Jon the Nazarite
Judging the Sotah the Woman Accused of Adultery
Jesus is practicing Talmic law in regards to the Sotah (adulteress),
and he is trying to be tripped up. That early Christian writers did
not catch this, suggests they were false teachers.
“But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his
finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straitened up and
said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first
to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the
ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the
older ones first, until only Jesus was left with the woman still
standing there.” John 8:6-9
Read Numbers 5:17-23 on how a priest may judge a man who unjustly
accuses his wife of being with another man!
“And the priest shall write the curses in a book and he shall blot
them out with the bitter water.”
In this case we have a Nazarite Priest, the Nazarites being the
Judges in the Torah. Here the Savior writes the name of God in the
dust in order to judge the Sotah by having her drink water from a
cup in which the dust has been stirred Here is strong evidence Jesus
was a Nazarite, and is practicing ancient halacha law regarding the
law of lashon harah (talebearing and gossip) one
can not speak lashon harah about himself, it forbidden to believe it.
It is forbidden to tell others of ones own sins. If one repeats tales
of his own sins, he may intice a friend to sin. According to lashon
harah, “Not only witnessing the actual criminal act, but even
witnessing the punnishment and humiliation of the criminal, can have
a deleterious infludence on the viewer.”
Those who have brought the adulteress to Jesus to be judged, was
caught by them committing the act, thus they are with sin. Upon
hearing tales of the woman’s sin, Jesus pretends he dos not hear,
lest he be with sin as well. As to what he is writing, it appears
he is writing the name of G-d in the dust and will put the dust in a
cup of water, and bid the woman to drink it, for if
she is guilty her stomach will swell and burst. Jesus may have bid
all those who caught the woman in the act of adultery, or, joined the
party to stone her – only hearing the tale of her sin – to come
drink from the water to prove they are telling the truth, and if so,
take the Nazarite vow.
“When Jesus had lifted himself, and saw none but the woman, he
said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Has no man
condemend thee? She said, No man Lord. and Jesus said unto her,
Niether do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
In the Talmud there is the discussion of a SOTAH, a woman who
is being shamed/punnished for adultery. It is suggested that
anyone who witnesses such a shaming/stoning, should take the vow of
the Nazir. Apparently, this is what Jesus does in John 8:4-9
Jesus comes to the temple.
“And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken
in adultery; and when they set her in the midst, They say unto
him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now
Moses in the law commanded US, that such should be stoned: but what
sayeth thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to
accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the
ground, as though he heard them not.”
The explination of the Sotah and the vow of the Nazarite is
applicable here, as Jesus is reminding them of this sequence in
the Oral Law, that once must “seperate and concecrate themselves to
God after seeing a Sotah shamed. Apparently the Pharisees have not
taken the Nazir vow, and thus have been infected with her sin.
Therefor, not one of them can throw the first stone, or, any other
stone, as they know they are with sin.
On the Sabbath, Jesus heals those who were born with their
affliction. He puts dust in the palm of his hand, spits in it, and
makes mud which he applies to the afflicted area, such as the man who
was blind. He has broken the law against making anything on the
Sabbath. I suspect he has deliberatly done so to challenge the false
laws instated that said anyone born with a affliction was already
pre-marked a sinner while in their mother’s womb; thus, no Rabbi need
tend to them, nor are they to be admitted into the Temple grounds, as
they are “born-sinners” without redemtion.
In the early Coptic church verses were written on papyriah paper and
the red ink disolved in water, then given to drink. Wet clay was used
as well, verses, or the name of God written in clay (I suspect red
clay) and thus would be seen as the blood of Adam?
“Parshas Naso :
Witness to Sin
By Rabbi Eliezer Irons
The Sotah, a woman suspected of adultery, is a topic in this week’s
Parsha. A Sotah must either confess her guilt, or suffer public
humiliation. The Sotah, upon denying her guilt, would be forced to
drink waters, in which G-d’s name was placed. If she were truly
guilty, her stomach would expand and burst.
The Nazir (Nazarite) is discussed immediately following Sotah.
Nazir is a voluntary status that one pursues to attain greater levels
of holiness. A Nazir is forbidden to drink wine or eat grapes, cut
his hair, or become defiled by a human corpse.
Rashi, quoting the Talmud, asks,
“What is the connection between these two topics?”
(A connection exists when the Torah places two topics sequentially.)
The Talmud answers that one who sees the humiliation of the Sotah
should abstain from wine, etc., and become a Nazir. If one sees a
Sotah, a woman who fell victim to her desires, it may influence him
to sin as well. In order to protect himself against the type of evil
inclination that corrupted the Sotah, he should become a Nazir.
Why would witnessing the humiliation of a Sotah influence one to sin?
Logic dictates that the exact opposite should occur! Onlookers
should be fearful when witnessing the consequences of the averah (the
To answer this question, we must first examine a difficult
passage Sefer D’varim (12,17) in prohibiting the eating of maaser
sheni (the second tithe) outside Jerusalem. The verse uses the
curious terminology “you are not able to eat.” It would appear to
make more sense had the Torah said “You should not eat forbidden
food.” One is certainly able to eat forbidden food; it is among his
The Telzer Rosh Yeshiva Reb Eliyahu Meir Bloch zt”l explains that
the Torah here teaches us that sin should be viewed as something
unimaginable and far removed from the realm of possibility. To
illustrate the point, consider this example: A man on a roof who is
ordered to jump is likely to respond “I can’t.” Of course, he is
physically able, but in his mind it is utterly unimaginable and
Based on this explanation, we can now proceed to our original
question. When one witnesses the humiliation of the Sotah, he
realizes that the averah he once thought to be unimaginable is now a
distinct possibility. In order to protect himself, the witness must
therefore become a Nazir and thereby elevate himself to his former
This idea parallels the concept of Chilul Hashem (a disgrace to G-
d) expressed by Tosafos Yom Tov, in Yoma 8:8. “Anyone who does an
averah (a sin) and others are influenced thereby to take the matter
lightly and to act likewise is committing the sin of Chilul Hashem.”
This week’s Parsha takes the Tosafos Yom Tov idea one step further.
Not only witnessing the actual criminal act, but even witnessing the
punishment and humiliation of the crime can have a deleterious
influence on the viewer.
>From this we can derive a practical halacha (law) regarding the
law of lashon harah (talebearing and gossiping). Lashon harah is a
serious averah, but can one speak lashon harah about himself? The
Chafetz Chaim addresses self-abasing lashon harah in two places.
First, he warns that one cannot absolve himself from the guilt of
lashon harah by including himself in the story about a friend. One
may speak unfavorable about himself, but not about a friend.
In another instance, the Chafetz Chaim writers that if upon
hearing lashon harah, it is forbidden to believe it. However, if the
talebearer mentions himself in the story, it is permissible to accept
his story as true . . . but only about himself. It is forbidden to
believe what he says about his friend.
>From these two places one could possibly deduce that it is
permitted to speak lashon harah about oneself. *According to the
lessons of Parshas Naso, even though one may not be violating the
laws of lashon harah, it is forbidden to tell others of one’s own
sins, because by doing so, one is violating the law of chilul Hashem.
If one repeats tales of his own sins, he may entice a friend to sin.
It will show him that it is possible to commit the sin.
May we be only good, positive influences on each other and all of
“But what of this scene’s other feature which the story is so
careful to preserve, the mysterious moments in which the reluctant
judge “bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground?” What is
the purpose of these actions, and what, if anything, does Jesus
write in the dust at his feet? These evocative details have
understandably intrigued generations of interpreters, and over the
centuries many have exercised their ingenuity in attempting to solve
this tantalizing textual riddle. Some have taken the story’s failure
to specify the content of Jesus’ inscription to mean that nothing
identifiable was written–Jesus doodles in order a), to buy some
time for the victim and then to allow his words to sink in, or b) to
show his contempt for the entire proceeding. Others see the unusual
word used to describe the act of writing–katagraphen, “writing
down” or perhaps “tallying up”–as an indication that Jesus wrote
something specific, such as the sins of his questioners. (3) Duncan
Derrett enlists his formidable knowledge of the laws and customs of
colonial Judea to support the hypothesis that Jesus wrote two
passages from Exodus that comment upon the actions of the lynchers.
The first is Exodus 23:1b, “You shall not join hands with the wicked
to act as a malicious witness,” and the second is Exodus 23:7, “Keep
far from a false charge.” (4)
These two schools of thought are, of course, mutually exclusive:
either Jesus wrote a recognizable text the content of which somehow
helped to shame the mob into dispersing, or his writing was
illegible and achieved a similar purpose via less direct and obvious
means. Of these two alternatives, the latter is preferable for two
reasons. First, the chronicler shows meticulous care in preserving
the delicate precision of Jesus’ utterances. If Jesus had indeed
written some text in the ground that directly commented on the
event, it is likely that the chronicler would have carefully
preserved it as well. Second, some sort of written accusation, such
as the crowd’s violation of a law, or their sins, no matter how
subtle or implicit, would jar with the resolutely non-accusatory
tenor of both Jesus’ central utterance and his concluding refusal to
condemn the woman.
To hold that nothing recognizable was written does not, however,
necessitate viewing the action of writing in the dust in the way
that Bultmann does, as a secondary, “novelistic” detail included to
dramatize the heightening tension of the situation. The importance
of this element of the story lies more in the act of writing itself
than in what is or is not written on the ground. The very action of
writing, in other words, is itself symbolic, and forms an essential
part of Jesus’ ethically-oriented response to the situation. That
such is the case may be observed by recalling exactly when Jesus
pursues this cryptic action. Verse 2 relates that after Jesus’ early
morning arrival at the temple, “all the people came to him, and he
sat down and taught them.” Though the text does not specify the
precise configuration of this group, the fact that Jesus sat down to
teach leads one reasonably to infer that the people were arranged in
a rough circle, Jesus sitting with them seminar fashion on the
periphery of the circle. That this was the arrangement is further
suggested by verse 3, which relates how the scribes and Pharisees
placed the woman caught in adultery “in the midst.” The Scribes and
Pharisees thus transform the egalitarian circle into a potential
scene of violence simply by providing the circle with a center.
Jesus’ response is to bend down and write “with his finger on the
ground,” an action which, in its way, repeats the action of the
scribes and Pharisees, though with a difference. Writing in the dust
echoes the placement of the woman in the midst of the crowd by
directing the attention of those on the periphery away from each
other to the circle’s center. Jesus’ action differs from that of the
scribes and Pharisees, however, in the extent to which it is
ambiguous. Like the famous central saying, writing in the dust
presents a striking conjunction of gestural clarity with
representational ambiguity. Jesus touches the ground, and leaves a
lingering trace of something in the dust–but what, exactly, is the
inscription? Is it composed of letters, initials, pictures, or just
IF A man be jealous of his wife, he may warn her, according to Rabbi Eliezer, before two witnesses. He may make her drink the bitter water on the evidence of two witnesses, or on his own evidence.
How does he warn her? If he says to her, before two witnesses: Don’t talk to so-and-so. But if she spoke to the man, she is still allowed into the home and she may eat of the Heave-offering. If she secretly entered a house with him, and stayed there long enough to be defiled, she is barred from her home, and is barred from eating of the Heave-offering. If her husband should die she performs the rite of Halizah, but does not contract levirate marriage.
The Sotah used to be brought before the high court in Jerusalem and the judges addressed her in the same way as they addressed witnesses in capital cases. They would say to her: Our daughter, wine contributes much to sin; frivolity, much; childishness, much; evil neighbors, much. Behave yourself for the sake of the great
name that was written in holiness and which will not be obliterated by water. And they say to her things which neither she nor the family of her father’s house are worthy of hearing.
If she says: I have been defiled, she forfeits her marriage allotment and is sent away. If she says: I am pure, she is brought to the Eastern gate which is near the gate of Nicanor. There the suspected women drink the bitter water. There the women are cleansed after child birth, and there the lepers are cleansed. A priest gets hold of her garments, if they get torn, they are torn. If they are ripped, let them be ripped, so that her bosom becomes uncovered. He undoes her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If she has a beautiful bosom, he does not uncover it. If she has beautiful hair, he does not undo it. If she was dressed in white, he dresses her in black. If she wore ornaments of gold chains and rings in her nose and on her fingers, they are taken away from her to make her look repulsive. Then the priest takes an Egyptian rope and ties it above her breasts. Whoever wants to gaze at her may come and gaze upon her, with the exception of her slaves and bondswomen, because her heart would be hardened by this. All the women are permitted to gaze at her, as was said: (Ezekiel xiii, 48) That all women may be taught not to do after lewdness.
FROM CHAPTER I
THE Husband takes the meal offering out of the Egyptian basket and puts it in the ministering vessel and into her hand: the priest then puts his hands under hers and waves it. After the waving he takes it to the
altar and lets a part of it go up in smoke, and the rest is eaten by the priests. He then makes her drink the bitter water and bring her sacrifice.
FROM CHAPTER I
IF A man warned his wife and she secretly went out, even if he heard of it from a flying bird he may give her her marriage allotment and send her away. Thus says Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua, however, says: Not until the women who spin yarn by the moonlight begin to talk about it may he send her away.
SAMUEL said: A man should rather marry a woman of bad reputation than marry the daughter of a woman who has a bad reputation. For the one comes from pure stock, while the other comes from a tainted stock. Rabbi Yohanan, however, said: A man should rather marry the daughter of a woman of bad reputation, but not the woman of bad reputation, because the one is assumed to be chaste while the other one is not. An objection. Does one marry a woman of bad reputation? The Rabbi answered: It should be interpreted: If a man had married a woman of bad reputation. Rabbi Tahlifa bar Maaraba learned from Rabbi Abahu: The children of a loose woman are legitimate because the majority of the intercourses are ascribed to the husband.
Rab Amram asked. What is the case if she is a very loose woman? If one maintains that a woman conceives only shortly before her period, then no question may be raised, because the husband does not know when this occurs and cannot watch for her. However one that maintains that a woman conceives after her cleansing,
can raise the question, because he knows when this takes place. Or cannot he tell anyway, since she is a very loose woman? The question remains without a solution.