I am the Kinsman Redeemer of my beloved sister, Christine Rosamond Benton. In theory, my wish is to enter the Rosamond Gallery in Carmel and claim the Family Artistic Legacy. My two Muses will be at my side, Rena Victoria Easton, and Marilyn Reed. The Rose of the World gallery is now closed, just as my sister was silenced, her last words taken from her and disappeared. From the mouth of my Muses, Christine will be heard.
From the pen of her brother, Rosamond shall be read.
I am the only Biblical Scholar who figured out what Jesus wrote in the dust – and why he read from Isaiah 61:1-2. All other Christian scholars have fallen short – missed the mark! I know how to restore the Rightful Kingdom of God, because – I read the Book! And, God put me in whale of difficulties and calamity – that I have overcome! I passed His Test!
In the photo above my girlfriend has invited me to come and try to heal her one year old cousin who has autztymers. I tried. I failed. I had not yet read the Bible. She believed in me.
“On occasion, Christine speaks for herself – these passages are included and italicized – from scattered pages of autobiographical notes, a few brief interviews, unfinished letters, and personal meanderings. These passages are all more striking for being so sparce. For Chrsitne was not a journal keeper so much as one who reached for clarity of mind by writing. The bulk of her comments, however, consists of scattered thoughts and the ideation of a woman who was not well at the time she wrote them down.”
“We were almost there when an ambulance passed us, going the other way. We both realized it was carrying Christine. My mind flashed back over the last few months and years, and all the anguish for Nina and Drew and me, even for Christine. I was crying, and I turned to Nina — this is what I am ashamed of — and I said, ‘we’re free. And Drew is saved.”
“I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and an attorney
on record for 50% interest in Shannon Rosamond. In my 16 years as a member of
the State Bar California, I have never experienced a more deliberate fraud on
any court or more reckless and calculated attempt to fraudulently take control
of a probate estate at the exclusion of the lawful heirs and total manipulation
of a tester’s intent that the present efforts of Attorney’s Robin Beare,
Lawrence J. Chazen and Garth Benton, the descendants former spouse.”
“Over the specific argument of Ms. Beare, Judge Silver refused to appoint Mr.
Chazen. Neither Ms. Beare nor Mr. Chazen disclosed to the court the very
critical fact that Mr. Chazen has the largest single creditor’s claim against
the estate and is a former business partner and business associate of Garth
Benton who the court had removed as Special Administer just moments before.”
In separate interviews, broker Charles H. Oliver Jr. and San Francisco investor
Lawrence Chazen angrily objected to the cross-fire of publicity and politics
surrounding a 4-year-old loan to Mattie Aikens and her son Wilbert. Oliver and
Chazen said they’ve been the target of abusive telephone calls. Oliver operates
Homeowners Resources Corp. of Hayward along with his wife and partner, Cindy
Oliver. The Olivers said they are outraged that U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development officials publicly said, before investigating, that they
believed Aikens’ case was an example of predatory lending practices. He compared
himself to Richard Jewell, widely suspected of planting a bomb during the
Olympics in Atlanta until the Justice Department conceded it lacked sufficient
Goel (go’el) is a Hebrew term which comes from the word gal’al (“to redeem”), hence meaning “redeemer”, which in the Bible and the rabbinical tradition denotes a person who as the nearest relative of another is charged with the duty of restoring the rights of another and avenging his wrongs. In the Authorized King James Bible, it is rendered “kinsman”, “redeemer”, and “avenger”.
In the book of Isaiah God is called the redeemer of Israel, as he redeems his people from captivity; the context shows that the redemption also involves moving on to something greater. In Christianity, the title goel is applied to Christ, who redeems his believers from all evil by the payment of a ransom.
1 Duties of the goel
2 See also
4 External links
 Duties of the goel
Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld: Ruth in Boaz’s Field, 1828. The Book of Ruth tells the story of Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi. After her husband’s death they both move to Naomi’s native land where she gets redeemed from poverty and widowhood through Ruth by her goel, Boaz.
The obligations of the goel include the duty to redeem the relative from slavery, if the latter had been obliged to sell himself into serfdom (Leviticus 25: 48-49); to repurchase the property of a relative who had had to sell it because of poverty; to avenge the blood of his relative; to marry his brother’s widow in order to have a son for his brother, in case the brother had not got any son to pass his name forth (Deuteronomy 25:5-6); and to receive the restitution if the injured relative had died (Numbers 5:8).
Numbers 35:9-30 regulates the duties of the goel. The congregation has to judge the case before it puts a murderer in the hands of a goel. More than one witness is needed for conviction. In case of accidental manslaughter, the slayer can save his life by fleeing to a “city of refuge” and staying there for the term of the high priest (who is appointed for his lifetime). Ransom is not accepted for murder. Revenge cannot be taken on the offender’s children or parents (Deuteronomy 24:16). Leviticus 25:48-49 gives the order in which the nearest relative is considered the goel in the case of redeeming a slave: brother, uncle, male cousin and then other relatives. The same order was probably observed in the other cases, except in marrying a sister-in-law.
Jewish tradition has also ascribed to the blood avenger the role performed in modern times by a prosecuting attorney, who thus pleads on behalf of the victim the case against the criminal. Thus, he is responsible for bringing the offender to court, finding evidence against him, presenting the case to the court, and collecting damages from the offender. It is also his task to argue against any attempts to pardon the sinner.
Table of Contents
Avenger of Blood.
Next of kin, and, hence, redeemer. Owing to the solidarity of the family and the clan in ancient Israel, any duty which a man could not perform by himself had to be taken up by his next of kin. Any rights possessed by a man which lapsed through his inability to perform the duties attached to such rights, could be and should be resumed by the next of kin. This applied especially to parcels of land which any Israelite found it necessary to sell. This his go’el, or kinsman, had to redeem (Lev. xxv. 25). From the leading case of Jeremiah’s purchase of his cousin Hananeel’s property in Anathoth (Jer. xxxii. 8-12) it would appear that in later Israel at any rate this injunction was taken to mean that a kinsman had the right of preemption. Similarly, in the Book of Ruth the next of kin was called upon to purchase a parcel of land formerly belonging to Elimelech (Ruth iv. 3). It would appear from the same example that another duty of the go’el was to raise offspring for his kinsman if he happened to die without any (ib. 5). This would seem to be an extension of the principle of the Levirate Marriage; hence the procedure of “ḥaliẓah” was gone through in the case of Naomi’s go’el, just as if he had been her brother-in-law. The relative nearness of kin is not very definitely determined in the Old Testament. The brother appears to be the nearest of all, after whom comes the uncle or uncle’s son (Lev. xxv. 49).
Another duty of the go’el was to redeem his kinsman from slavery if sold to a stranger or sojourner (Lev. xxv. 47-55). In both cases much depended upon the nearness or remoteness of the year of jubilee, which would automatically release either the land or the person of the kinsman from subjection to another.
As the go’el had his duties, so he had his privileges and compensation. If an injured man had claim to damages and died before they were paid to him, his go’el would have the right to them (Lev. v. 21-26 [A. V. vi. 1-7]). The whole conception of the go’el was based on the solidarity of the interests of the tribe and the nation with those of the national God, and accordingly the notion of the go’el became spiritualized as applied to the relations between God and Israel. God was regarded as the go’el of Israel,
and as having redeemed him from the bondage of Egypt (Ex. vi. 6, xv. 13). Especially in Deutero-Isaiah is this conception emphasized (Isa. xli. 14; xliii. 14; xliv. 6, 24, et passim).
Avenger of Blood.
However, the chief of the go’el’s duties toward his kinsman was that of avenging him if he should happen to be slain by some one outside the clan or tribe. This custom is found in all early or primitive civilizations (comp. Post, “Studien zur Entwickelungsgesch. des Familienrechts,” pp. 113-137). Indeed, it is the only expedient by which any check could be put upon the tendency to do injury to strangers. Here again the principle of solidarity was applied to the family of the murderer, and the death of one member of a family would generally result in a vendetta. It would appear that this custom was usual in early Israel, for the crimes of a man were visited upon his family (Josh. vii. 24; II Kings ix. 26); but at a very early stage the Jewish code made an advance upon most Semitic codes, including that of Hammurabi, by distinguishing between homicide and murder (Ex. xxi. 13, 14). It was in order to determine whether a case of manslaughter was accidental or deliberate that the Cities of Refuge were instituted (Deut. xix.; Num. xxxv.). In a case where the elders of the city of refuge were satisfied that the homicide was intentional, the murderer was handed over to the blood-avenger (“go’el ha-dam”)to take vengeance on him. Even if it was decided that it was a case of unintentional homicide, the man who committed the deed had to keep within the bounds of the city of refuge till the death of the high priest, as the go’el could kill the homicide with impunity if he found him trespassing beyond the bounds (Num. xxxv. 26, 27).
In other legislations grew the principle of commuting the penalty by a money fine, known among the Anglo-Saxons as “wergild,” which varied in amount according to the rank of the person; but such a method was distinctly prohibited in the Israelite code (Num. xxxv. 31).
It would appear that the custom of the blood-avenger still existed in the time of David, as the woman of Tekoah refers to it in her appeal to the king (II Sam. xiv. 11), but no further trace of it is found. Later the concentration of the population in cities gave fuller power to the courts of justice to punish cases of murder. The term “go’el” thus became entirely confined to the spiritual sense of “redeemer.” It is probably used in that way in the celebrated passage in Job xix. 25: “I know that my redeemer [go’el] liveth.” In the Talmud it is used exclusively in this manner.
Normally, the role of the Kinsman Redeemer, or Goel in the case of the death of an adult male without progeny, is to bear children to their name. This is seen as part of the Levirate Law (Deut. 25:5-11) to fulfill the responsibility of the Goel, first to fall to the brother, to be accepted by him (see Gen. 38:11-30: the story of Tamar; Judah’s daughter-in-law, mother of Phares, listed in Luke 3:33 as part of the lineage of Christ, she is mentioned in Matt. 1:3), however, if a brother or closest in bloodline refused, as seen in the book of Ruth, then the man that refused would perform a ritual of taking off his shoe and handing it to the next inline of kinship that would redeem the progeny and the land.4
Naomi gave specific instructions to Ruth on how to secure back the property of Naomi’s husband’s family, and gain an inheritance by marrying the kinsman and bearing children. During the harvest festival there was a procedure whereby after Boaz had went to sleep on the floor of the grain thrashing floor (so as to protect the grain that they had thrashed, separating the wheat from the chaff), Ruth was to go to sleep at his feet and cover up with the hem of his overcoat.
The Hebrews had a tradition that the hem of their overcoat would display emblems which would identify their position within the family and their authority, similarly to how military soldiers wear patches on their arm, or ensign on their caller to identify their rank. Ruth completed this, and during the night Boaz awoke, and she petitioned him to marry her under the law of Levirate marriage. Boaz agreed, but determined that there was another kinsman closer in relationship to her. Therefore, Boaz approached the individual, and managed to obtain the right of the kinsman Redeemer (Deut. 25:5-11). In doing so he purchased back the land for Naomi, and raised up children for Ruth and her inheritance as one of the tribes of Israel. One of Ruth’s sons is named in the lineage of Jesus as stated above.
As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him.  And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her.  She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.
 “Who touched me?” Jesus asked.
When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.”
 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.”
 Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed.  Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”
Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing Floor
3 One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home[a] for you, where you will be well provided for. 2 Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. 3 Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”
5 “I will do whatever you say,” Ruth answered. 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do.
7 When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 In the middle of the night something startled the man; he turned—and there was a woman lying at his feet!
9 “Who are you?” he asked.
“I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer[b] of our family.”
10 “The Lord bless you, my daughter,” he replied. “This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. 11 And now, my daughter, don’t be afraid. I will do for you all you ask. All the people of my town know that you are a woman of noble character. 12 Although it is true that I am a guardian-redeemer of our family, there is another who is more closely related than I. 13 Stay here for the night, and in the morning if he wants to do his duty as your guardian-redeemer, good; let him redeem you. But if he is not willing, as surely as the Lord lives I will do it. Lie here until morning.”
14 So she lay at his feet until morning, but got up before anyone could be recognized; and he said, “No one must know that a woman came to the threshing floor. ”
15 He also said, “Bring me the shawl you are wearing and hold it out.” When she did so, he poured into it six measures of barley and placed the bundle on her. Then he[c] went back to town.
16 When Ruth came to her mother-in-law, Naomi asked, “How did it go, my daughter?”
Then she told her everything Boaz had done for her 17 and added, “He gave me these six measures of barley, saying, ‘Don’t go back to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’”
18 Then Naomi said, “Wait, my daughter, until you find out what happens. For the man will not rest until the matter is settled today.”
Jesus Christ Will Return On “the Day of Atonement”, For “the Feast of Tabernacles”, And Will Proclaim A “Jubilee”
In accordance with the Levitical Law given to Moses; “during the Feast of Tabernacles”, on “the Day of Atonement”, a “Jubilee” was proclaimed, where all of the debts of the Israelites were canceled, all of the Israelites who had become enslaved were set free, and all of the land belonging to the Israelites was returned to its rightful Israelite owner.
This is a physical example of the spiritual truths that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and will be finished at His Second Coming. The debt of sin is canceled, the slaves of sin are set free, and the ruler-ship of the earth will return to Jesus Christ and His Bride forever. The Bride of Christ will be made up of the “Born Again” Children of God who are alive at Jesus Christ’s Second Coming, and the “Born Again” Children of God who were martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ prior to His Second Coming.
(The “Jubilee” begins during “the Feast of Tabernacles”, on “The Day of Atonement”.)
Atonement is when God and humanity come together. (Atonement, AT-ONE-MENT, AT ONE WITH GOD) When Jesus Christ returns for His Bride, there will be AT-ONE-MENT.)
In accordance with the Levitical Law given to Moses, a “Jubilee” occurs every 50 years. The 6,000 years of man will exactly complete 120 Jubilees. The root 12 in the number 120 is significant in that the number 12 denotes a completion number for man. There were 12 Children of Israel, creating 12 tribes of Israel; and 12 disciples of Jesus.
Isaiah 61:1-2 (NIV) The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,
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