Aaron is a prophet, high priest, the brother of Moses in the Abrahamic religions. Knowledge of Aaron, along with his brother Moses, comes from religious texts, such as the Bible and Quran; the Hebrew Bible relates that, unlike Moses, who grew up in the Egyptian royal court and his elder sister Miriam remained with their kinsmen in the eastern border-land of Egypt. When Moses first confronted the Egyptian king about the Israelites, Aaron served as his brother's spokesman to the Pharaoh. Part of the Law that Moses received from God at Sinai granted Aaron the priesthood for himself and his male descendants, he became the first High Priest of the Israelites. Aaron died before the Israelites crossed the North Jordan river and he was buried on Mount Hor. Aaron is mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible. According to the Book of Exodus, Aaron first functioned as Moses' assistant; because Moses complained that he could not speak well, God appointed Aaron as Moses' "prophet". At the command of Moses, he let his rod turn into a snake.
He stretched out his rod in order to bring on the first three plagues. After that, Moses tended to speak for himself. During the journey in the wilderness, Aaron was not always active. At the battle with Amalek, he was chosen with Hur to support the hand of Moses that held the "rod of God"; when the revelation was given to Moses at biblical Mount Sinai, he headed the elders of Israel who accompanied Moses on the way to the summit. While Joshua went with Moses to the top, however and Hur remained below to look after the people. From here on in Exodus and Numbers, Joshua appears in the role of Moses' assistant while Aaron functions instead as the first high priest; the books of Exodus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants. The family of Aaron had the exclusive right and responsibility to make offerings on the altar to Yahweh; the rest of his tribe, the Levites, were given subordinate responsibilities within the sanctuary.
Moses anointed and consecrated Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, arrayed them in the robes of office. He related to them God's detailed instructions for performing their duties while the rest of the Israelites listened. Aaron and his successors as high priest were given control over the Urim and Thummim by which the will of God could be determined. God commissioned the Aaronide priests to distinguish the holy from the common and the clean from the unclean, to teach the divine laws to the Israelites; the priests were commissioned to bless the people. When Aaron completed the altar offerings for the first time and, with Moses, "blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people: And there came a fire out from before the LORD, consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat when all the people saw, they shouted, fell on their faces". In this way, the institution of the Aaronide priesthood was established. In books of the Hebrew Bible and his kin are not mentioned often except in literature dating to the Babylonian captivity and later.
The books of Judges and Kings mention priests and Levites, but do not mention the Aaronides in particular. The Book of Ezekiel, which devotes much attention to priestly matters, calls the priestly upper class the Zadokites after one of King David's priests, it does reflect a two-tier priesthood with the Levites in subordinate position. A two-tier hierarchy of Aaronides and Levites appears in Ezra and Chronicles; as a result, many historians think that Aaronide families did not control the priesthood in pre-exilic Israel. What is clear is that high priests claiming Aaronide descent dominated the Second Temple period. Most scholars think the Torah reached its final form early in this period, which may account for Aaron's prominence in Exodus and Numbers. Aaron plays a leading role in several stories of conflicts during Israel's wilderness wanderings. During the prolonged absence of Moses on Mount Sinai, the people provoked Aaron to make a golden calf.. This incident nearly caused God to destroy the Israelites.
Moses intervened, but led the loyal Levites in executing many of the culprits. Aaron, escaped punishment for his role in the affair, because of the intercession of Moses according to Deuteronomy 9:20. Retellings of this story always excuse Aaron for his role. For example, in rabbinic sources and in the Quran, Aaron was not the idol-maker and upon Moses' return begged his pardon because he felt mortally threatened by the Israelites. On the day of Aaron's consecration, his oldest sons and Abihu, were burned up by divine fire because they offered "strange" incense. Most interpreters think this story reflects a conflict between priestly families some time in Israel's past. Others argue that the story shows what can happen if the priests do not follow God's instructions given through Moses; the Torah depicts the siblings, Moses and Miriam, as the leaders of Israel after the Exodus, a view reflected in the biblical Book of Micah. Numbers 12, reports that on one occasion and Miriam complained about Moses' exclusive claim to be the LORD's prophet.
Their presumption was rebuffed by God who affirmed Moses' uniqueness as the
History of ancient Israel and Judah
The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah were related kingdoms from the Iron Age period of the ancient Levant. The Kingdom of Israel emerged as an important local power by the 10th century BCE before falling to the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE. Israel's southern neighbor, the Kingdom of Judah, emerged in the 8th or 9th century BCE and became a client state of first the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Neo-Babylonian Empire before a revolt against the latter led to its destruction in 586 BCE. Following the fall of Babylon to the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, some Judean exiles returned to Jerusalem, inaugurating the formative period in the development of a distinctive Judahite identity in the province of Yehud Medinata. During the Hellenistic classic period, Yehud was absorbed into the subsequent Hellenistic kingdoms that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great, but in the 2nd century BCE the Judaeans revolted against the Seleucid Empire and created the Hasmonean kingdom.
This, the last nominally independent kingdom of Israel lost its independence from 63 BCE with its conquest by Pompey of Rome, becoming a Roman and Parthian client kingdom. Following the installation of client kingdoms under the Herodian dynasty, the Province of Judea was wracked by civil disturbances, which culminated in the First Jewish–Roman War, the destruction of the Second Temple, the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; the name Judea ceased to be used by Greco-Romans after the revolt of Simon Bar Kochba in 135 CE. Iron Age I: 1200–1000 BCE Iron Age II: 1000–586 BCE Neo-Babylonian: 586–539 BCE Persian: 539–332 BCE Hellenistic: 332–53 BCEOther academic terms used are: First Temple period Second Temple period The eastern Mediterranean seaboard – the Levant – stretches 400 miles north to south from the Taurus Mountains to the Sinai Peninsula, 70 to 100 miles east to west between the sea and the Arabian Desert; the coastal plain of the southern Levant, broad in the south and narrowing to the north, is backed in its southernmost portion by a zone of foothills, the Shfela.
East of the plain and the Shfela is a mountainous ridge, the "hill country of Judah" in the south, the "hill country of Ephraim" north of that Galilee and Mount Lebanon. To the east again lie the steep-sided valley occupied by the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, the wadi of the Arabah, which continues down to the eastern arm of the Red Sea. Beyond the plateau is the Syrian desert, separating the Levant from Mesopotamia. To the southwest is Egypt, to the northeast Mesopotamia; the location and geographical characteristics of the narrow Levant made the area a battleground among the powerful entities that surrounded it. Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a shadow of what it had been centuries earlier: many cities were abandoned, others shrank in size, the total settled population was not much more than a hundred thousand. Settlement was concentrated along major communication routes. Politically and culturally it was dominated by Egypt, each city under its own ruler at odds with its neighbours, appealing to the Egyptians to adjudicate their differences.
The Canaanite city state system broke down during the Late Bronze Age collapse, Canaanite culture was gradually absorbed into that of the Philistines and Israelites. The process was gradual and a strong Egyptian presence continued into the 12th century BCE, while some Canaanite cities were destroyed, others continued to exist in Iron Age I; the name "Israel" first appears in the Merneptah Stele c. 1209 BCE: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is no more." This "Israel" was a cultural and political entity, well enough established for the Egyptians to perceive it as a possible challenge, but an ethnic group rather than an organised state. In the Late Bronze Age there were no more than about 25 villages in the highlands, but this increased to over 300 by the end of Iron Age I, while the settled population doubled from 20,000 to 40,000; the villages were more numerous and larger in the north, shared the highlands with pastoral nomads, who left no remains. Archaeologists and historians attempting to trace the origins of these villagers have found it impossible to identify any distinctive features that could define them as Israelite – collared-rim jars and four-room houses have been identified outside the highlands and thus cannot be used to distinguish Israelite sites, while the pottery of the highland villages is far more limited than that of lowland Canaanite sites, it develops typologically out of Canaanite pottery that came before.
Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes some of the earliest highland sites, the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites, could be taken as markers of ethnicity, but others have cautioned that these can be a "common-sense" adaptation to highland life and not revelatory of origins. Other Aramaean sites demonstrate a contemporary absence of pig remains at that time, unlike earlier Canaanite and Philistine excavations. In The Bible Unea
Sons of Zadok
The Sons of Zadok are a family of priests, descended from Zadok, the first high priest in Solomon's Temple. The sons of Zadok are mentioned three times in the Hebrew Bible, as part of the Third Temple prophecy in the final chapters of the Book of Ezekiel, are a theme in Jewish and Christian interpretation of these chapters; the Tanakh records how prior to the death of Aaron at Hor HaHar, he was accompanied by his brother Moses, as well as his elder son Eleazar and younger son Ithamar. Upon entry to the cave where Aaron died, he witnessed as his brother Moses dressed his elder son Eleazer with the clothes of the high priesthood, as initiation to high priesthood. Jewish commentaries on the Bible express that this initiation ceremony served as the catalyst for the stipulation that all future candidates of high priesthood be patrilineal descendants of Eleazar the elder son of Aaron and not Ithamar - the younger son; the Hebrew Bible relates how, at the time Phineas son of Eleazar appeased God's anger, he merited the divine blessing of God.
Behold I give to him my covenant of Peace, is/will be his and his progeny after him covenant of everlasting priesthood in turn of his zealousness for of his God, he atoned for the sons of Israel. Torah commentators such as Yosef Karo and explain that the continuity of high priesthood is put forth to the descendants of Phineas from this noted verse. Torah commentators record that Phineas sinned due to his not availing his servitude of Torah instruction to the masses at the time leading up to the Battle of Gibeah. In addition, he failed to address the needs of relieving Jephthah of his vow; as consequence, the high priesthood was taken from him and given to the offspring of Ithamar Eli and his sons. Upon the sin of Eli's sons and Phinehas, Elkanah prophesied the return of high priesthood to the sons of Eleazar; this prophecy of Elkanah happened in the era of King David when Zadok from the progeny of Eleazar was appointed as high priest. The Metzudoth and Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno comment that the service of Zadok and his sons was in line with the will of God at times when the actions of the general nation was not.
The Midrash Rabba relates how Zadok and offspring were righteous in their personal actions and service to the Temple to the point that were Aaron and his sons present at the era of Zadok and sons and sons would supersede them in quality. Rashi comments that since Zadok functioned first as high priest in Solomon's Temple, as opposed to the tabernacle, mobile, busied himself with establishing the twenty-four priestly divisions, he merited that the preferred lineage of Eleazar be called by his name, "the sons of Zadok, the entire concept of the twenty-four divisions be attributed to him; the three Hebrew Bible mentions of the sons of Zadok in the Third Temple occur in the book of Ezekiel. These sources are presented in spite of Ezekiel himself, as a kohen, being from the descendants of Ithamar and not Eleazar, as are Zadok and sons. Various documents of the texts found at Qumran mention the teachers of the community as "kohanim Sons of Zadok", leading some scholars to assume that the community at Qumran included kohanim who refused to participate in the Hellenization of the priesthood taking place in Jerusalem.
Abraham Geiger, the founder of Reform Judaism, was of the opinion that the Sadducee sect of Judaism drew their name from Zadok the high priest in The First Temple, that the leaders of the Sadducees were in fact the "Sons of Zadok.". However Avot of Rabbi Natan states that the Sadducees began at the same time as the Boethusians, their founder was a Zadok who, like Boethus, was a student of Antigonus of Sokho during the second century BCE, who preceded the Zugot era during the Second Temple period. Sifri, the Tannaitic midrash on Deuteronomy, took a dim view of both the Sadducees and Boethusian groups not only due their perceived carefree approach to keeping to written Torah and Oral Torah law, but due their attempts to persuade common-folk to join their ranks. Maimonides viewed the Sadducees as Gonvei Da'at of the greater Jewish nation and of intentionally negating the Chazalic interpretation of Torah. In his Mishneh Torah treatise he defines the Sadducees as "Harming Israel and causing the nation to stray from following HaShem.
Considering the lack of Chazalic documentary indicating a connection between Zadok the first high priest and the Zadok student of Antignos of Sokho, along with the thirteen or more generations between the two Zadoks, Rabbinical writings tend to put a damper on that association Additional aspects disproving that association include a Chazalic mention that the Sadducee and Boethusian groups favored using vessels of Gold and Silver whereas the common vessel usage of Kohanim - to negate transmission of uncleanliness - were of stone. Ezekiel records the general rebellion of the children of Israel against God. Rabbinic commentators understood this general rebellion as referring to that of Jeroboam and the Ten Tribes against the Kingdom of David and the priesthood of Zadok. A number of commentators point out that at the time of a popular rebellion the true adherents to the king stand firm in their commitment
The priestly undergarments were "linen breeches" worn by the priests and the High Priest in ancient Israel. They reached from the waist to the knees and so were not visible, being hidden by the priestly tunic; the biblical commandment instituting their use is found in the Book of Exodus 28:42 You shall make for them linen breeches to cover their nakedness. Unlike the other priestly vestments which were "for glory and for beauty", the purpose of the michnasayin was for modesty, "to hide their nakedness". In the Book of Leviticus when Moses consecrates Aaron and his sons as High Priest and priests the linen undergarments are not mentioned, though their use is presumed. There were four holy garments worn by both the priests and the High Priest alike: linen breeches to cover their nakedness when they enter the Tent of Meeting or approach the altar to officiate in the sanctuary. Priestly tunic, a fringed tunic made of fine linen, covering the entire body from the neck to the feet, with sleeves reaching to the wrists.
That of the High Priest was embroidered. Priestly sash of the High Priest was of linen with "embroidered work". Priestly turban, according to Rabbinic literature that of the High Priest was much larger than that of the priests and wound so that it formed a broad, flat-topped turban; the Talmud records the worn out undergarments and priestly sashes were used for torch wicks in the Temple. The linen undergarments symbolized the abolition of the distinction between the heavenly and the mortal part of man, as contrasted with the divine nature, holy and living. According to the Talmud, the undergarments atone for the sin of sexual transgressions on the part of the Children of Israel. Priestly tunic Priestly sash Priestly turban Priestly robe Ephod Priestly breastplate Tzitz
Joshua the High Priest
Joshua or Yeshua the High Priest was, according to the Bible, the first person chosen to be the High Priest for the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity. While the name Yeshua is used in Ezra–Nehemiah for the High Priest, he is called Joshua son of Yehozadak in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. Yeshua son of Jozadak served. 515–490 BCE in the common List of High Priests of Israel. This dating is based on the period of service age 25–50 not age 30–50; the biblical text credits Joshua among the leaders that inspired a momentum towards the reconstruction of the temple, in Ezra 5:2. 10:18 some of his sons and nephews are found guilty of intermarriage. Facts concerning the part of Joshua's life are in part dependent upon whether Joshua was still alive at the time of his appearance in a vision by Zechariah. If the vision relates to Nehemiah's cleansing of the temple in Nehemiah 13:28 the engagement of Joshua's great-great-grandson to the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite would place Joshua in his late 90s if he were still alive.
In the Book of Zechariah 3:6–10, Zechariah the prophet experiences a vision given to him by an angel of the Lord in which the restoration and cleansing of Joshua's priestly duties are affirmed. Included in the visions were requirements in which Joshua was expected to uphold; these included: walk in the ways of God, keeping the requirements, ruling God's house, take charge of my courts. The vision functioned to purify Joshua and to sanctify him for the preparations of his priestly duties. Alternatively, if Joshua had in fact died before the events of Nehemiah 13 it is possible that the vision intended to depict a heavenly throneroom scene of Satan and the angel disputing over the soul of Joshua, the intended target of the allegory is the serving high priest, his grandson, Eliashib. In 1825, the traditional tomb of Joshua was reported to have been found at "one hour's distance from Baghdad." Related Bible parts: Haggai 1, Haggai 2, Zechariah 3 Unique Pictures Of Joshua the High Priest In Iraq By Kobi Arami Pictures Of Joshua The High Priest Shrine Courtyard,Hakham Abdallah Somekh And Rabbai Yaacov Bar Yosef The Doctor Were Buried In The Courtyard.
By Kobi Arami
First Fruits is a religious offering of the first agricultural produce of the harvest. In classical Greek, Roman and Christian religions, the first fruits were given to priests to offer a deity. First Fruits were a primary source of income to maintain the religious leaders and the facility. Beginning in 1966 a unique "First Fruits" celebration brought the Ancient African harvest festivals that became the African American holiday, Kwanzaa. In Classical Athens the First Fruits were called an offering of aparche. Except during times of war, this would be a major source of funds for the temples of the Eleusinian goddesses and Kore. Much of the agricultural offering was sold by the temple with the proceeds being used to pay for the daily upkeep of the temple complex. Under Pericles' rule, it became a way of extending Athens' power; the Demos or voting citizens would control the operation of the temple by elected boards. During times of war or for other necessity the Demos would borrow money from the treasury of the temple.
Neighboring cities under Athens' control were required to give offerings from their harvests. This served to extend her power. Much of this was shown in the temple reports which were carved in stone when the governing body of the temple changed hands. In the stone IG I3 386-387 it can be seen. Doctor Maureen B. Cavanaugh who translated stone IG I3 386-387, argues that there were heavy implications of the funding realized from the First Fruits donations to the temple, in particular that it brought significant impact on Athenian power; this is noted in a loan cited in the stone record, of over 20,000 silver drachmas to the city. Inscription IG I2 76 shows the provisions made for the offering of first fruits to Demeter and Kore by Athenian demes, Athens' allies and other Greek cities, it sets out that one six-hundredth of the barley crop and one twelve-hundredth of the wheat was to be offered to the goddesses. The proposal for the decree came from a special board of'draftsmen', which suggests that the matter was deemed complicated.
Sacrifices were to be paid for out of the proceeds from the barley and wheat, votive offerings were to be made to the two goddesses, the rest of the grain was to be sold. There were concerns that some allies might avoid offering grain by claiming that they had come to Athens but never been received by officials there. So, the inscription insists that the Hieropoioi accept the grain within five days, or otherwise be subject to a substantial fine of 1000 drachmas. In order to draw in other Greeks, the Hieropoioi were to record the weight of grain received on a board and distribute it to other cities, encouraging them to contribute. Lampon, a renowned seer in fifth-century Athens, moved a rider in which he proposed several changes to the draft decree: that the decree should be inscribed on stelai both in Eleusis and in Athens, that there should be an intercalary month in the following year, that the Pelargikon should be tidied up and protected; this demonstrates the authority which he gained from his expertise as a seer - notable since the Athenians tended to shy away from the recognition of experts in most fields.
The motivation behind the offering of first fruits is a combination of three religious factors: the need to honour the two goddesses, obedience to Apollo, and'ancestral custom'. The last two factors suggest that a recent oracle was in line with an older practice which had either fallen into disuse, or was being transformed into a much larger affair. In return for the offering,'there will be many benefits in abundance of good harvests if they are men who do not injure the Athenians'; the reward, although it could only be guaranteed by the gods, was conditional on not injuring Athens. The decree cannot be dated however the combination of specific religious policy and Athenian political dominance evident here is relevant throughout Athens' imperial period, it is an example of Athens striving to advertise her claims to leadership in Greece, whilst binding herself more with her allies. Similar to this is the expectation that allies would bring annual tribute to the City Dionysia, sacrificial contributions to the Panathenaea.
In Ancient Israel, First Fruits was a type of offering, akin to, but distinct from, terumah gedolah. While terumah gedolah was an agricultural tithe, the First-fruits, discussed in the Bikkurim tractate of the Talmud, were a sacrificial gift brought up to the altar; the major obligation to bring First Fruits to the Temple began at the festival of Shavuot and continued until the festival of Sukkot. This tithe was limited to the traditional seven agricultural products grown in Israel; this tithe, the associated festival of Shavuot, is legislated by the Torah. Textual critics speculate that these regulations were imposed long after the offerings and festival had developed. By the time of classical antiquity, extensive regulations regarding Bikkurim were recorded in the classical rabbinical literature. According to Jewish law, the corners of fields, wild areas, left-overs after harvesting, unowned crops were not subjected to the tithe of First Fruits; the rules specify that each type of product had to be individually tithed if the num
Foreleg, cheeks and maw
The gift of the foreleg and maw of a kosher-slaughtered animal to a kohen is a positive commandment in the Hebrew Bible. In Mishnah interpretation a continuing application of the commandment is identified both in the Land of Israel and among Jewish diaspora. Rabbi Yosef Karo in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 61:1, rules that after the slaughter of animal by a shochet, he is obligated to separate the cuts of the foreleg and maw give them to a kohen without the kohen paying or performing any service; the source of the gift to the priest is found in Deuteronomy: And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, the two cheeks, the maw. In rabbinical interpretation this is a positive commandment requiring the shochet to give the aforementioned parts of a kosher-slaughtered animal to a kohen; this giving is required to be free of both servicial compensation. Contrary to common misconception these gifts are mundane and are not associated with all or part of the sacrificial offerings brought on the central altar in the Jerusalem temple.
The early Rabbinical authorities felt the need to specify the specific animal parts to be given due to confusion in understanding which animal parts the Torah verse refers to, and, required to give them. The earliest extant Midrash on the above quoted text is found in the Sifri to Deuteronomy 18:3 which relays the following detail: Foreleg: The right foreleg in its entirety Cheeks: The lower jaw with attached cheek flesh, tongue included Abomasum: The abomasum in its entirety The Mishnah states that the application of this Mitzvah is not dependent on whether the Temple in Jerusalem stands, it is non dependent on whether the animal is slaughtered in or outside the Land of Israel, as the gift are to be given nonetheless. The Talmudic view coincides with that of the Mishnah requiring the giving outside the Land of Israel; the basis of this view is due to the Mitzvah not being an obligation of the land but an obligation of the body. The Talmud delves further than the Mishnah in terms of citing instances of penalties being levied against both individual transgressors and entire communities for failure to give these gifts.
The view of Hai ben Sherira coincides with the Talmud regarding penalty, urging excommunication on those who do not carry out the commandment. Among the opinions expressed by the Rishonim most fall back to either the opinion of Maimonides and Meir of Rothenburg or Rashi's responsum. Maimonides, both in his commentary to the Mishna and in his Mishna Torah compilation was of the opinion that the giving of the gifts was mandatory outside Israel. Nachmanides opined that any leniency applied to giving of the gifts outside the land would lead to forgetting about the practice, he therefore stated that regardless of whether the obligation is direct from the Torah or Rabbinical the gifts are to be given outside the land. Dealing with the issue of gift giving outside the land of Israel Meir of Rothenburg was by far the most lengthy and detailed of all opining rabbis. By analyzing the issue at supreme depth, implicitly differing from Rashi's opinion, Meir reasoned that reliance on Rabbi Elai in the Mishnah for leniency or/and invoking a hekesh between reishith haGez and the gifts is invalid..
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, "Ra-Sh-I", in a responsum to Rabbi Yehuda the son of Rabbi Machir - in an attempt to explain the practice of the common folk withholding of the gift - cites reliance on a lone talmudic interpretation of the opinion of the Tanna Rabbi Elai. Rashi goes a step further by grouping the giving the Foreleg Cheeks and Abomasum with the Mitzvha of Reishis HaGeiz. Being that Terumah is nonapplicable outside Israel likewish is the giving of Reishes HaGeiz and the giving of the foreleg cheeks and abomasum.. Who would object? Those that give come on them blessing of good, but they've accustomed themselves to Rabbi Elai who said regarding the gifts... that they are not done only in the land. As we've learnt the gifts are not done only in the land; as we compare "give" and "give" from Terumah. And the giver -reaps complete benefit as, he who sais a minhag -we do not promote -but we instruct. And he who sais "they've accustomed themselves" -we do not instruct, if acted on we don't instruct to backtrack..
Rashi goes on to state that in many communities where Jews dwell there is a complete lack of Kohanim -thereby making the giving of the gifts technically impossible. Rashi conclu