The Purpose  of   HEALING - K.I.S.S.

- as stated 12 years ago - was and is

  to help me and my potential P E E R s 

"to HEAL ourselves into WHOLEness,

and - by extension - all of CREATion!"
Intro to Healing-K.i.s.s. 2001-2013
and Overview of its main libraries

[If you look for a word on this page,
click ctrl/F and put a word in "find"]


I focus my experiencing and awareness on being
"a   pioneer of  Evolution  in  learning  to  feel":
I let my Body vibrate and my Heart 'womb'
pain, shame, fear, boredom, powerlessness,
so feelings can >heal >guide>fulfill>evolve,
and ~~~ offer ~~~"goldmines"~~~ to us all!!
"I want you to feel everything, every little thing!"

 

 

 


        

THE WHOLENESS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
Stimulated by sculpting "Kayin&Hevel"
See also Wholeness in the Bible and Holistic Health

On November 6, 2011: I re-read "The Bible of Feelings" in my holographic creation of
MESSIAH Bat-Sheva & David or The HIDDEN FEMALE THREAD of REDEMPTION in the BIBLE
It's there, that Everett Fox gives an extensive example
- lev, levav = heart -
of how to read the Bible along its "leading words":
......a "leading word" in Martin Buber's definition , that is,
a word used thematically to point to a major message in the narrative. .............
By presenting different uses of the leading word, but retaining the sound links between different passages,
the text encourages readers themselves to "take to heart" the painful lessons of this narrative,

 

July 23, 2010
I began this page in 2002 - see below!
When re-reading it now, for the first time in 6 years, I feel frustrated and ashamed.
How often have I linked to this page - and what could anyone find here?????

I may , at least, phrase the one - ancient, traditional - principle ,
the principle of Buber-Rosenzweig's "Leitwort" - "leading word",
which helps me to explore every single word , phrase or passage:


"All the words of the Torah need each other,
for what one of them locks, the other opens."

It was many years ago, that I read this sentence in an ancient source.
It could be the logo of Buber-Rosenzweig's "Verdeutschung der Schrift"
To people, who are attracted to the Bible, but cannot find their way in it,
I am always quoting this sentence, giving them always the same example:

In the beginning of creation it is said:
"... and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning,
one day
and not "the first day", as all the translations have it,
and as later is said: "the second day, the third day" etc..

If I want to understand this seeming difficulty,
I must look up at least 3 other verses with the word "ONE":

God separated the light from the darkness.
God called the Light: Day! and the darkness he called: Night!
There was setting, there was dawning: one day
(Genesis 1:5, Fox' translation)

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother
and clings to his wife,
and they become one flesh.
(Genesis 2:24, Fox' translation)

Hearken O Israel:
YHWH our God, YHWH (is) one!
Deuteronomy 6:4, Fox' translation



On that day will be
YHWH One and his name one
({Zechariah 14:9, my translation)

and then I might understand the message:
that still and forever everything is ONE,
beyond all differentiations and polarizations
between "in the Beginning - in the end",
between "Heaven - Earth",
between "Light - Darkness"
between "Water- Not-Water"
[these two first explicitly stated differentiations = the first two days
- are adaptations of what a baby discerns, when it comes out of the womb,
the space of only darkness, only water,
the space of non-differentiation, therefore non-choice, therefore non-responsibility]

In 50 years of studying the Hebrew Bible according to this principle,
I was rarely enriched by an interpretation from outside the text,
except concerning the story of Noah and the flood,
which is even more relevant for my, our, life and time,
- when seen on the background of and in contrast to the ancient Babylonian myth of Gilgamesch.
See an example of my "reading the Bible"
on the Page "AU-schwitz-Birken-AU-The Rainbow between God and Noah".
There I point out two of the most vital, most crucial words in the Bible:
"tamim" = WHOLE , and "aekhad" = ONE!

[As to Franz Rosenzweig:
some references to him, his life, his love, his death, the Bible, my editions of his part of his writings, etc.
are listed by the Google Search of "Healingkiss"]

 

 

 

2002_05_19; last update; 2004_06_25

2002_08_08
I'm happy about finally having been informed about
the Translation of the "Five Books of Moses", 1997,
by Everett Fox,
which follows the principles
laid down by Buber and Rosenzweig.
In the first passage, for which I used this translation - Numbers 11 in pp47, I only needed minor modifications.
I also now own the only other book translated by Fox,
the double book of Samuel: "Give us a King".

See now - 2004_06_25 - "the Bible of Feelings"
copied to K.i.s.s.-log 2008_08_05 and updated on June 19, 2011

 

I've been learning the Biblical stories since the age of 6,
I've been studying the Bible in Hebrew for the last 43 years,
and I've experienced over and over again,
that R, the signum for "Redactor" in the "scientific" "Quellentheorie",
i.e. the theory
that the "Old" Testament is a conglomorate of contradicting sources ,
has to be read as "Rabbenu" = our Master,
i.e. a great artist, who like all great artists
created from the collective unconscious.

 

See the work of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig

and my book

SPRACHDENKEN IM UEBERSETZEN
2. Band Arbeitspapiere zur Verdeutschung der Schrift

in
Franz Rosenzweig
Der Mensch und Sein werk
Gesammelte Schriften

1884 Martinus Nijhoff PUblishers, Dortrecht

It was as late as the nineties of the first century A.D.
that the rabbies, the wise people of ancient Israel,
worked and decided on the present text of the Hebrew Bible,

They had to choose from a library of more than 1000 years,
not counting the unwritten traditions in books like Genesis.

There are some vivid stories in the Talmud about this work.
The one I like best is about Chananya ben Chiskiya,
who filled his oil lamp 300 times, i.e. worked very hard
in order to prove to his colleagues,
that the book Ezechiel should be included,
though the prophet seems to contradict the Torah.
The Torah books Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy claim
that children suffer for the sins of their parents,
while Ezechiel says: only the sinner himself will die.
Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 13b and
my book (Hebrew p.185-6; German p.170)    

See, what I noted to the interpretation of YHWH by Franz Rosenzweig


2003_04_17 NOT COMPLETED~~~~

Struck again by the ancient Jewish Sages' interpretation of Leviticus 16,16 -

"Who dwells with them
in the midst of their pollution [tum'atam]"

and the problem of translating the term 'tamei' and 'tum'ah' into English,
which is not "un-clean", not negating the term "clean", but an independent root,
I found Everett Fox' introduction to Leviticus so helpful, that I want to quote from it.

From "ON TRANSLATING LEVITICUS" [p. 497]

"A most important term in the priestly material is the adjective tamei along with its noun tum'a.
The word refers to a ritual state,
the existence of which was understood in ancient Israel
as a grave danger to the "purity" of the sanctuary.
It is not, however, "uncleanness" in the physical sense,
but a state akin perhaps to radioactivity:
in this case, it drives away the divine presence from Israel ...
Buber-Rosenzweig used "stainted/tainted" in their translation;
most recent scholars use "polluted" and "pollution" to describe the phenomenon.
I have accepted the latter in my discussions below
but have chosen to stay with the Hebrew transcription in the text itself,
allowing for a wider and less overtly negative form of the term."

"ON THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS AND ITS STRUCTURE" [p. 498]

"For most lay readers, the third of the Five Books of Moses presents formidable obstacles.
Many people find it difficult to relate to the description of ritual slaughter of animals
and the disposal of their blood and flesh in the opening section of the book,
or to the detailed prescriptions regarding bodily functions, skin disease, and mold
in Chapters 12-15.
Others experience Leviticus as obscure.
Why exactly do Aaron's sons die in Chapter 10?
How can one explain the ritual of the scapegoat in Chapter 16?
A frequently encountered reaction to the book is the desire to get on to the book of Numbers -
which at least has some intriguing narratives such as
Moses' sin and punishment,
the faint-heartedness of the spies
and Balaam's reversed prophecies.

Yet Leviticus, as it has been placed in the Torah, signals
that something of singular importance is at work.
The book, after all, occurs at the center of the overall five-book structure.
Unlike the other four, it is set entirely around Mount Sinai,
and so it forms, geographically as well as structurally, the heart of the Torah document.

In addition, the priestly interests so clearly presented in Leviticus appear througout the Torah:
as genealogical lists (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers),
descriptions of rituals (Exodus. Numbers, Deuteronomy),
and details about the building of the desert "Dwelling" of God (Exodus).
Indeed, the opening chapters of it all, Genesis 1 (the Creation story),
has strong links in both its themes and terminology with the priestly law.

"Leviticus in fact presents a significant strain,
conventionally termed the "priestly" view, in biblical thought.
Anthropologically considered,
it sheds important light on the outlook of some of those who compiled and read the Hebrew Bible...

"...I see Leviticus as the Book of Separations,
the book in which are set forth distinctions
between a whole range of aspects of ancient Israelite experience and practice;
holy and profane;
ritual purity and pollution;
permitted and forbidden in sexuality and diet;
Israelites and others;
and priests, Levites, and common folk among the Israelites...

"Overarching the theme of separations or distinctions, ..
is the polarity of order/disorder, represented best in Leviticus by the problem of life and death.
As many scholars have noted,
regulations regarding sacrifice here connect up with symbolically offering up human life -
through the substitution of an animal -
to the deity;
blood is avoided at all costs,
due to its connoting life.
Animals that may be used for food (as well as for sacrifice)
are in the main those which do not consume other living creatures.
Pollutants which endanger the purity of the sanctuary ("Dwelling")
include bodily emissions which the Israelites connected with death
(e.g. menstrual blood and "wasted" semen).
Finally, the complex system of purification from some kind of skin disease
may well originate in the similarity between disease and death.
In sum, then, it is no surprise that, two books later,
the Deuternomic Moses implores the people to "choose life" rather than the "death"
engendered by improper behavior by both priests and commoners.

Interestingly, the strong urge to make order (ritual laws) out of disorder
(the chaotic processes of human life, from killing animals for food to sexual relations)
is reflected in other aspects of the Torah -
most notably in the narrative portrayal of the descent lines from father Abraham.
Here, the discontinuity represented by sibling rivalries and other threats to survival
is countered by God's establishing a kind of continuity through the choosing of younger brothers.
In this case, the strong hand of ritual control
is replaced by the somewhat hazardous element of surprise and close calls.
But it does manage to provide for family continuity and,
ultimately, the survival of the people.
....
the "priestly" worldview... makes its appearance with the very chapter
with which the entire Torah begins, Gen. 1
Here distinctions and ordering are at the very heart of the text.

[July 23, 2010: I wanted to continue quoting,
but then , there is still much missing in Fox' view,
for instance - and especially - the meaning of the "separations" and "distinctions",
not to talk about the meaning of the Cain-Abel story, so vital, crucial for humankind,
and it's not my preference now, to complement it by my own view.]

 

June 18, 2011
I came across a letter,
which needs to be quoted here:

Briefe 1232. An Margarete Susman-von Bendemann                         27.1.29


Verehrte und liebe Frau von Bendemann

ich muss meine schnoede Bemerkung [take into account the long process, until - in the year of Rosenzweig's death - such a "remark" was translated from non-speech to speech!) - ueber Luthers Uebersetzung von Davids letzter Rede bei Ihrem vorigen Besuch zuruecknehmen. Ich lege Ihnen das Material bei, aus dem ich selber erst gesehen habe, aus welchem theologischen Ringen mit dem dunklen Text das schliessliche Ergebnis entstanden ist. * Dies Ergebnis ist zwar gewiss viel zu barth-gogartensch, also viel zu luthersch, um davidisch zu sein; ich hoffe, dass unsre Theologie davidischer sein wird als Luthers; aber die theologische Fragestellung, das "was kann in der Bibel stehen?", dieses letzte inhaltliche Ernstnehmen, ohne das ja alle Philologie unfruchtbar bleibt, hat Luther genau so gehabt wie wir. Was ich ja eigentlich haette wissen und nicht ueber dem Vergnuegen, der "Konkurrenz" eins auszuwischen, vergessen sollen.

* Der "dunkle Text" ist wahrscheinlich
II Schmuel 23:5

[a traditional English translation says:
"for all my salvation, and all my desire,
will he not make it to grow?" ]
Luther uebersetzt,
was woertlich im Original steht,
aber gleichzeitig
dem paulinisch-lutherischen-barthschen Grundgefuehl der menschlichen Suendhaftigkeit und vollkommenen Ohnmacht entspricht:
"Denn alles mein Heil und Tun ist,
dass nichts waechst!"
B-R uebersetzen hingegen
mit einer bei ihnen sehr seltenen Textkonjektur ('ihm' statt 'nicht'):

Ja,
all meine Freiheit, alle Lust,
ja,
ihm zu lasse ichs spriessen


Everett Fox returned to the question:
"Yes, all my deliverance, all my desire,
yes, will he not cause it to sprout?"


[Why did I come across this letter today,
June 18, 2011? Because Franz Rosenzweig's grandson, my son Immanuel Rosenzweig,
participates in the TV reality-show: Master-Chef and asked me to find "sayings" of FR, which he might have an opportunity to let flow into the - very dramatically staged - cooking-situations.

Without hope, while still in bed at 6:50 AM, I opened the second volume of my edition of Franz Rosenzweig's "Letters" , and lo- what jumped into my eyes rightaway? a question to Martin Buber in 1924:
"Did I once show you the motto of my 1741 Luther-Bible?

     "Goettlich und orginal,
   menschlich doch oriental"
        "Divine and original,
       human, yet oriental!"

 

November 16, 2011
I just discovered, that Everett Fox was a consultant
on the animated film Prince of Egypt,
which is one, if not   t h e   most cherished movie of mine.
See images in my "Bio-Testimony" from page IV onward