You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

Nehemia: And that could be really important; you're reading a biblical passage and you think, “Oh, verse 2 is related to verse 3 because they're in the same chapter.” And you find out verse 2 is the continuation of the last four chapters and the space is after verse 2, and that whole section going back several chapters, in the modern chapter system, is all one continuous text, and then verse 3 is the beginning of a new thought. And those spaces tell you that.

Nehemia: I was really inspired by Professor Penkower’s research as well as his students, Yossi Peretz and Orly Kolodny, and their approach to dealing with the text. And so, I chose some sample chapters, as they did, not the same sample chapters. I actually chose these sample chapters because I was going to compare the two scrolls, including the second one that I'm not going to talk about, where I only had seven sheets from the beginning, and then a few other sheets here and there.

So, I looked at Genesis 18 to 22 and I found no variants when compared with MgKeter and Breuer, which represents to the best of my understanding the Aleppo Codex, or what we think is in the Aleppo Codex. I also referred to Professor Penkower’s book, The New Evidence on the Aleppo Codex. In Exodus 14 to 15 we have one variant, and Deuteronomy 31:1-9 we have one variant; why did I stop at verse 9? Because after that it's a replacement sheet, so I couldn't do the rest of 31 and 32.

So, the Aleppo Codex is the most accurate manuscript of the Tanakh that exists, but unfortunately most of it is missing, so we can't directly compare this manuscript to the Aleppo Codex, which is what we want to do. However, what we have are witnesses to the Aleppo Codex. And what do I mean by witnesses? There were people who went and examined the Aleppo Codex before the pieces went missing, the pieces of the Torah, and they gave us various types of information. They would say, “We compared this section to this other section,” this other version. And so, there are scholars who have reconstructed what is in the Aleppo Codex down to the very letter, in the case of the Torah.

One of those is Menachem Cohen, who created the MgKeter database, which is available online. We’ll throw up a link to it here. And then Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, he also reconstructed it. And then Professor Jordan Penkower, he then found more evidence. That’s the New Evidence book I referred to that got down to some really fine details.

So, we don't have the Aleppo Codex in the Torah, but we have a pretty good reconstruction of at least what the consonants were, maybe not the vowels and accents, but when it comes to the consonants we have a pretty good idea of what the exact letters were. And when I say here “variant”, I mean… well, we'll show an example here. But basically “variant” means what I found in “PS3”, in this Torah Scroll from around the year 1000, is different from the Aleppo Codex, but it's incredible to go through five chapters and there's not a single difference even in a single letter. And in these other chapters, there were two minor differences. Let’s look at those.

Nelson: Nehemia, if I may ask a question real quick.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Nelson: So, the reason behind wanting to compare what's in this Torah Scroll with the Aleppo Codex, why specifically that? Is it just because the Aleppo Codex is the model codex?

Nehemia: The Aleppo Codex is the model codex; that's number one. And number two is, people knew it was the model codex. Maimonides mentions that people used to come from all over the Jewish world to compare their manuscripts against the Aleppo Codex. And what that really means is the later you get, the more uniform the text becomes.

It was assumed that the text was always 100% uniform, and here I could go into a whole tangent. I'll try to make it really short, this tangent. But there are these discussions in the writings of the early rabbis, in what's called the Mishnah, where these rabbis would look at the spelling…

Let me back up even another step. You could spell a Hebrew word in several different ways, and I've given the example of the English word “color”. You can write it C-O-L-O-R, the correct way as we do in America, or you could do it the incorrect way, the way they do it in Britain, C-O-L-O-U-R. And I say “correct” jokingly, because it is correct in Britain to write it with a “U” and in American English it's not.

And do you know why that is? I heard this explanation recently; I don't know if it's true, but I love it. The reason I heard is that in the US, they would charge you by the letter when you wrote an ad, and so they had a tendency to reduce the number of letters wherever they could, in print, and then it caught on. I don't know if that's true, but I love the explanation.

But then you have differences that can't be explained that way, like “center”, C-E-N-T-E-R in America, and in England it’s C-E-N-T-R-E. And then we have a town in the US called “Centre”, C-E-N-T-R-E, which I don't know what the story is behind that, but maybe it's an homage to the British, or maybe it predates when the US spelling was established, I don't know.

So, you have these different ways of spelling things that doesn't change the meaning. You have that in Hebrew, but in a much wider scale. In English, it divides between the US and England, but in Hebrew, it's within the same verse that it could be spelled different ways. So, it's not geographical, we don't actually even know the reason - we have some ideas – but we don’t know for sure the reason why it would be spelled one way or another. And maybe it’s no reason, maybe it’s just the whim of the scribe as he was writing.

So, the early copyists, and I used the word “early” loosely, because what do you mean by early copyists? At some point, the copyists of the Bible in Hebrew decided, “We have to copy every letter exactly as it’s come down to us.” And so, the letters became fixed down to the details of whether it was a variation of spelling. We literally have examples where the same word is spelled two different ways in the same verse, and there are rules about it, “It has to be spelled this way the first time and that way the second time.”

And then these rabbis come along, and they start to read meaning into these spellings. They say, “Oh, this is spelled here with a Vav, and the other word doesn't have the Vav, and so that Vav has extra meaning.” I don't agree with the Vav having extra meaning, but it shows you that by the end of the 1st century of the Common Era, the spelling was fixed down to the letter.

However, the final version of that spelling is considered to be the Aleppo Codex. In other words, there are sometimes cases where a rabbi says, “Oh, it's spelled this way, with the Vav.” And then we look in our versions and it doesn't have a Vav. And he's talking about a specific word in a specific verse, and he's reading a whole story into that Vav, which doesn't change the meaning, but he’s reading a meaning into it. And we look in our version and it doesn't have a Vav, and that's because there's no Vav there in the Aleppo Codex.

Now, the older your Bible manuscript is, the more different it will be from the Aleppo Codex, as a rule. The exception to that is Ashkenaz, that is… well, you saw Ashkenaz isn't exactly Germany, it's Europe. It's not even all of France; Southern France is part of Sefarad for this purpose. But the area known as Ashkenaz had its own tradition, and there you could have a Torah scroll from the 15th century where there’s hundreds of differences between that and the Aleppo Codex.

But generally, in the rest of the Jewish world, the Aleppo Codex was this very powerful force that spread out. And as it spread out, it made the Bibles all across the Jewish world more and more uniform. And so, if you find differences, that means you're probably dealing with a relatively old scroll.

This happens to be an old scroll. We know based on the type of writing, but it's still probably 75 years after the Aleppo Codex, and it shows you the influence of the Aleppo Codex in Egypt. By this time, any differences that had existed - at least in the letters and in other things there were some differences - in the letters, those differences had almost been completely stamped out.

Nelson: Wow!

Nehemia: Alright.

Nelson: And possibly, because we're not too far away from Sukkot, but one of the examples that comes to mind about a word spelled two different ways in the same verse is when Jacob comes back from Padan Aram, and it says he builds booths for his animals, and then he calls the place “Sukkot.” And there, Sukkot is twice, in the same verse, written two different ways.

Nehemia: Right. I love that example because you could potentially write Sukkot four different ways in Ancient Hebrew. And there are notes in the margin of the codexes that say, “This one is spelled full, this one spelled deficient,” and then it has to be reproduced that way. They didn't always successfully do it; they were supposed to do it. Or, they had a different tradition that said, “No, in this one it’s not full; it's not deficient.”

So that's another thing; there were variations within these manuscripts, and the Aleppo Codex, essentially, its influence came and stamped out those differences that had existed. Maybe those differences existed for 1,000 years or 2,000 years at that point, but the Aleppo Codex was considered the standard, and it had a tendency to stamp out the differences. In the case of Ashkenaz, that is Northern European Torah scrolls, eventually it completely wiped out the differences, to the point that we're only rediscovering these differences now. In the last 20 years, we’re only rediscovering them.

Nelson: Incredible.

Nehemia: All right.

So, here's the variant we have, and I call this PS3, because that’s Parchment Scroll 3. That's the designation in the library, it's easier to say PS3. Although, I find myself saying SP3 because of Saint Petersburg, but that's wrong if I say that.

So, Exodus 14:3 has ale’hem without a Yud, versus all these respectable manuscripts: Oriental 4445, Leningrad Codex… these are familiar things, I think, most of them. L80 is EVR. II B80, in the Saint Petersburg and the rest of these are sigla used by Breuer, I just translated them into English. So, L3 has ale’hem as well without the Yud, but other than that, all the other ones have the Yud. So, is this a mistake? Or is it a textual variant? Is this before the text had become uniform?

Deuteronomy 31:4 has otam with a Vav, which Kennicott 193 has it with a Vav, but then Damascus Crown or Sassoon 507 has a note, “chaser Vav”. And there we actually have the Aleppo Codex. Now, these are pretty minor variants, and what strikes me is if you compare - and I've done some work on Ashkenazic scrolls, I worked on the one that Micha discovered, which was discussed at the last congress, Rhineland 1217, and there in any column you'll find more variants than this. And here, I have six chapters, or five and change.

Now what about the Parshiyot?

Let’s explain what Parshiyot are. And it's actually not as simple as it might seem, but let's explain it this way. We have the chapters in our English Bibles, and chapter divisions were invented, with the exception of Psalms, the chapter divisions were invented in the Tanakh by a man named Bishop Stephen Langton in the 13th century. He was the Archbishop of Canterbury. And he divided the Bible based on… he tried to have more or less uniform sections so that every week in his church they could read a section. They would read chapter 1 of Genesis, chapter 2, chapter 3, et cetera.

Well, in the Hebrew manuscripts we don't have these, certainly in the early Hebrew manuscripts. Later, they were added in under the Christian influence. But we don't have these chapter divisions. What we have are parshiyot. Now, I did a series called Torah Pearls, where we talked about parashah, which is “a section”, or “a division”. It’s actually from the same root as the word Pharisee, because Pharisee is prushi, it’s one who divides himself, who separates himself off from the multitudes. And it was meant in the sense, in the word Pharisee, for holiness, just like the word “holy” means to separate something. It means to set it aside and above.

So, Pharisee meant somebody who set himself aside and above, or certainly aside from the people, the multitudes who they considered to be unclean, or more specifically, they didn’t follow all these rules and regulations related to tithes and the sabbatical years, that’s really what Pharisee meant, and ritual cleanliness.

So, parashah, in respect of the text, is a section that’s set aside. And what it really is, is we've broken up the Torah into 54 sections, and each week we read a different section. That was a tradition that goes back to the Jews of Babylonia, it’s called the Babylonian Annual Cycle. There was another cycle called the Triennial Cycle where they break up the Torah into about 154 sections and read it over a period of three or three-and-a-half years.

That's not what this word parshiyah means, that's parashah, but the word parashah is often used in this context as well. This parashah, or parshiyah, refers to spaces in the manuscripts. These are much older than the division into 54 or 150. When the text was originally written, there were spaces in the manuscripts, and the scribes, when they would copy the Torah, or the entire Tanakh, they would try to preserve those spaces. We see those spaces in the Dead Sea Scrolls; they don't always match exactly the spaces we have today, but they were striving for spaces like that.

And there's two types of spaces, and why are the spaces important? Because they tell you, “Pause here; we're setting this apart. This is the end of a thought, the end of a section.”

The Ten Commandments - each one of the Ten Commandments are separated by a space. So, it doesn't have to be a whole new chapter like in our Archbishop Stephen Langton chapters that we have today, it’d just be, “Do not murder.” “Do not steal.” “Do not commit adultery.” Each one of those has a parshiyah.

Now, there was a rule that in order for the Torah scroll to be valid when you read from it in the synagogue, the parshiyot, that is these spaces within the manuscripts, also called parashah, they had to be copied exactly right. To the point where if you're in a synagogue today - an Orthodox synagogue for sure – and they’re reading from the Torah Scroll, and they all of a sudden realize, “Oh! The space here is an open space instead of a closed space,” those are the two types of spaces in this period and in these manuscripts. There are other kinds in other contexts; in Northern Europe, or in Europe in general, there are different types of spaces. But in the Oriental scrolls there are open and closed spaces, and if you had an open space instead of a closed space, or closed space instead of an open space, then it makes the scroll invalid.

Now Nelson, behind your head we can actually see open and closed spaces, I just realized! You have behind you what I believe is The Great Isaiah Scroll, am I right? 1Q Isaiah A. And you see those spaces - that's in the Isaiah Scroll from 2,200 years ago. So, those were reproduced in the Torah Scrolls.

And Maimonides comes along, and he says, “Look, if you don't have the spaces exactly right…” I started to say… to this day, you're reading in the synagogue, and somebody says, “there's an open space instead of a closed space” or “a closed space instead of an open space”, and that's what we wrote here as setumot or petuchot. Setumot are closed, and petuchot are open spaces.

And it’s a bit complicated what that means. An open space means… and I’ll say, “kind of sort of”, there are nuances here I'm not going to get into, but basically an open space means the text is written and then there's a space that continues all the way to the end of the line, and the new text begins in the next line, that's an open space. A closed space is the text is written, there's a space, and then the new text begins in the same line.

There are exceptions. What if you ended at the end of line? We’re not going to get into that. But basically, there's open and closed spaces, and it’s kind of assumed that an open space is a greater break than a closed space, but I don't know if that's necessarily true. These are kind of like paragraphs spacings, but they definitely say, “Okay, this is the end of a thought, and now it's a new thought.”

And that could be really important; you're reading a biblical passage and you think, “Oh, verse 2 is related to verse 3 because they're in the same chapter.” And you find out verse 2 is the continuation of the last four chapters and the space is after verse 2, and that whole section going back several chapters, in the modern chapter system, is all one continuous text. And then verse 3 is the beginning of a new thought, and those spaces tell you that.

So, if you're reading in the synagogue today and you have the wrong spacing, they stop the reading in the middle of the ritual, in the middle of the service. They roll up the scroll, they put it on the side and they take out a new scroll, because the reading isn't considered valid if the scroll doesn’t have the spacing exactly right, to this day.

Now, Maimonides comes along, and he says, “This is a big problem, because not everybody reproduces the spaces correctly.” And he says, “I know what we're going to do. We're going to take the Aleppo Codex, because everyone has relied on this as the most accurate manuscript, people used to come to Jerusalem from all over the Jewish world to proofread their Bibles,” or their Torah scrolls in particular, “so we're going to use the Aleppo Codex as our standard.”

And so, even though we have sections missing from the Aleppo Codex, we know exactly down to the… certainly down to the open and closed spaces, the parshiyah petuchah and the parshiyah setuma, we know what the Aleppo Codex had.

Also, people went to visit the Aleppo Codex before the sections went missing, and they wrote down exactly what they saw. So, if we want to know what's in the Aleppo Codex, we look at two things. We look at Maimonides for the sections that are missing, and for the open and closed sections, we look at Maimonides. And we look at people who went to examine it, and they turn out to be the same thing.

Now, we have a bit of a problem here, because Maimonides… when he was copied that got messed up. In other words, people were copying Maimonides, and they intentionally introduced changes into it, or they made mistakes. We have this incredible thing which is… in Oxford University there’s a manuscript called Huntington 80, and it has a copy of Maimonides’ list of the open and closed sections, which he based on the Aleppo Codex. And at the end, Maimonides signed something to the effect of, “This was checked under my supervision. It’s right.”

So, we've got the list by Maimonides, now we've got to check PS3 against Maimonides. Well, first let's translate Maimonides into modern terms. What I need to do if I'm going to check it is I need know chapter 5 verse 3, chapter 5 verse 12, it makes it much easier for me.

So, Nelson here went through the manuscript of Maimonides at Oxford University, or photos of it, and he compiled a very precise list of the exact open and closed sections of Maimonides, and then compared it to PS3. And as Maimonides would say, “This was checked under my supervision!”

So, what do we find there? Let's listen to what we found. And again, why is this important? Because the Aleppo Codex is the standard; the greater divergence you have from the Aleppo Codex, in theory, the older the manuscript is.

Now, the Aleppo Codex didn’t make up the open and closed sections, it copied it from another source, which was copied from another source. So, you could have a manuscript 1,000 years older than the Aleppo Codex that’s identical. You would expect that to be the case. But you’d also have divergences in this relatively early period, around the year 1000, because maybe the scribes didn’t know what was in the Aleppo Codex and they weren't copying from a very accurate source. Or maybe they weren't being that precise themselves; maybe they were making mistakes.

So, what did we find? Let’s hear.

Nelson: If I may Nehemia, really quick. As it relates to the parshiyah, one of the lasting things I remember about you talking about this subject, and how they relate to the literary structure is, I can't remember if it was in Torah Pearls or Prophet Pearls, but I remember you talking about how, especially in prophecies, in sections of The Prophets…

Nehemia: Yeah.

Nelson: You can actually connect prophecies together based off of their breaks, and this had a lasting impression on me because you described how, in Bible translations, they will actually interpret the breaks and the paragraphs in the manuscripts, and they will create a whole new chapter. And so, if you’re reading this only through a translation and you come to a new chapter, in your mind you’re thinking, “Okay, we’ve moved on from that prophecy,” or “we've moved on from that section, now we're on to something else.” But what the open and closed sections might show, demonstrate, is that where in English you think, “okay, we're moving on to something else”, they might actually be connecting something that was previously said.

Nehemia: Right. A place where I think I’ve seen that the most is in the Book of Isaiah. In Isaiah, you have a lot of very short prophecies that are two or three verses - you see it Jeremiah too - you have a lot of very short prophecies that are maybe two or three verses, and you'll have an entire chapter which has ten prophecies, and you think they're all the same prophecy, and they don't even make sense because you're like, “What did this verse have to do with the next verse? We’re talking about something completely different.” Yeah, it's just a different prophecy. And a lot of times in Hebrew those are strung together because there's a word in the first prophecy that appears in the second prophecy, so it's like the principle of association. And the prophecies actually have nothing to do with each other except for that they share a common word, and so they were arranged in that way, because it's easy to remember them that way.

So that's a major issue in… so these are actually very important, these open and closed sections.

Nelson: Yes, sir!

Nehemia: Alright. So now we're going to compare Parchment Scroll 3 with the Aleppo Codex, which really means Maimonides, Huntington 80.

I also checked those against the Aleppo Codex, which really means Maimonides, and then information in Professor Penkower’s New Evidence. I'll just give the big number here. There's a correspondence of 624 parshiyot, which is 95% to Maimonides, and a 5% difference. I think the interesting ones are, there’s 16 parshiyot where the Aleppo Codex - or really Maimonides - has no parshiyah, and PS3 does have one. And we've got four parshiyot which are all setumot, where PS3 has no parshiyah, and the Aleppo Codex and Maimonides do have it.

There’s five setumot that are petuchot in A - meaning the Aleppo Codex - and seven petuchot that are setumot in the Aleppo Codex, which is pretty minor. But still, 95% - go look at any Torah scroll from the 13th or 14th century from Ashkenaz, and actually Professor Penkower in his article on the Erfurt, I think maybe one or two of them have a very close correspondence. But in most of them it’s numerous variants.

So, Nelson is currently working on doing this for a Torah Scroll, another one that I discovered in the same collection in Saint Petersburg, which is PS, I want to say 15, and it is from Northern Europe; it's actually from France. And we know specifically it's from France from the style of the writing. And there… is it more than 5% Nelson?

Nelson: I sent you an email recently, and I said something to the effect of, “There are so many divergences between the open and closed sections, that it almost seems like when they do agree, it’s almost a coincidence.”

Nehemia: Yeah. Or it's a major break in the text, where like, “Okay, you’ve got to have a space there.”

Nelson: Exactly.

Nehemia: Yeah. And that's because the one from France represents the Ashkenazic tradition, which is a separate tradition of how to break up the text. So, this is a major… I would say this is a revelation for me. I was under the understanding, “Okay, they're reading meaning into every Vav and every Yud already at the end of the 1st century, and so the text is fixed down to the letter, and everything that diverges from that is a mistake.”

And here we find out that there are at least two traditions of the text, one in Europe and the one in the Aleppo Codex. But the one in Europe has parallels, meaning a lot of times you'll find something in the European tradition, you'll see there's a manuscript from 400 years earlier in the Cairo Genizah that has the same thing.

And so, it’s not that the Europeans just messed up their Bibles, which is actually what they thought. There are discussions by rabbis who say, “Well, we need to go to Spain, because we Jews in Germany and in France, our Bibles aren't accurate.” And actually, what it turns out is their Bibles were accurate. They were just preserving a different tradition, but they had read in Maimonides that the only accurate Bible is the Aleppo Codex. And so, they said, “Well if ours is different, it must be full of mistakes.”

And it was just a different version that had survived. And look, these are really minor differences. Whether it's an open or closed section wouldn’t even be reflected in translation. Now, whether there is a section or not, that could have a difference in the meaning. That actually is really important, that's why I emphasize that.

But there are different traditions going on here, but these are relatively minor; 95% is the same and a 5% divergence, whereas with the ones from Europe, there's almost no correspondence in some cases. It’s kind of hit or miss. They obviously weren’t basing it on Maimonides, and they actually had their own lists, and we have one of those lists. The grandson of Rashi was a rabbi named Rabbeinu Tam or Jacob Tam, and he gives a list. Unfortunately, we don't have the copy that was checked by him, or checked under his supervision, so within his own list there’s differences. So, we’re doing our best to reconstruct this. Let’s listen to some more.

And then the Rhineland 1217 Scroll has been thoroughly modified to match Maimonides, meaning that they changed all - not all - but many of the petuchot to setumot, setumot to petuchot. I didn't find a lot of that here…

And the irony is, I only got to do a small fraction of what I had prepared! We had to cut out a quarter or a third of the slides, or something like that, because there was so much more to talk about in this Torah scroll. It was really interesting, and they only gave me 20 minutes, and I went to 25 minutes… yeah.

I think, really, this is the tip of the iceberg.

And I want to just take a minute to tell the audience about the Institute of Hebrew Bible Manuscripts Research. So, for years I've had Makor Hebrew Foundation, and the goal of Makor Hebrew Foundation is uncovering Ancient Hebrew sources of faith.

And in 2022, we launched the IHBMR, Institute of Hebrew Bible Manuscript Research, which has the objective of making the Tanakh available to the world in its manuscripts. And that requires a lot of different things. There's the logo of the IHBMR.

Whereas Makor Hebrew Foundation was really trying to empower people in their faith, the Institute for Hebrew Bible Manuscript Research is taking an academic approach, and I think that's really important because there are places where, if I went as Makor Hebrew Foundation to certain libraries around the world, they’d say, “Okay, well this is for scholars; this isn't for people of faith.” Which is crazy, right? It’s the Tanakh! How could that not be for people of faith? But they’ll say, “No, no, this is only for scholars.” “Okay, well I'm a scholar, I have a PhD.” “Alright, do you represent a scholarly institution?” I do now - the Institute for Hebrew Bible Manuscript Research.

And it's going to do some serious… it already is doing some serious biblical research. We already have a number of publications, not just by me, but by other scholars who have been working with the Institute for Hebrew Bible Manuscript Research.

So, guys check it out, www.ihbmr.com. We’ll put up the link here, and you can support this research as well.

So guys, thank you for bearing with me! That was much longer than we planned. Nelson, did you have any comments or questions on this?

Nelson: One of the things is… I had a feeling. I had a feeling that this is the way it would turn out. Not only a feeling, I had a hope. I had a hope this would turn out.

Nehemia: Okay.

Nelson: I want to say this. For someone who was there while you were giving your presentation, there is something I have an appreciation for that the audience won't be able to see, but I'll tell them about it.

At these conferences and during these presentations, there are people who are renowned in biblical studies, Jewish studies, Masoretic studies, and there are people of renown in that room. And to speak about the kind of research that Dr. Nehemia Gordon is doing is… well, you may not have seen it in the video, but every time he showed a new slide, every time he switched a slide, renowned scholars were getting up and taking pictures with their phones of every slide Nehemia was showing, because they have never seen this scroll. And yet, they can tell, in real time, the importance of what he found and what he's illustrating.

So, I think that that for me will be one of the lasting impressions I have of these people who have researched and published incredible works, and yet here they are seeing things new and trying to get a snapshot, literally, of what you’re presenting.

Nehemia: Wow. Well, thank you Nelson. I really appreciate it. And thank you everybody for listening. Shalom.

Nelson: Shalom.

You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!