Ukrainian blood runs through me. As does Russian blood.
I am a descendent of Eastern European Jews. Centuries of shifting borders and maps redrawn create ambiguity over nationalities.
But never over my religion.
For hundreds of years, my Jewish ancestors lived in that region but were excluded from the culture.
But I don’t identify either Ukrainian or Russian the way, say someone who is of Irish descent feels about Ireland. I have no longing for the Pale of Settlement, that region of the Russian empire (includes today’s Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belarus,) that Jews were historically confined to under the Czars from 1791 until 1917.
These were lands we left for good reason.
My narrative as an American Jew is far from unique.
Most Eastern European Jews are here in America because for generations they tried to kill us.
Successive waves of violence from Czarist pogroms in Ukraine in the late 19th and early 20th century to mass executions by the Nazis have left an indelible scar.
The Pale of Settlement was a region of the Russian Empire designated for Jews and few could live elsewhere. At the end of the 19th century, 95% of 5.3 million Jews in the Russian Empire lived in the Pale,
What is happening in Ukraine is for Jews part of a long collective and traumatic history. And we feel it in our souls.
Today, in solidarity we are all freedom-loving Ukrainians.
But the story for me is a complicated one. This place that destroyed so many of my Jewish people is now a symbol of resistance and democracy. The emotions are complex and old memories are resurrected.
Babi Yar
The Babi Yar ravine
Fertile Ukrainian soil is saturated with generations of Jewish blood. The graves of our ancestors bear witness to the horrors of Jewish history. On Tuesday, Russian bombs desecrated the Jewish cemetery adjacent to the Babi Yar Holocaust memorial.
The irony of Putin’s false justification of the invasion of Ukraine — that the Russians had come to “denazify” the country, and then striking a site where tens of thousands of Jews had been killed by the Nazis, makes my head explode as though hit by a cruise missile.
1941
In the autumn of 1941, one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century occurred on the Babi Yar ravine on the outskirts of Nazi-occupied Kyiv.
33,771 Ukrainian Jews were murdered in a two-day span marking one of the deadliest massacres of the Holocaust.
Just a week after capturing Kyiv from the Soviets in September the Nazis issued this order using the derogatory term “yids” for Jews:
All yids of the city of Kyiv and its vicinity must appear on Monday, September 29, by 8 o’clock in the morning at the corner of Melnikova and Dorohozhytska streets. Bring documents, money and valuables, and also warm clothing, linens, etc. Any yids who do not follow this order and are found elsewhere will be shot.
After two years of neutral relations between Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R., and with information tightly controlled by Soviet media, the Jews of Kyiv had little understanding of the danger they were in. Commanded to march, they were ordered to strip and driven in small groups towards the edge of the ravine and shot.
The Nazi mass killings contained echoes of earlier pogroms.
Ukrainians- including descendants of the perpetrators of the earlier pogroms- helped Nazis slaughter many of the remaining Jews of the region through mass shootings.
Russian Brutality
“Stop Your Cruel Oppression of the Jews” Editorial cartoon “Judge Magazine” Theodore Roosevelt to Czar of Russia.
The tragedy in Ukraine today echoes a history of brutal Russian aggression. Human rights offenses that Jews are familiar with. Over a century ago tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews were murdered, tortured, and raped in hundreds of pogroms perpetrated by the Russians.
Unlike the Holocaust, earlier waves of antisemitic violence have largely been forgotten by history. Yet at the time these ethnic riots were front-page news.
Ukrainian Jewish street life 1919
The current fighting in Ukraine has resurrected some of these long-forgotten stories, passed down decades ago by relatives.
People are struggling to piece together the history of their family’s past.
This week, my Facebook feed has been filled with faded, sepia-toned photos of grandparents and great-grandparents who fled Kyiv at the turn of the last century to escape the horrific, large-scale pogroms.
Jewish Pogrom
Living in constant fear from state-sanctioned anti-semitism, nightmarish memories of rampaging Cossacks whispered long ago by long-deceased grandmothers and grandfathers are resurfacing and being shared on social media.
A Jewish Family stands outside the ransacked home following the pogrom of 1903
The stories shared of horrifying atrocities are eerily similar- parents murdered, sisters raped and slain, children chased out into the cold threadbare and starving. Entire Jewish cities were ransacked, houses burned, and stores looted.
1906 Bialystock pogrom
The Bialystock pogroms in 1906 were particularly gruesome. The killing was brutal and barbarous – nails were driven into the heads of people, the bones broken in hands and bodies, and clubbed to death with rifles.
The conditions of life for the Jews in the Czarist empire were so severe the only solution was their emigration. But many stayed.
Soviet Union
Bodies of Jewish Victims of pogrom in Ukraine in Feb. 1919
In 1917 after the Russian revolution, the Pale of Settlement was abolished and Jews could live where they wanted in the Soviet Union but the violent pogroms continued.
Between 1918 and 1921, over a hundred thousand Jews were murdered in Ukraine by peasants, townsmen, and soldiers who blamed the Jews for the turmoil of the Russian Revolution. In hundreds of separate incidents, ordinary people robbed their Jewish neighbors with impunity, burned down their houses, ripped apart their Torah scrolls, sexually assaulted them, and killed them.
Victims of the Kyiv Pogroms of 1919
Hundreds of Jewish communities were burned to the ground and hundreds of thousands of people were left homeless and destitute.
Both communist and anticommunist forces ravaged Ukraine’s Jews in these pogroms, including in Tetiiv, the site of a March 1920 massacre by rampaging White Russians. In a particularly hideous atrocity, the Whites burned a group of Jews alive inside a synagogue — with one report estimating 1,127 dead.
Largely forgotten today, these pogroms—dominated international affairs in their time. There were warnings that six million Jews were in danger of complete extermination.
Twenty years later, those dire predictions would come true.
Ukrainian President Zelensky
Today I lament the suffering and destruction that another tyrant has caused. But to have a Jewish president in Ukraine descended from a Holocaust survivor standing up to a dictator is empowering.
At the beginning of the war, President Zelensky released a statement in Hebrew calling for the Jews of the world to speak out against the attacks on Ukraine:
“I am now addressing the Jews of the world: Don’t you see what is happening?” Zelensky asked. “That is why it is very important that millions of Jews around the world do not remain silent now.”
“Nazism is born in silence,” he warned, “so shout about the killing of civilians, of Ukrainians.”
We cannot afford to be silent. Even as we remember.
Envisioning The American Dream 
Powerful history lesson Sally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. It is an important one to know.
LikeLike
Memory is incomplete as well as selective. But certain truths can prevail, thanks to the storytellers. Grateful for the way you retell these important events. They are more and more relevant daily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What are the reasons for the differing views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between Europe and Asia?
“I want to dominate the Middle East sphere of influence!” “No. I want to dominate the Middle East sphere of influence.” In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Britain faced a trade imbalance with China, as it imported large quantities of tea, silk, and porcelain but had little to offer in return. To address this, British merchants began exporting opium, grown in British-controlled India, to China. The opium trade became highly lucrative but caused widespread addiction and social issues in China.
The First Opium War (1839–1842) began after Chinese officials destroyed opium stocks in Canton, prompting Britain to retaliate militarily. Britain’s superior military power led to China’s defeat and the signing of the Treaty of Nanking, which forced China to cede Hong Kong, open several ports to British trade, and grant extraterritorial rights to British citizens. The Second Opium War (1856–1860) further expanded Western influence in China, resulting in additional concessions.
These wars marked the beginning of China’s “century of humiliation,” as Western powers imposed unequal treaties that undermined China’s sovereignty. Britain’s monopoly over opinion, compares to the post WWII victors monopoly over the UN Security Council. Imperialism simply dolled up into a fancier dress and wig.
In the 19th century, Britain’s control over trade narratives (“free trade,” albeit for opium) served as a tool of imperialism. Similarly, the UNSC—dominated by its five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US), each wielding veto power—can be seen by some as a modern mechanism where victors of WWII retain disproportionate authority in global governance.
Critics argue that this setup allows powerful nations to pursue their own strategic interests under the pretense of maintaining international peace and security, drawing parallels to the way imperial powers once justified their actions. The persistence of such systems can be viewed as imperialism adapted to a multilateral framework, maintaining an imbalance of power while cloaking it in institutional legitimacy.
Imperialism, once overt through military conquests and economic dominance, now appears in subtler forms within institutions like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The structure of the UNSC, with veto power concentrated in the hands of the five permanent members, does reflect the post-WWII balance of power rather than a more equitable, modern reality.
This arrangement allows these nations to protect their strategic interests, shaping the international agenda in ways that critics argue echo imperialistic tendencies. For example, decisions regarding interventions, sanctions, or even peacekeeping missions can sometimes appear aligned with the interests of the powerful rather than the common good.
It’s intriguing—and somewhat sobering—how historical power structures adapt and rebrand themselves. Reform of institutions like the UNSC is often proposed, such as expanding membership or limiting veto power, but such changes face significant resistance, especially from those who hold the reins of power. The question remains: how can the global community genuinely foster a system where decision-making is representative and equitable?
The criticisms of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) and UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) do indeed highlight concerns about the influence of powerful nations in shaping the operations of international organizations. Allegations of corruption, inefficiency, and political bias have been levied against both agencies.
Israeli IDF forces conclusively exposed the mafia UNRWA its gross mismanagement, nepotism, and even incest ties to Hamas. Similarly, UNIFIL proven that it worked hand-in-glove with Hezbullah. “Great Power imperialism” in the Middle East underscores the broader critique of how international institutions can sometimes perpetuate power imbalances rather than resolve them.
These examples underscore the broader critique of “Great Power imperialism” in the Middle East, where international institutions advertently perpetuate power imbalances as international policy of Great Power imperialism. The challenge lies in removing these organizations by closing down the UN all together. Cutting the head off the imperialist monster compares to killing a hydra.
The real challenge lies not only in critiquing or dismantling existing systems but also in envisioning and creating alternatives that are genuinely equitable and effective. Israel won the Oct 7th Abomination War. It destroyed Hamas, Hezbullah, Assad, and plucked the feathers of Iran. Russia lost its dominant influence in Syria. Israel now rules together with the Trump Administration as a Great Power in Middle East politics. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan all lost influence in the shared balance of power in the Middle East.
This has created a vacuum that Israel, with strong backing from the United States, has filled, asserting itself as a dominant force in Middle Eastern politics. The reduced influence of traditional regional players like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan reflects the evolving power dynamics, where alliances and priorities are being redefined.
The idea of carving out an independent Kurdish state has long been a contentious issue in the Middle East, touching on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of multiple nations—Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. The Kurdish people, with their distinct cultural and linguistic identity, have sought autonomy or independence for decades, but such aspirations have faced resistance from the governments of these countries.
Turkey, in particular, has been vehemently opposed to any moves toward Kurdish independence, viewing it as a threat to its national security and territorial unity. The prospect of redrawing borders to establish a Kurdish state would undoubtedly provoke significant geopolitical tensions, not only with Turkey but also with other regional powers and international stakeholders. The complexities of this issue highlight the challenges of balancing self-determination with the existing political and territorial realities of the region.
As Civil War removed the Assad government, so too a Turkish Civil War could replace the current hostile government of Turkey. The Iranian attempt to produce nuclear bombs compares to the American invasion of Iraq against Hussaim. Civil War has decimated Iraq. Now represents the ideal time to establish Kurdistan streching from Iraq to Northern Syria.
Obviously if Civil War caused the current government in Turkey to collapse, would invoke the first rule of Civil Wars: Powerful nations jumping on the nigger pile to seize the wealth and assets of a fallen nation. However with Russia tied down in the Ukraine, it will require no less than a decade before it pursues conquering Istanbul as it did in the 19th Century.
NATO a paper tiger without the US. A Turkish Civil War would restore the “Sick Man of Europe” status back to the Turks. US need not formally withdraw from the NATO. Simply the US ignores the NATO. Closing down the UN, if the US and Israel both broke of diplomatic relations with the UN, these actions would cripple that corrupt institution. NATO a paper tiger if the US ignores NATO participation! The USSR collapsed in 1991, the US no longer requires the puppets UN or NATO. Restoration of the ‘Sick Man of Europe’ would place the US into the role of England of the 19th Century. Obviously establishment of an Independent Kurdistan would directly impact the Iranians. But the Sunni – Shiite hatred card could prevent Saudi Arabia forging an alliance with Iran.
The collapse of the Turkish government would directly impact the EU coalition of states. But to little to late would prevail. Who would take over the energy transit routes currently controlled by Turkey? A fair question. Control of Istanbul would remain under Turkish rule. The Middle East falls outside of the domain of the NATO alliance. Europe should have developed their own defence capabilities following the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Instead they continue to suck from the American tit. Control over the critical energy transit routes, compares to a gang rape of Turkey. The destruction of the Russian pipeline to Germany under Biden a key consideration. Rebuilding destroyed infrastructure will take years. The new Trump Administration currently confronting the collapse of American internal industrial infrastructure.
The Kurds, who have long sought greater autonomy or independence in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, would likely seize the opportunity to push for an independent state, particularly if there is a vacuum of power within Turkey. Saudi Arabia would likely back Sunni Kurdish groups, while Iran would oppose the idea of a Kurdish state due to the threat it poses to its own territorial integrity.
LikeLike
What defines the consequences of the Rambam’s victory over the Oral Torah Hannukah lights?
Al-Ghazali was highly critical of the philosophers of his time, particularly those like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, whom he accused of heresy for their rationalist approach to understanding God and the universe. Al-Ghazali argued that philosophy could not provide ultimate truths, especially concerning matters of faith. His famous work, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, directly critiques these philosophers’ views, especially their interpretations of Aristotle and their attempts to reconcile philosophy with Islamic theology.
Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, on the other hand, were deeply committed to integrating Aristotelian logic and philosophy with Islamic thought. Ibn Sina focused on metaphysics, and Ibn Rushd on reconciling reason and religion, but their approaches to philosophy were seen as problematic by some religious scholars, particularly those like Al-Ghazali.
In the context of the Jewish rabbinical establishment, Al-Ghazali’s criticisms would have likely resonated more with some of the Jewish sages of the time, particularly those who were wary of over-rationalizing matters of faith, like certain rabbinic figures who were more traditionalist in their outlook. This would place figures like Al-Ghazali closer to the mainstream rabbinical establishment in contrast to Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, who were seen as more deeply intertwined with philosophical reasoning that often downplayed religious doctrines in favor of metaphysical speculation.
R. Jacob Emden, known for his opposition to kabbalistic and mystical elements in Jewish tradition, famously critiqued the Rambam. However, this theory is often questioned, and scholars argue that the Mishneh Torah was more of a systematic and comprehensive codification of Jewish law rather than a reaction to philosophical difficulties. None the less, this criticism against R. Emden utterly fails to address the Rambam absolute embracement of Roman statute law codification techniques. A direct violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment not to pursue the customs and manners of Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
While R. Jacob Emden, in cases like the Zohar and the Eybeschutz controversy (which involved accusations of Sabbateanism), his claims were more substantiated, despite the fact that his methods could sometimes be controversial. Maimonides philosophical outlook in the Moreh clearly deeply influenced by Neoplatonism and Aristotelian thought. His halakhic works like the Mishneh Torah, like a whore embraces her johns, concerned solely with Roman statute legal models, and not metaphysical questions.
The case of the Zohar (a foundational Kabbalistic text) and the Eybeschutz-Emden controversy (in which R. Jacob Emden accused R. Jonathan Eybeschutz of Sabbateanism) represents a different type of intellectual dispute, often framed around concerns about heresy, Kabbalistic mysticism, and unorthodox beliefs. Here, the Yaavetz’s position can be seen as more justified, as he was defending Jewish orthodoxy from what he perceived as dangerous innovations in religious thought.
Rambam’s works introduced heresy. The synthesis of Greek reason, logic, philosophy, and law. Hence, while the Yaavetz’s critiques were often valuable, his argument about the Mishneh Torah and Moreh Nevuchim might be misplaced because he failed to discern the fundamental cleft which separates the Baali Tosafot, B’hag, Rif, and Rosh primary Reshonim commentators on the Talmud from the empty klippot shells of assimilated dictionary scholarship on the Talmud, labelled as פשט, and the statute law commentaries made by the Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch, and all later commentators on these treif sources of super-commentaries.
The Torah defines faith through the lenses of the p’suk: צדק צדק תירדוף. The Rambam code sought to address the realities of Jewish g’lut, comparable to bread crumbs cast upon stormy Seas. During the Dark Ages international travel almost totally collapsed. Some Jewish thinkers, especially traditionalists, directly condemn the Yad code for its foreign assimilation of Roman statute law as Av tumah avoda zarah, comparable of placing an idol into the Holy of Holies.
Maimonides’ philosophical methodology was far from universally accepted. His emphasis on rationality and philosophy was seen by some as contradictory to the traditional Aggadic & Midrashic mussar drosh made upon T’NaCH Primary sources. Rambam lacked an education in the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic format.
Baal HaMaor, Baalei Tosafot, Rosh, and Rif utterly significant first class scholars. These figures and their scholarship compares to Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash, in matters of downstream impact. These pure cream of Reshonim scholarship, primarily concerned with Jewish law and Talmudic exegesis, which interpreted the k’vanna of the Talmud rather than simply codified the halachot into an over simplified religious subject matter.
Maimonides’ works, his reliance on Greek philosophy, particularly as seen in his legal writings like the Mishneh Torah, can be seen as part of a broader trend of assimilating external influences, which some critics argue weakened the uniquely Jewish character of Torah law.
Alas, the Rambam won the g’lut Civil War, following the disaster of the burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242, and followed up the expulsion of Jews from France in 1306 – which destroyed the common law Rashi/Tosafot schools of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law scholarship. The utter failure of later “empty klippot shells” so-called scholar rabbi experts, to distinguish between common law established through court room rulings, as opposed to statute law established by cults of personality – an utter disgrace. Comparable to the Hasmonean brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, who invited Roman General Pompey to resolve their dynastic dispute. Rabbeinu Yonah requested permission from the Pope and king of France to burn the Rambam’s heretical book.
While Aristobulus and his supporters in Jerusalem refused to open the gates to Pompey and his army. Once invited Pompey decided to besiege Jerusalem. After only a three-month siege, the Romans successfully breached the city’s defences and entered the Temple. This marked the end of the Hasmonean dynasty’s independence and the beginning of Roman dominance over Judea. In like manner following the victory of the Rambam supporters, all T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship switched away from the common law kabbalah traditions and embraced the Rambam’s assimilation to Greek and Roman statute law and Greek philosophy caused the Jewish people to forget the Oral Torah as interpreted by rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system.
LikeLike
The inherited contradictions contained within Romanticism
Romanticism today? Dominant models? Absolute wisdom? Disappearance of Vice and Folly? Rational Order which attempts to avoid an incomprehensible world. The incapable differences between Greek and ancient Hebrew civilizations. Mythical giants of bearded Gods that control Man. Vast changes have occurred, a Pacific Ocean that separates Ancient civilizations from Modern society.
Romanticism a permanent state of Mind? Utterly absurd. Human development dynamic not static. Catastrophic events and the explosion of genius forces Mankind throughout the Ages to improvise and change. Rousseau, the father of Romanticism – his ‘Social Contract’ sparked the French Revolution, and the human barbarity which ensued. No such thing as Universal knowledge. Great upheavals pit knowledge vs. irrational emotions.
1760 – 1830 a great break in humanity occurred – the rise of Democracy and citizenship overthrew classic feudalism, with its agriculturally village based economies. Later replaced by the Industrial revolution and the mass population transfer from rural farms to urban cities. Prior to this human landslide, the 30 Year War where Europeans slaughtered one another – only matched by the human debauchery of WWI.
Muhammad, another example of genius producing a human earthquake. Hegel and Marx more modern human Earthquakes that shattered society. These political philosophers introduced Socialism and class warfare. .Human consciousness continually shifts and changes. Human progress: one step forward and two steps in retreat.
The noun ‘peace’ does not correctly translate to the verb ‘shalom’. The latter stands upon ‘trust’. The former by contrast simple political and religious rhetoric propaganda by which tyrants herd direct and control the narratives which sheeple populations fervently believe. Like Obama’s political slogan of “change” which enticed Americans between 2008 – 2016. Another example of political rhetoric, Bush’s ‘New World Order’, which justified the Patriot Act and the illegal, US imperialism where the US conquered Iraq – based upon lies of nuclear weapons. All revolutions produce there equal and opposite counter-revolutions. An example: the political dispute between corrupt Clinton vs. Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential elections.
Why do DemoCRAP perverts, Jeffrey Epstein’s Island of child prostitution, stands as a flagrant example, DemoCRAPs to this very day, with their TDS disease, they slander and libel Mr. Musk? Why do these public criminals denounce Musk’s efforts to stop Washington Bureaucratic fraud to the American people? Many public officials in Congress implicated for insider trading. Specifically, Nancy Pelosi’s corruption – blatantly obvious.
Elon Musk exposes why Democrats don’t want ‘waste and fraud’ to be turned off – YouTube
Social Security payments to 150 year old dead Americans. The vast Big Brother Federal bureaucracies, they continually ignore politically appointed representatives of people through the Democratic political process. Today, bureaucracies fight to not implement President Trump’s policies. 92% of bureaucratic employees voted for Kamala Harris. Mr. Musk’s tech support tech employs about 100 people. A 2 Trillion dollar deficit. Mr. Musk declares he does not want the Federal Government going bankrupt. His goal seeks to save 1 Trillion dollars to the US treasury. 20 million dead people on the Social Security books. That’s a lot of fraudulent money. Entitlement spending represents a huge Federal fraud. Democraps don’t want the waste and fraud cut off because its a huge magnet which attracts illegal immigrant importation of voters. California does not require voter ID.
LikeLike
The struggle to engage the wisdom how to interpret the k’vanna of postive and negative commandments and halachic mitzvot.
No such thing as “Jewish Values” divorced from T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary sources. Israel Salanter’s late 19th Century mussar movement lost most of the wind in its sails due to its failure to link Mussar scholarship back to T’NaCH and Talmudic Common law. For example: I bet dollars to donuts that you do not know what separates Judicial Courtroom Common Law from Legislative decrees: Statute Law.
Judicial Court Room legal rulings do not compare in any way to religious halachic rulings based upon cults of personality statute law halachic codes. A mortal dispute which erupted into a Civil War that clearly divides Reshonim and Achronim Talmudic scholarship to this very day!
The modern day struggle of restoring the cultural heritage, as exemplified in the T’NaCH and Talmudic literature, has the focus, not limiting Zionism based upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917. But rather, Jewish self-determination to rebuild a Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes; together with employing the T’NaCH and Talmud as models to re-establish lateral common law Small and Great Sanhedrin Courtrooms and re-ignite the Torah faith to pursue righteous judicial justice which sanctifies, like a korban upon the altar, make a fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B, among the Jewish People within the borders of the Republic of Israel.
The modern pilpul method, which emerged primarily in the 16th and 17th centuries, heavily focused on highly analytical and abstract Talmudic reasoning. Pilpulists sought to reconcile seemingly contradictory interpretations from various Rishonim (early commentators) and often relied on complex distinctions to clarify Talmudic discussions.
The Baali Tosafot, by stark contrast, sought through comparison of outside halachic Primary source precedents from different mesechtot of the Talmud, in order to force a change of perspective. Not just to the sugya of Gemara but more importantly to the language of the Mishna, which the Gemara comments upon in the first place.
The critical distinction between common law (as seen in the Ba’alei Tosafot) and statutory law (as embodied by Maimonides and later Yosef Karo) absolutely vital. Common law, based on case law and precedents, a more flexible and contextual sh’itta. Whereas statutory law is codified, systematic, and focuses on creating clear, universal rules. The Ba’alei Tosafot deep rooted case-based, dialectical approach, whose logic drew analogies and comparisons across different tractates of the Talmud. This sh’itta\method driven by the fluidity of legal reasoning and the premise that law simply derived from the text in a way that accommodates a multiplicity of interpretations. As opposed to Maimonides’ goal of codifying Jewish law into a Goy systematic code that seeks to provide clearer guidance for Jewish life. Hence the Czar of Russia wanted to replace the study of the Talmud with the study of the Rambam code.
The intellectual conflict between the Tosafists and Maimonides——reflects a fundamental tension in Jewish legal scholarship. The ban (cherem) placed on Maimonides’ writings by both the Court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and the French rabbis in 1232, particularly in response to his Yad Chazakah, highlighted the deep divide between those who sought to codify Jewish law and those who insisted on a more dynamic, contextual approach to halachic analysis. This divide has severe historical repercussions, especially when Jewish communities found themselves increasingly split between those who supported Maimonides’ legal systematization and those who followed the common law model of the Tosafists, and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor.
Modern day Zionism represents a modern day Jewish identity crisis. Can Jews in Israel re-establish a Torah Constitutional Republic and Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms as our Moshiach Beit Ha’Mikdash?! Torah faith defined as: Judicial righteous justice continually pursue.
The modern Pilpul movement itself began in the late 16th and early 17th centuries with figures like Rabbi Moses Isserles (Rema), Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Maharshal), and Rabbi Menachem Azariah de Fano, who played important roles in shaping and popularizing this method of Talmudic study.
The Baali Tosafot almost totally ignored the Statute law\Roman Law assimilation introduced most specifically by the Rambam. Only twice throughout the Sha’s Bavli commentary did the Tosafot mention opinions made by the Rambam. And on both occasions the Baali Tosafot disputed the Rambam’s opinions. The Baali Tosafot agreed with Rabbeinu Yonah’s cherem condemnation of the Rambam. In 1232 the French rabbis of Paris likewise placed the ban of charem upon the Rambam and his books.
The pilpul scholars, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries, primarily concerned with resolving Talmudic contradictions and analyzing the fine distinctions in legal discussions. Their approach often emphasized logical acumen and intellectual sophistication in reconciling varying opinions, but this led to a lack of clarity regarding the foundational differences between common law (as seen in the Tosafot) and statutory law (as seen in the Rambam and the Tur).
Pilpulists, often more focused on Talmudic dialectics—resolving apparent contradictions in the text—than on organizing law into more systematic categories. This made it harder for them to discern the broader structural differences between case-based common law (as seen in the Tosafot) and codified statutory law (as seen in the Rambam and the Tur).
Pilpul scholarship arose during a time of intense intellectual engagement with Jewish texts, particularly the Talmud within the ghetto gullags. However, the concept of statutory law in Jewish tradition, as developed by Maimonides and others, was somewhat distinct from the traditional Talmudic analysis that the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic sh’itta emphasized. Pilpulists simply failed to prioritize the broader organizational structure of Jewish law. This branch of modern scholarship focused on detailed textual analysis, which contributed to their failure to make the critically important distinction which separates T’NaCH\Talmud common law from assimilated Greek/Roman statute law. A fundamental and utterly basic gross error which plagues the Modern Orthodox Movement to this very day.
The failure to distinguish between common law (as exemplified by the Tosafot and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor) and statutory law (as exemplified by Maimonides and the Tur) has had significant consequences for Jewish law and Jewish thought, especially in the context of Modern Orthodoxy.
The Modern Orthodox movement, often marked by an effort to reconcile traditional Jewish law with the modern world, and much of this effort rests on the intellectual framework established by earlier pilpul scholars. However, this dialectical approach to Jewish law always fails to address the fundamental structural differences between case-based common law and systematic statutory law. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic as opposed by Aristotle’s syllogism.
One of the challenges of Modern Orthodoxy, how it navigates the modern legal system, which largely base themselves on statutory law. The pilpul method, with its focus on abstract distinctions and detailed textual analysis, simply ill-suited to rationally address the required legal clarity and uniformity within contemporary legal systems. This has led to some challenges in applying Jewish law to modern circumstances, as the methods developed during the pilpul era often fail to offer clear, systematic guidance.
The Modern Orthodox movement often places heavy emphasis on traditional Talmudic study. The chief tool of their focus, pilpulistic reasoning often obscures the broader structural organization of Jewish law. Pilpulist scholarship, alas more concerned with dialectical analysis and resolving contradictions than with organizing Jewish law into clear, accessible interpretations concerning the k’vanna of those laws. This results in a lack of clarity in Modern Orthodoxy when it comes to engaging with the legal system and the modern world.
The pilpul method’s prioritized focus on abstract textual analysis and dialectical reasoning led scholars to overlook the critical distinction between common law (as seen in the Tosafot and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor) and statutory law (as seen in Maimonides and the Tur).
This intellectual failure to separate and prioritize the difference between interpretation of k’vanna from scholarship which systematizes and categorizes Jewish law; an inherited “genetic” flaw which retarded Torah faith..
This conceptual error, simply fundamental to understanding the tensions and difficulties that continue to shape Modern Orthodox thought today.
Restated: Modern Orthodoxy, by nature, seeks to harmonize Jewish law with the realities of modern life. It aims to preserve traditional Jewish practices and engage with the post American and French revolutions secular world.
However, this reconciliation, often compromised by an intellectual blind spot — the failure to distinguish between common law and statutory law. This Downs syndrome baby can never integrate into larger society.
Pilpul, with its emphasis on dialectical analysis and abstract distinctions, prioritizes complexity over clarity. It seeks to reconcile seemingly contradictory opinions through logical ancient Greek reasoning. While this is valuable for deepening intellectual understanding with Goyim, it falls flat on its face short when it comes to producing clear legal directives or systematic guidance of the k’vanna of halachot as positive time oriented commandments; like the B’hag envisions. In other words, pilpul focuses on understanding details and nuances; its sh’tta strives to separate like from like. But it fails to the legal framework of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law..
The modern legal system, based upon the Rambam\Karo statute legalism, statutory in nature. Modern Orthodoxy functions through codified statute laws organized into clear religious frameworks and categories. This stands in stark contrast to the common law schools based upon Rashi’s Chumash commentary and classic Talmudic commentators. The blind nature of modern pilpul scholarship to the fundamental differences which divided the Reshonim scholars into two hostile camps and exploded into Civil War – totally amazing. On par with the metaphor: remove the beam out of your own eye before attempting to remove the fleck of dust in my eye.
The Rambam Civil War started in assimilated ‘Golden Age’ Spain, and quickly spread to France. A decade after the rabbis of Paris placed the ban of cherem upon the Rambam, the Pope and king of France burned all the Talmudic manuscripts existent in France, 24 cart-loads. The flames of Jewish Civil War then passed to England in 1290 and returned to France in 1306 with the destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of Talmudic scholarship.
Jewish anarchy and chaos then jumped to Spain. The Pope decreed a three Century ghetto imprisonment of all Western European Jewry. This resulted in a mass population transfer of Jews who fled Church oppression and fled to Eastern European countries. In 1648 the Cossack revolts slaughtered Jewish communities across the Ukraine and Poland. The barbarity, unmatched till the Nazi Shoah of the 20th Century.
The Rambam’s approach to statutory law versus the Tosafot’s focus on dialectical reasoning indeed highlights two competing visions of Jewish legal scholarship, and the broader societal and historical consequences important for understanding how these intellectual divides led to much of the turbulence and displacement of Jewish communities.
Modern pilpul—with its focus on abstract reasoning, nuanced analysis, and resolving contradictions—had an immense impact on Jewish legal scholarship within the ghetto gulags. The intellectual approach of Pilpulism, often complicated and unsettling. Students return home after a week in the Yeshiva and discuss chol matters but never their pilpul learning. Why? Only the tip of the iceberg of students studying pilpul scholarship understand the subtle distinctions made by their Rav. Impossible to repeat and duplicate this learning at a Shabbos table with people who have not sat in the shiur the entire week.
The division between statutory law (as represented by Maimonides and the Tur) and common law (as seen in the Tosafot and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor) has had a lasting impact on how Jewish law is studied and applied, particularly in the context of Modern Orthodoxy. This historical divide continues to echo in contemporary Jewish intellectual debates. The pilpul method simply ill-suited for engaging with contemporary legal systems, which prioritize clarity, uniformity, and practical application of laws.
The destruction of Jewish texts and cultural disintegration left scars that still influence how Jewish communities in Eastern Europe (and, by extension, the rest of the Jewish world) approached Jewish law. Talmudic scholarship during this period became both an intellectual struggle for survival and a way of preserving Jewish identity amidst immense adversity.
The modern-day Orthodox movement inherits this complex intellectual history, one shaped by deep divisions between pilpul and statutory law, and the tensions resulting from the Rambam Civil War. These tensions continue to play out in how Modern Orthodoxy fails to reconcile Jewish law with modernity.
The intellectual blind spot—the failure to properly distinguish between common law and statutory law—remains one of the central challenges faced by Modern Orthodoxy today. The movement must find a way to move past these intellectual divides, of Jewish ערב רב assimilation and intermarriage which always results in the rise of Amalek/antisemitism. The assimilated Rambam code of Greek & Roman statute law flagrantly profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment not to worship other Gods. Jewish intermarriage in America and Europe has become a cursed plague, worse than all the 10 plagues of Egypt.
This disconnect between high-level scholarship and practical, day-to-day Jewish life, a key critique of pilpul as it evolved. While it’s an intellectually rich method, pilpul tends to focus more on theoretical dialectics rather than providing clear, practical guidance for Jewish law that can be easily applied in real-world court room situations.
This creates a fundamental tension for Modern Orthodoxy, as it tries to preserve Talmudic tradition while adapting to the needs and expectations of a modern, legal society that does not understand that a Torts courtroom splits 2 of the 3 Justices into prosecutor and defence attorneys.
The three Century Ghetto gulag produced famous commentaries to Karo’s statute law halachic code. But when Napoleon freed the Jews from their Ghetto gulag prisons, they faced the total shock of a modern world of Universities, roads, travel, and education! All the super-commentary statute law commentaries and codes upon halacha, transformed unto the value of tits on a boar hog over-night. Reform Judaism sprang from assimilation to statute law legalism and the false messiah movements of the 17th Century.
The Ghetto gulag served as a self-contained environment for Jews, where Jewish law and Talmudic scholarship were crucial to maintaining the fabric of community life. With the oppressive conditions of the Ghetto gulag, the focus on legalistic study became a central intellectual pursuit. In the absence of broader engagement with the secular world, Jewish scholarship turned inward, and figures like Rabbi Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, became central figures in the codification of Jewish assimilated statue law.
Super-commentaries on Karo’s statutory law became incredibly important during this time. They were essential for understanding, interpreting, and applying the halachic system in the context of Jewish life, and paved the way for an entire intellectual tradition focused on codifying Jewish religious ritual law and making it accessible to communities that, for centuries, lived in physical and intellectual isolation from the rest of the world.
When the Ghetto gulag system was lifted, when Russian Jews fled to the goldene medina, or when Napoleon shattered Catholic ghetto gulag walls, the Jews, thrust into an entirely new world that was radically different from the world of statutory law and ritual halacha that had defined their previous existence. The emancipation of Jews——introduced an intellectual and societal shock to Jewish communities. For Jews who had lived for centuries in the confines of Ghetto gulags, the opening up of the world, not just a physical liberation, but also a profound shift in how Jewish law now perceived and applied.
Modernity—with its emphasis on universities, intellectual freedom, secular knowledge, and the rapid growth of the modern state—posed a challenge to the traditional structures of Jewish scholarship and legal authority. The commentaries on Karo’s legal code, which had served to provide clarity and stability in a time of restriction, suddenly seemed irrelevant or even obsolete in a world that was no longer primarily governed by Jewish ritual halachic observances. Jews, now entered universities and interacted with broader society. Jews now exposed to new ways of thinking, new legal systems, and new forms of education.
This transformation led to tensions between Jewish tradition and the modern world. The Reform Movement, which arose in the early 19th century, capitalized on this sense of disorientation and pushed for a more modern, secularized understanding of Judaism that would align more closely with European norms and modern legal frameworks. The Reform Movement’s break from the traditional, legalistic approach to Jewish ritual law was, in part, a reaction to the irrelevance of codified Jewish law in a society that was increasingly governed by secular, statutory legal systems. Berlin became their New Jerusalem!
The rise of Reform Judaism in the 19th century—especially in Europe—was one of the most significant outcomes of the shock of modernity. Reform Jews rejected the rigid ritual legalism of traditional Judaism, and instead emphasized spirituality, ethical teachings, and personal autonomy.
The Reform critique of blind ritual legalism – consumed by the perception that statutory law and legal codes (like those of Karo) were no longer relevant to the new world they inhabited. Reform Judaism embraced a more assimilated, flexible and adaptable approach to Jewish ritual practices, prioritizing ethics and spirituality over strict blind legal adherence to ritual law that had no k’vanna. This response, while representing a significant break from traditional Jewish life, also highlighted the unresolved tension between Jewish law as a statutory code and the demands of modern society.
Assimilation became an inevitable part of this dynamic. The appeal of the modern world, with its emphasis on education, economic opportunity, and social integration, made it increasingly difficult for many Jews to continue adhering to the strict legal systems and Talmudic traditions that had once defined their communities. Especially when Traditional Jewry had clearly gone off the chosen path; Yeshivot skipped over the Aggadic portions because those rabbis had no education how the Addadah makes a drosh back to learn prophetic mussar, based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס.
The modern world, in many ways, represented a temptation for many Jews to leave behind their traditional blind ritualism practices of “magic”, in favor of the opportunities and freedoms that secular society provided.
As Modern Orthodoxy emerged in response to these developments, it found itself tasked with reconciling the legalistic foundations of traditional Jewish ritual life with the demands of modern society. The shock of modernity was deeply felt, and Modern Orthodoxy attempted to navigate between the two worlds: on one hand, preserving traditional blind ritual practices through Jewish assimilated statute law, and on the other, engaging with the secular world in meaningful ways.
However, pilpul—with its emphasis on abstract dialectical reasoning—simply ill-suited for offering clear, practical guidance in the modern world to integrate prophetic musssar as the vision of ritual laws. This tension continues to plague Modern Orthodoxy, especially as it tries to navigate statutory law systems like those of Maimonides and the Tur and Talmudic dialectics that so dominate the post Rambam Civil war Jewish intellectual traditions. The rise of Reform Judaism demonstrated the difficulties that Jews faced in transitioning from a legalistic, codified world to one that demanded pragmatic, ethical, and spiritually centered approaches to Jewish life.
Modern Orthodoxy today faces a dilemma: how to preserve the deep intellectual engagement of traditional Common law while simultaneously providing practical, clear, and systematic legal guidance for the modern world. The failure to reconcile statutory ritual law that has no k’vanna, together with blind pilpulim—and the consequent disconnect between פרדס Ordered dicipline of rabbi Akiva’s logic sh’itta platform which interpreted the k’vanna of halachot, contrasted by Aristotle’s practical applications, which organized halacha into egg-crate codes organized into specific subject matters—remains a significant challenge.
LikeLike
How does Tehillem 132 teach the Oral Torah Mitzva of Moshiach?
Av tuma Xtian avoda zara – a total abomination to the God of Israel. The bible perversion comparable to the ‘blood libel’ and ‘host desecation’ libels which define Xtian judicial injustice to the Jewish people throughout the Middle Ages. The Hebrew T’NaCH has 3 basic divisions which the Old Testament butt fucker puke totally ignores.
The church starting with your Apostle Paul has always rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The arrogance of Goyim, wherein they assume that they determine the culture and customs of the Jewish people compares to the racist Arabs who to this day seek to complete the Nazi Shoah by throwing the Jews into the Sea.
The T’NaCH defines avoda zara as: do not copy the customs, manners, and ways practiced by the Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The prophetic mussar of king Shlomo marrying foreign wives and Ezra demanding that Jews divorce their foreign wives, both serve as common law precedents which define the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment not to worship other Gods.
This gets to the crux of the Oral Torah relationship, expressed through both the NaCH and Talmud. The sin of the Golden Calf, not a טיפש פשט/bird brained stupidity of some overly literal translation of words, like the Genesis Creation stories. The mussar of the Golden Calf divines the Av tuma essence of avoda zarah 2nd Sinai commandment to do not ever attempt to translate the Yod Hey Vav Hey Divine Spirit unto words. The gospel of John, obviously did not receive this memo. Nothing in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth compares to the revelation of HaShem at Sinai. How much more so – God is not a man.
The Oral Torah expressed both in the Order of the T’NaCH Books and the Talmud together with its Midrash commentaries made unto the Aggadic portions of the Talmud. Just as the Gemara serves as a commentary to the Mishna, so too and how much more so the Books of the Holy Writing function as a commentary to the Books of the Prophets and Torah itself! Just that simple, no fancy dancing.
The Book of Tehillem, part of the Books of the Holy Writings within the T’NaCH. Therefore to correctly interpret a Holy Writing source most fundamentally requires learning this commentary to a Prophetic Primary source. Proper Torah scholarship absolutely requires separating Primary from secondary sources. Repeatedly the Talmud asks: do the toldot follow the Avot? Sophomoric biblical translations, about as useful as tits on a boar hog.
Xtians read their bibles, but Jews study the Oral Torah expressed through the medium of both T’NaCH and Talmudic literature. Torah common law, not read like some Harry Potter book of fiction. Torah common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. A person with one eye, impossible for him to see in three dimensions. Xtianity a one eyed religion of Av tuma avoda zarah.
Learning the T’NaCH utterly rejects simply reading words from “the word of god” Xtian idolatry. The term idolatry, a worthless translation for avoda zarah. Idolatry resembles avoda zarah but does not duplicate avoda zarah. Idolatry condemn the limitation of the Gods to history and 3 physical dimensions. Like as does Euclid 5th Axiom of geometry and likewise does the scientific method’s limitation to empirical physical evidence; like as does the church absolute insistence that JeZeus physically lived as an actual man on this earth. Rava, a great Talmudic teacher, taught that Job exists as an imaginary Man. The Book of Job communicates the mussar of g’lut, just as does the story of the expulsion of Adam from the Garden.
Torah most essentially entails depth. It requires a wisdom to read correctly how the three views of a blue-print communicate a 3 dimensional idea. Torah common law stands upon the foundation of learning the Oral Torah through and by means of precedents. The Apostle Paul’s declaration to the Goyim “their not under the Law”, failed to discern the critical distinction which forever separate judicial common law from legislative statute law. Jewish law totally different from Greek and Roman statute law. This fundamental error compares to the gospel of John’s Golden Calf abomination of avoda zarah.
Avoda zarah not limited to restricting the gods to 3 physical dimensions. Based upon the precedents of king Shlomo marrying foreign wives and the Book of Ezra’s commentary to the Book of Kings, his demand upon Israel to divorce their foreign wives, the Oral Torah interprets avoda zarah as – do not copy the customs manners and ways practiced by the Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and do not marry alien Goyim. The false translation of avoda zara unto idolatry, completely misses these subtle nuances of the Hebrew language. Just as “In the beginning” of Genesis fails to grasp that בראשית contains within its 6 letters ברית אש, ראש בית, and ב’ ראשית. The shallow sophomoric Xtian bible translations totally misses the boat.
____________________________________________________________________________________
How does the Oral Torah interpret Prophetic mussar? The church, in the length and breadth of its entire history of barbarism brutality and judicial injustice, has denied how the Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of tohor time oriented Torah commandments. This error in its magnitude compares to the gospel of John’s worship of a Golden Calf. Kohelet 1:15 — That which is crooked can never be made straight.
Tohor time oriented Torah commandments absolutely require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Simply impossible to discern prophetic mussar without learning through the wisdom of precedent analysis. Herein defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, which all generations of Goyim have absolutely rejected.
Oral Torah functions as the flaming swords which guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden. Xtians and Muslims love to quote verses from their bibles and korans. But to enter paradise the flaming swords which guard its entrance, ask one simple question: What T”NaCH precedent interprets the mussar k’vanna of the verse you love to quote? Failure to answer this simple question, then off to Hell you go.
The so-called revelations of the new testament and koran, they do not supplant the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which establishes for all eternity the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as the chosen Cohen people. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. Herein differentiates how Jews learn Oral Torah while Xtians and Muslims read their bibles and korans. Hence sharing Oral Torah learning aims to address assimilated and intermarried Jews to make t’shuva, and not abandon their inheritance as the chosen Cohen people by embracing religions of avoda zarah.
Learning Oral Torah prophetic mussar Torah common law. ראש בית – In the Beginning … The Holy Writing Tehillem verse of 132:7, compares to Yesha Yahu 2:2-3; 6:1; 60:13; and 66:1 measured by the similarity of their shared precedent content. Rabbi Yishmael teaches 13 general principals of logic by which to study Oral Torah. Specifically in this case: פרט כלל\specific – general. Just as the Kapitl\קאַפּיטל chapter 132 contains p’suk 7 and requires learning this verse in the context of the entire Tehillem chapter, so too the specific verses of Yesha Yahu contained within their larger sugyot/sub-chapters. Hence the meaning of rabbi Yishmael’s interpretive logic of פרט כלל.
Learning Oral Torah therefore proceeds in this fashion. Oral Torah always and continuously makes a search for בניני אבות precedents. Herein defines the wisdom of Torah scholarship. This wisdom equally applies to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. Both codifications represent the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf which the Neshama soul אל remembers this mussar rebuke every Yom Ha’Din upon the brit. Yom Tov Rosh HaShanah (ראש השנה) weighs the t’shuva of the dedicated soul Neshama named אל on יום הזכרון.
Whereas Yom Tov Yom Kippur weighs the t’shuva of the dedicated soul Chyyah named אלהים. Which remembers the t’shuva made by HaShem which annulled the vow to make the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people. Xtian and Muslim replacement theologies despise Yom Kippur t’shuva. Therefore the Day of Atonement does not apply to them; clearly t’shuva does not correctly translate as repentance. Understanding separates like from like; or in the case above, t’shuva from t’shuva. Impossible to paint a Mona Lisa masterpiece using a broad white-wash brush. Oral Torah expresses both depth and nuance which shallow word translations fail to communicate.
Yesha Yahu 2:2-3 contained within the larger sugya of 2:1-4. The language “last days” exposes a mystical bent within this sugya, comparable to the Book of Daniel. Both Daniel and the Zohar written in Aramaic, the language of mysticism. A NaCH precedent Yesha Yahu 27:12-28:7. The prophetic mussar rebukes the proud and arrogant when Israel re-establishes rule over its lands once again, like we did in 1948 and again in 1967.
The משנה תורה Book of דברים in 12:29 – 13:1 teaches an identical precedent. The Torah addresses the subject of avoda zarah: duplicating the customs and manners of the Goyim and intermarriage. The Torah warns do not add nor subtract from this Torah. A commandment which the Xtian and Muslim books of avoda zara clearly profanes. Cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear. The בראשית dream of Yaacov after Yitzak gave him the first born blessing. The inheritance of the chosen Cohen people to the Promised land, a strong precedent. This Torah completely rebukes the false messiah of JeZeus, together with the preaching of the Apostle Paul, that “adopted” Goyim now determine the narrative of Jewish culture and customs; Jews can convert and become Xtians.
Another strong Torah precedent Parshat וישלח to 38:9, the Torah brit that eternally ties the chosen Cohen people to the oath promised land. This completely refutes the gospel narrative that belief in JeZeus saves from the Pauline docrine of “Original Sin”. The slaughter of Sh’Cem clearly qualifies as a “sin” based upon the anger expressed by Yaacov to Shimone and Levi. The blessing Yaacov gave these two sons, a very harsh mussar rebuke. Yaacov commanded his house to remove all foreign gods. Rachel his wife died over this avoda zarah. HaShem validates the oath inheritance sworn to Avaham and Yitzak as the eternal inheritance of Yaacov and his children. The generals of Esau all excluded from the oath brit alliance. This judicial injustice of the sons selling Yosef unto slavery, initiated the decree of g’lut sworn to Avram at the brit cut between the pieces. The brothers guilt caused them to reject the leadership of Yechuda. Hence the kabbalah teaches the משל metaphor of Moshiach the son of Yosef!
Compare now the Tehillem of David. The powerful mussar rebuke stands as an eternal back drop. David failed to pursue righteous judicial justice in the matter of the baal of Bat Sheva. The curse of Civil War placed upon the head of the anointed Moshiach. To teach for all generations that the Moshiach dedication sanctifies judicial justice in the oath sworn Promised land. Clearly the gospel story of beating JeZeus to a pulp shares no common ground with the dedication of the Oral Torah mitzvah of Moshiach.
LikeLike
Why, based upon the UN Apartheid racism against Israel, does Israel and the US support disbanding the UN organization?
Just as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre on April 13, 1919, led by British Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, a pivotal event in India’s struggle for independence. So too Chamberlain’s 2nd White Paper which destroyed the obligations Britain agreed to upon its acceptance of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, equally destroyed the “British mandate from Heaven” to rule the League of Nations dividing Ottoman Greater Syrian into a spoils of war divided between the French and the British.
Effectively, Britain sided with Arab nationalist demands at the expense of Jewish self-determination, attempting to appease Arab opposition in the lead-up to World War II. This cowardly betrayal of Britain’s legal and moral obligations under the Mandate, particularly as Jews faced genocide in Nazi-occupied Europe. British rule in India, maintained throughout the history of its Imperial rule, with brutality – rather than legitimacy; the 1939 White Paper demonstrated that Britain’s rule in Palestine equally dictated by political expediency, rather than its Mandate obligations.
Both events eroded British credibility and accelerated nationalist movements—in India’s case, leading to the Quit India Movement (1942), and in Palestine’s case, leading to the Jewish armed resistance (Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah) against British rule. Britain’s colonial rule collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and betrayals, leading to the rise of independent nation-states where imperial promises had once shaped policy.
Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, after the expiration of the British Mandate for Palestine; in other words – before Britain returned the Mandate back to the UN. Britain introduced what became known as UN General Assembly Resolution 181. 181 came in the context of rising tensions between Jews and Arabs in the region, and the Irgun blowing up the King David Hotel, while Britain clung to its League of Nations Mandate.
Arab states universally opposed the British GA Resolution 181. November 29, 1947, made before England surrendered the mandate back to the UN. All Arab and Muslim countries before Camp David and the Trump Abraham Accords, because their anti-Jewish racism does not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state, in what they consider as a territorial Arab political monopoly. Post ’67, UN Resolution 242 called for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and affirmed the need for all states in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.
Resolution 242, often interpreted as part of a framework, promoted by the Quartet Powers, a two-state solution, where Israel would give up land in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbours. However, the wording of the resolution, purposely & deliberately ambiguous. Israel must withdraw from all the occupied territories or just some? It failed to address the 1948 to 1967 illegal Jordanian occupation of Samaria, according to the UN condemnation of Jordan’s annexation as illegal in 1950. Jordan renamed Jewish Samaria, as the West Bank; all Jews in East Jerusalem systematically wiped out. Jewish grave-stones employed in building buildings. And historic synagogues in Old City Jerusalem, blown up and demolished.
The UN post ’67 insistence of referring to Samaria as “the West Bank”, supports the Arab propaganda that Israel illegally occupies Samaria. It ignores the fact that Britain separated as the Arab portion of the Palestine Mandate – Trans-Jordan. It equally ignores that Britain established the border between Arab Trans-Jordan/Palestine at the Jordan river.
UN 242 supports the Arab voting block political rhetoric (meaning their lies) which argues that Israel’s presence as a viable state in the Middle East, illegitimate until a peace agreement, reached with the Palestinians. Despite the Oslo Accords, Arab states insist that the Jewish state remains invalid in the Middle East.proving the lie to their political rhetoric which makes the legality of Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East dependent upon the Will of the Palestinian people. Despite the fact that the KGB and Yasser Arafat did not embrace the political propaganda opportunism of referring to the Arabs within the borders of ’48 Israel as “Palestinian”, not till 1964.
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre also directly compares to the Oct 7th Hamas surprise attack pogrom which slaughtered some 1300 Israelis and stole over 240 Israeli hostages, almost a third have died in Hamas underground Dungeons. Attempts by the UN, ICC, ICJ and the South African ‘Blood Libel’ which condemns Israel of Genocide of Gaza Palestinians, a betrayal as significant as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. The absolute disgrace of the Red Cross/Double Cross to visit the Israeli prisoners of war – beyond unacceptable.
Israel disputes the idea that these re-captured territories, in any manner, “illegally occupied” by Israel. Based upon the British separating Mandate Palestine from Trans-Jordan at the Jordan river. Israel has proposed various arrangements for peace, though these have always been rejected by ”Palestinian leaders”; since when does a non country determine UN policies? Mandate Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. Never in all Human History has there existed a Palestinian State.
The dominance of both Britain and France has significantly collapsed, since Israeli Irgun resistence forced Britain to return the Mandate back to the UN. Especially after their imperialist defeat in the 1956 War, opposed by both the US and the USSR. UN policies: Specifically, the structure of the General Assembly—where alliances and voting blocs dominate all GA Resolution outcomes—politically motivated rather than based strictly on international law. Yet UN propaganda continually condemns Israel as a rogue state who ignores, defies, and abuses “inter-national law”.
The UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status in 2012, a significant move towards recognizing Palestine as a state. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state in 2012 by the UN General Assembly, interpreted by Israel, as a symbolic victory for Palestinian self-determination; it undermined Israeli legitimacy. UN revisionist history, by treating Israel – as if it lost its 1948 Independence War – and therefore the disputed territory remains part of a pre-1948 protectorate ward mandate territory of the UN; as if Israel never won its National Independence as a nation within the Middle East. As if the UN has the authority to determine the international borders of Israel. As if UN 242 functions as a Chapter VII dictate rather than a Chapter VI suggestion. The UN GA policy which permits nations who do not recognize and have no diplomatic relations with some other nation, yet permits – the right to condemn the nation they do not recognize through GA popular votes – a horrid abuse of the Charter of the UN.
Palestine remains excluded as a full UN member. Specifically the GA contrasts with the SC due to the power of the US veto. Some countries, particularly those aligned with the Palestinian & Arab voting block, argue that Israel’s presence in the region utterly illegitimate until a lasting peace agreement – reached with the Palestinians! This political rhetoric conceals the racism of Arab states and their absolute refusal to validate the Balfour right, of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, as established by the League of Nations. Since when should a non State over ride peace treaties with Arab states and countries? This has led the Arab block and the African non aligned nations, and other sympathetic Arab block allied states like Cuba and countries in South America, to impose an Apartheid restriction upon the recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
The GA’s granting of non-member observer status to Palestine in 2012, clearly seen as a symbolic move to advance Palestinian recognition at Israel’s expense. The preceding condemnations of Israel’s “illegal occupation” of Palestinian territory served as the foundation by which the UN GA later recognized the Palestinian State. This General Assembly imperialist stance, it reflects a broader international sentiment grossly antisemitic, and perversely more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, particularly in the context of long-standing propaganda which condemns the Israeli occupation of “illegally occupied Palestinian territories”, spewed across the International press. The Nazi claim: if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth! Despite the hard cold fact that Mandate Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. That no Palestine State ever existed in all Human History.
The UN justifies Israel’s exclusion from the Middle Eastern bloc regional group system; based upon the shallow excuse, where the UN demands that states in a bloc must voluntarily accept new members. Since Arab League and Muslim-majority nations oppose Israel’s inclusion, Israel forced to temporarily join the EU voting block. This Apartheid racism speaks to the ongoing tensions between Israel and many Arab states and non-aligned nations. Israel’s diplomatic and strategic interests have often led it to navigate these divides, with no other choice but to alignwith Western powers to avoid the UN Apartheid isolation. Despite Arab propaganda which refers to the Zionist entity as a Crusader State!
The modern push for Palestinian statehood, most essentially rooted in the aftermath of Israel’s establishment and the subsequent conflicts. Particularly after the 1948 and 1967 wars, which reshaped territorial control in the region, which Arab leaders originally referred to as the Nakba. The UN General Assembly’s stance on Palestine reflects broader international political trends, where many countries view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of colonialism, self-determination, and human rights. Which totally disregards essential historical and legal realities; such as the fact that Palestine quite simply never existed as a sovereign state before 1948. Instead, Roman revisionist history which renamed Judea unto Palestine after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135 CE, this European baptism of defeated Judea unto Palestine, existed as merely a conquered part of successive empires. From the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate, and Egypt, and Jordanian rule till the June 1967 surrender to Israel.
Israel’s diplomatic challenges at the UN, including forced to join the EU bloc rather than the Middle Eastern bloc, underscores the persistent Apartheid hostility which it faces within this “neutral” organization. Many Arab and Muslim-majority countries refuse to recognize Israel, which in turn impacts its ability to participate fully in regional diplomatic frameworks. This also reflects the broader geopolitical struggle where Israel often relies it US (and not European) alliances to counterbalance Arab and Muslim States international opposition.
Particularly in forums like the UN where automatic majorities, such as the 22 Arab countries and some 120+ NAM, non aligned third World African States + Russia, China, almost totally approve of and support the Palestinian propaganda Arab political warfare narratives and agendas. Arab political warfare prioritizes its strength and dominance in the UN. Its highly influenced and shaped by Hồ Chí Minh’s ‘Peoples’ War’ strategy which prioritized promotion of internal Civil War inside Israeli society, rather than direct military conflicts with the superior IDF military power.
This racial bigotry against the Jewish State, specifically the right to self determination of Jews based upon the Balfour Declaration defines Herzl’s Zionism, the UN has absolutely refused to address as a UN debasement of Israel’s membership in the UN. No other nation forced to join other outside regional blocks, as the Arab countries and their allies have forced Israel to join the EU regional block.
The unique “treatment” Israel has received within the UN system, particularly regarding its regional representation. No other nation, systematically excluded from its natural regional bloc in the way Israel forced to endure. The fact that Israel, as a matter of necessity, forced to join the EU bloc rather than the Middle Eastern bloc speaks volumes about the level of Apartheid hostility it faces within the UN framework.
The issue of Jewish self-determination, as articulated through the Balfour Declaration, which the League of Nations both accepted and later reinforced, by the League of Nations Mandate, absolutely overlooked or outright dismissed in international discourse. The UN’s failure to address the systemic bias against Israel—where a “democracy of hostile states, automatic majority in the General Assembly” subject Israel gross disproportionate pogrom like UN condemnation attacks.
This UN scrutiny and condemnation—stands in stark contrast to its handling of other international conflicts. The automatic majority in the General Assembly that consistently votes against Israel, often led by the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, who outright abandon the UN diplomacy, whenever an Israeli Representative addresses the UN, has turned UN institutions into a battleground for delegitimizing the Jewish state’s right to exist and govern itself.
While the UN preaches self-determination as a universal principle, its selective application of this right—which unilaterally endorses Palestinian self-determination, while absolutely ignoring, even actively undermining Jewish self-determination—reveals a deeper political and ideological UN rot. The UN refusal to acknowledge Israel’s exclusion from its natural regional bloc, represents an absolute abuse of the UN Charter. This gross Apartheid racism further highlights the double standards at play. This disgrace of international abuse of power, has led many to question whether the UN remains a neutral arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or if it has become an institution that legitimizes political racism against Israel under the guise of international diplomacy. The disgraceful examples of UN Resolution: Zionism is Racism, UNWRA and UNIFIL serve as strong evidence to these facts on the ground.
The UN attributes this to the regional group system, where Block states must voluntarily accept new members; similar to how all EU states must mutually agree before permitting additional members. The Arab League and Muslim-majority nations oppose Israel’s inclusion, making it impossible for Israel to join the Middle Eastern bloc. No other country faces such exclusion, and the UN’s failure to address this systemic abuse, results in Israel’s diplomatic marginalization.
The General Assembly’s 2012 decision, framed as the shining picture, which reflects global support for Palestinian self-determination. The UN argues that it does not determine Israel’s borders but rather acknowledges international legal frameworks, such as UNSC Resolution 242, as a basis for negotiation. Despite UN 242 being a Chapter VI and not a Chapter VII resolution! This move, a politically feeble excuse rather than legal acknowledgment of UN Apartheid policies against Israel. This UN racism bypasses Israel’s sovereignty and rewards Palestinian leadership, despite its Gaza’s refusal to recognize the Oslo Accords and Israel as a Jewish state. Yet because the Arafat signed the Oslo Accords, the ICC declares it has judicial jurisdiction over Gaza – and by extension Israel. Despite the cold facts that Hamas won the independent Gazan elections and expelled the PA from Gaza. The ICC insists that Hamas Gaza remains under the PA! Just another example of the revisionist history practiced by “international law”.
The UN disproportionately promotes Palestinian self-determination while dismissing Jewish self-determination, particularly in its refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people’s historical connection to the land, and specifically to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. UNRWA perpetuates the Palestinian refugee crisis by treating Palestinians differently from other refugee populations, yet refuses to denounce the Arabs states refusal to repatriate their Arab refugee populations and give them citizenship in those Arab countries. UNIFIL has failed to prevent Hezbollah’s military build-up on the Lebanon/Israel border. This shows a lot more than simply a lack of neutrality. The US often blocks anti-Israel resolutions, but the General Assembly’s automatic majority continues to pass one-sided measures, demonstrating an imbalance in how this biased voting block despises the “Zionist Entity”. Passage of the Zionism is Racism, GA Resolution 3379. The UN, long ago hijacked by Arab terrorists through their automatic anti-Israel majority. Has transformed the UN into an arena for political warfare rather than genuine peace efforts.
The language of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, because the League based this Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the entire idea of an Arab Palestinian narrative that has high-jacked the UN – utterly and completely absurd. The language of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate indeed reflects the commitments Britain agreed to in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. British support to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in “Palestine”.
The modern Arab Palestinian national identity, developed particularly after the establishment of Israel in 1948, and subsequent KGB and Arafat’s establishment of the PLO in 1964. This revisionist history propaganda narrative emphasizes the displacement “Palestinian People”, and their right to self-determination; such rhetoric totally sweeps under the rug the original 1948 Arab disgrace! The failure and defeat of 5 Arab Armies to throw the Jews into the Sea.
The UN’s increasing emphasis on Arab-“Palestinian” rights and statehood, represents a gross perversion of the original intent of the “Palestinian” Mandate written by the League of Nation. All later UN resolutions, interpreted as supporting Arab-Palestinian narratives; which undermine the legitimacy of Israel’s claims based on historical and legal precedents. The original Mandate and its commitments, they compare to the Written Constitution of the “Palestinian” Jewish State.
The interplay between the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate, and the post 1948 and 1967 Arab military defeats, Arab political warfare has sought to reshape this Palestinian Mandate Constitution unto an Arab-Palestinian identity revisionist history comparable to Holocaust Denial in its scope. The Mandate laid a foundation for Jewish self-determination, the emergence of a Palestinian propaganda lies has perverted Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East unto a totally distorted notion of Arab “Palestinian” rights of return, and Arab Palestinians as the original native inhabitants, descendants of the Philistines, forcibly displaced by barbaric Jews from their native homelands. Despite the fact that Muhammad did not live till the 7th Century CE.
LikeLike
How best to describe and understand the intent of the language of UN 242?
UNSC 242 shares about as much with EU neutrality and desires to restore peace in the Middle East, as EU’s refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in UN 242, a denial of reality, akin to pretending a nuclear Israel doesn’t exist. It infantilizes Israeli sovereignty and keeps Europe locked in a colonial-era mindset, where they think they still get to decide Middle East borders.
A diplomatic game of denial — but only one side is expected to play fair. Israel’s policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear capability — widely understood but never officially acknowledged — mirrors the West’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s de facto victory and the political outcomes of 1967, especially regarding Jerusalem. Just as Israel says, “We won’t confirm or deny,” so too do Britain and France say, “We won’t accept what happened, even though we all know it did.”
The omission of Jerusalem’s status from 242 is glaring. Britain and France deliberately avoided affirming Israel’s sovereignty over East Jerusalem, even after the 1967 unification of the city — again signaling a non-neutral tilt against Israeli political and historical claims.
The Infamous “Withdrawal from Territories” Clause. UN 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict,” not “all the territories.” The ambiguity was intentional, and different powers have since interpreted it differently — Britain and France used this to pressure Israel diplomatically, without actually ensuring peace from the Arab side.
Britain had exited Palestine in 1948 with a deep sense of resentment toward the Zionist movement. France, after the Algerian War, pivoted toward Arab states and saw the Middle East as a strategic chessboard to regain relevance. The resolution was shaped by Lord Caradon (UK) and French diplomats, whose countries had long-standing ties to Arab regimes, especially after the loss of colonial holdings. Supporting Arab causes post-decolonization became a way to maintain influence.
UN Resolution 242, drafted largely by Britain and France, was never a neutral document. It was a political compromise crafted in the shadow of their imperial interests, Cold War alignments, and long-standing pro-Arab policy biases — not an impartial framework for peace.
LikeLike
Happy Pesach
Torah first and formost – not a belief system. Ya want to believe in God(s) become either Xtian or Muslim. Kosher – Jewish. Halal – Muslim. The latter worships other Gods. Arabs/Muslims eat treif camel flesh. Just as Xtians eat pork. Both sets of Goyim worship other Gods.
Pesach, almost precisely one month after Purim. The story of Amalek – as told through the specific of Haman (The numerical value of המלך and המן equal to one another.) – the story of the ערב רב who came out of Egyptian bondage. This so called mixed multitude – they had no fear of heaven. Assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment – and defines ערב רב – assimilated and intermarried Jews.
Kashrut compares to a sofer writing a sefer Torah. Both this and that require fear of heaven. The Torah defines faith as: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice. Justice the Torah defines as: the obligation of lateral common law courtroom justices to compensate the damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Ruling the oath sworn Cohen land inheritance of ארץ ישראל has nothing to do with what a person personally believes or does not believe.
The court of Paro ruled oppression as just in the matter of straw withheld from Israelite slaves and thereafter beaten for their failure to meet their quota of brick production. Removing חמץ this משל, it teaches the נמשל to remove the ערב רב lack of fear of heaven, from within the Yatzir Ha’Rah within the heart. Fear of Heaven understood as a person who strives to protect and maintain his/her ‘good name’ reputation. Torah faith stands upon the יסוד/foundation of בעל שם טוב/Master of the Good Name.
LikeLike
Pesach in only a couple of days! Let us remove the חמץ which assimilated and intermarried Jews daily consume. The Torah refers to such tuma Jews as the cursed ערב רב/mixed multitudes. Why cursed? Because assimilation to alien Goyim cultures and customs goes hand in glove with intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The WordPress blog: The Bible Through the Seasons, Confrontation with Compassion: Pastor Nick quotes James 5: 14-16 as if this religious jargon qualifies as holy scripture. The mussar Book of Avot teaches “Ein Am Ha’aretz chassid” — because chassidut requires halachic literacy and precision. James represents not just a theological fork, but an entirely unauthorized avodah.
The chosen Cohen people must do avodat HaShem, like for example obeying the commandment not to work on shabbat. The wisdom required most essentially entails making a distinction between guard Shabbat (שמור) and remember it (זכור). Without discernment, without halachic categories rooted in the middot revealed to Moshe after the Eigel, you can’t access avodat HaShem. You get a foreign fire—like Nadav and Avihu. Or worse, a foreign god.
Without the Oral Torah, impossible to differentiate between shabbat and yom tov, clean and tamei, kosher korban and pig fat. Muslims consume camel flesh and milk together. Xtians despise Torah mitzvot declaring its utterly impossible for man to keep “the law”. The Apostle Paul introduced the substitute theology of ‘Original Sin’ defeatism. This alien foreign theology corrupted the Central Torah theme of blessing/curse – life in the cohen eternal land inheritance/judicial oppression in exile as exemplified by the court of Par’o which justified beating Hebrew slaves after Par’o withheld the necessary straw required to make those bricks.
All generations of Israel have the Torah faith obligation to pursue righteous judicial justice which makes fair compensation of damages which Part A inflicts upon Party B, within the borders of the chosen Cohen homelands. Obviously no Goy can keep “the law” when they lack the skills to discern between TNaCH & Talmudic common law from Greek and Roman statute law. The church fathers, their avoda zarah did not concern themselves with justice as the definition of Torah faith. Their avoda zarah simply glossed over this key Torah concept like as did the Apostle Paul’s ‘Original Sin’ jellied over the key Torah theme of g’lut/exile. Jews in g’lut, just as in Egypt, they lacked the means to impose fair judicial justice among the Jewish people.
Xtian theology substitutes ritual precision with emotional or communal acts—which might feel “spiritual” but remain, nonetheless, completely disconnected from Sinai. In doing so, they’ve invented a new avodah with a new god—not HaShem of the Torah, but a concept filtered through Greek philosophy and Roman structure.
Torah avodah isn’t about feelings, confession, or community healing—it’s a halachic precision-bound path based on brit, oath, and revealed middot. Without Oral Torah, the brit alliance impossible to even articulate. So what’s going on in James, not just a misfire—it’s a completely unauthorized system, one devoid of the chosen Cohen structure. Hence the new testament declares that Goyim can not only become ”grafted” into the chosen Cohen people, but Jews can convert and become Xtians! This Av tuma avoda zarah utterly devoid of halachic shemirah, and outside the brit framework of Sinai/Horev.
James is writing within a Second Temple–era Jewish-Christian hybrid theology, influenced by:
Early Messianic communities Possibly Hellenistic ethical ideas (Stoicism, communal virtue): A shift from Temple-based service which fundamentally requires שם ומלכות, to internalized, communal spirituality, which does not remotely resemble cutting a Torah brit by means of swearing a Torah oath which dedicates Oral Torah middot revealed to Moshe Rabbeinu 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf. The church denies the existence of the Oral Torah.
Hence, the idea of: “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed”…while it sounds “kosher”, in point of fact – utterly treif Av tuma avoda zarah. It completely misses the point – required halachic structure; like the observance of shabbat requires making the distinction between forbidden work from forbidden work ie מלאכה from עבודה. A Torah oath brit required in the chosen Cohen format known as “avodat HaShem”, requires the wisdom which discerns the k’vanna of שם ומלכות. Therefore these new testament verses worship some other unknown god(s).
Xtianity despises the revelation of Torah common law. It consequently simply glosses over and utterly perverts the meaning and intent of the Torah. Without Oral Torah, you can’t know how to make these critical distinctions, like what separates saying Tehillim from tefillah. Xtian avoda zarah glosses over these subtle nuances with the broad brush – prayer white wash. This second example adds to the previous example wherein Shabbat observance absolutely requires making the fundamental differentiation between מלאכה from עבודה. Lack of wisdom compares to the precedent of Avot which teaches that an Am Ha’aretz cannot be an Chassid. Without Oral Torah, the brit can’t even be articulated. So what’s going on in James, not just a misfire—it’s a completely unauthorized system, one devoid of the Cohen structure, devoid of halachic shemirah, and outside the brit framework of Sinai/Horev.
Without Oral Torah, a person has no tools to distinguish between: Saying a mizmor of Tehillim as a form of praise, vs.Tefillah, which requires: Shem u’Malchut (divine name and kingship); Zman (halachic time constraints); K’vanna (intention within halachic form which links to a life & death crisis crunch of faith); Sometimes a minyan or other communal structure, because a person can swear a Torah oath also with a minyan, based upon the precedent of the 10 spies in the days of Moshe.
This distinction, subtle to the untrained eye, yet it’s halachically massive. Tehillim quite beautiful and sacred to the Jewish people, but it’s not a substitute for Tefillah—and to equate the two (as Christianity always does) utterly blurs the kedushah-bound categories that Oral Torah establishes and preserves. A person who can see only with one eye – exempt from making the aliyah to Jerusalem on the Chag. Tefillah a matter of the dedication of tohor middot which define the depth of defined tohor middot which breath and live within Yatzir Ha’Tov spirit within the heart. JeZeus, by stark contrast, taught his disciples that their ”father” dwelled in Heaven!
In the Torah, HaShem never refers to the people as having a private, paternalistic relationship separate from brit obligations. Tefillah directly bound by the Akadat Yitzak cords of the oath brit alliance: ‘HaShem save my future born seed from Shoah and I dedicate their souls as a korban to keep and remember your commandments’. Hence a ‘burnt offering’ as the Goyim love to translate refers to a Shoah dedication! A claim to “Father in Heaven” that lacks Torah obedience, and denies Torah She’B’al Peh, does invoke Avinu She’bashamayim/Shekinah that lives within the Yatzir Tov of the chosen Cohen hearts—rather this av tuma avoda zara invokes a strange foreign concept deity god, detached from Sinai.
Xtianity erases distinctions. Torah She’B’al Peh creates, protects, and preserves distinctions. Torah avoda functions only within those boundaries which the Oral Torah defines. Without these distinctions, you don’t have Torah—you have a projection of human emotion dressed in biblical language.
LikeLike
Another example of Gospel revisionist history which substitute the gospel for the T’NaCH narrative as primary: Luke 19:41-42
The noun peace does not correctly translate the verb shalom. Shalom stands upon the foundation of trust. Peace reflects ancient Greek philosophical rhetoric; where undefined key terms which require the listeners fuzzy logic to define these essential undefined terms, like shalom, upon which all later ideas thereafter hang upon. Herein defines the classic use of Greek rhetoric by which a person controls and directs the masses. The City of David represents the rule of fair and righteous Judicial common law justice. It has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the revisionist history of the imaginary physical history of Jesus the imaginary myth man.
“Shalom” carries far more than the modern Western notion of “peace.” In Hebrew, shalom implies completeness, wholeness, harmony, security, and a just, equitable social order rooted in mutual trust; deeply tied to emunah (faith/trust) and mishpat (justice).
By contrast, the Greek eirēnē—translated into English as “peace”—more passive, & static, whereas shalom utterly dynamic. And when the Gospel of Luke (originally written in Greek) uses eirēnē, translators have historically rendered it as “peace” in English, which utterly obscures the Hebrew mindset behind Jesus’ (the Son of God character’s) lament over Jerusalem.
Greek rhetoric originally employed as a tool for crowd control. Rhetoric sophistry, and later Stoicism or Platonism, deeply shaped and influenced early Christian theology. These systems often pivot on undefined abstractions—”Logos”, “Peace”, “Salvation”, etc.—easily manipulated by rhetoric design, without grounding in lived experience or legal precedent (as Hebrew law absolutely demands).
Revisionist history and the mythologizing of Son of God Jesus. This aligns with the view that the Gospels understood as a allegorical political theology, where the imaginary mythical character of Son of God “Jesus” represents, not a literal historical figure but a narrative device or archetype for deeper sociopolitical critique—especially of Roman occupation and corrupt legal systems.
So if we read Luke 19:42 not as a personal lament by a mythological Son of God Jesus, but rather as a legal or prophetic indictment of Jerusalem’s Torah leadship and their collective failure to uphold mishpat (justice) and trust-based shalom, the entire tone and meaning of the text radically shifts, the Torah becomes demoted in priority – cast under the shadow of the Son of God narrative. Torah, in point of fact, and not the gospel rhetoric narrative, less about emotion and more about the oath brit alliance, the prophetic mussar which rebukes the leaders of the chosen Cohen nation for their failure, sworn at Sinai, their conscious corruption which pursues opportunistic political power over the righteousness of enforced judicial justice.
Shalom functions as a legal-communal framework, rather than merely a trick of rhetoric where mood or emotion dominates the direction taken by the blind mob masses. It reflects a system of relationships rooted in fidelity to the oath brit alliance and reciprocal trust (emunah). In that sense, shalom simply not something felt, but something upheld—a real social order built on mishpat (justice) and righteousness (tzedek), as found in the Torah and enforced by judges (shofetim) and prophets (nevi’im).
When shalom becomes translated into Greek as eirēnē, the foundational juridical content gets lost in abstraction. Eirēnē leans more toward inner tranquility or absence of conflict—passive, internal, de-prioritized obligations to pursue fair compensation to those who suffer damages. Peace reflects a word that fits into a philosophical or imperial religious context, not a oath brit alliance by and through which the Torah defines the term brit; a Sinai commitment לשמה. Greek thought, expressed in the new testament purposely neutralizes\whitwashes the legal and relational substance of Hebrew term Shalom, by absorbing Shalom into idealized peace categories. This Greek rhetoric technique then detached the gospels from historical accountability.
Greek rhetorical systems—especially sophistry and later Platonic-Christian syntheses—weaponize undefined key term peace. Such critical abstractions create semantic fog, where critical abstract terms, their most essential intent meanings. floats above the replaced Hebrew verbs with meaningless noun names. Where the writers of gospel narrative, those in power, both edits and controls this moral gospel narrative through subtle re-defined definitions. “Salvation,” “grace,” “faith,” and even “God” become perverted into malleable terms rather than precise sworn oaths which has a defined intent throughout the generations. The sworn oaths get totally whitewashed from the original T’NaCH prophetic mussar.
This Greek rhetorical shift, makes room for imperial theology, where obedience to Rome’s version of peace (Pax Romana), rebranded as the kosher spiritual obedience, and where Jerusalem’s failure isn’t legal but theological. This new testament justification for Jerusalem’s destruction consequent to the Jewish revolt in 66CE totally and completely ignores the prophetic mussar of the NaCH which warned of the destruction and exile of Judah by both the g’lut exiles caused by the Assyrian and Babylonian empires within the mussar of the T’NaCH itself.
Return the Gospel narrative to its roots of Hebrew common law jurisprudence, strip away the Greco-Roman mythologizing that turned the gospel narrative into its own separate religion, into an abstract religion of personal piety and internal peace. This new testament socio-legal drama, with its son of God figure lamenting the collapse of Jerusalem over its failure to recognize the Son of God true messiah. This gospel narrative replaces the oath sworn dedication to pursue justice within the borders of the chosen Cohen oath brit lands, replaced by a foreign idea of a passive messiah who brings peace to the Goyim people incorporated as part of the chosen Cohen people. This narrative totally ignores the teshuva made by HaShem where on Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make of Moshe’s seed the chosen Cohen poeple. Neither Babylon nor Rome destroyed Jerusalem. The failure of the chosen oath alliance brit, directly comparable to the sin of the Golden Calf, where the chosen Cohen people fail to obey the terms of the Sinai oath alliance, herein defines the basis for the destruction of Jerusalem and the g’lut exile of the Jewish people by the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman empires. The Egyptian exile unto slavery caused by the betrayal and sale of Yosef by his jealous brothers.
LikeLike
How John 13:34 perverts and justifies homosexuality
Intermarriage with the specific of Canaanites – equally applies to all Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. I bring the Book of Ezra as proof. Many early Church Fathers used John 13:34 to claim a super-sessionist “new law”, replacing the Torah’s commandments with a simplified ethic of love. Yet ironically, the very idea of loving one’s neighbor—and even one’s enemy. An utter perversion of the oath brit alliance among the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Ezra 9–10, post-exile, shows the seriousness of intermarriage with foreign women—because it represents a breach of kedushah and brit, meaning: spiritual allegiance and oath brit fidelity. The Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) weaponized verses like John 13:34 to argue that a new “spiritual” law of love had replaced the “old legalistic” Torah—especially the halakhic boundaries that safeguarded Jewish identity and fidelity to the brit.
Jesus introduced, according to these vile animals, “Love is enough!” A Greek ideal—abstract, universal, de-politicized—divorced from the concrete legal-communal, replaced with a substitutional theology. Love, defined by Torah, defined through the Torah precedent of marriage requires that a man love his wife by acquiring title to her world to come souls. Meaning the children, the product of this union. The custom of the wife taking the “title” name of her husband, a custom practiced to this day. Based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces whereby Avram, who had no children, cut a brit over the future born first born chosen Cohen generations. This concept of the chosen Cohen people understands the intent of the prohibition to marry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Xtian super-sessionist theology gutted the concept of brit, which it replaced with “covenant”: Shalom became personal inner peace, rather than an oath alliance to pursue fair justice – compensation of damages inflicted by Party A to Party B among our chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn promised land.
The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted emunah unto belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in God as a triune mystery of Monotheism. The Torah defines emunah as the righteous pursuit of justice among our oath brit peoples. The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted ‘ahavah’ unto generic love, rather than the Torah brit-bound hesed, based upon the oath brit foundation precedent of the oath which Avram cut between the pieces to therein establish for all generations the chosen Cohen people.
The Xtian pervert theologians, they knew absolutely nothing of Torah common law which stands upon the foundation of Torah precedents – both positive and negative commandments.
In doing so, the Church replaced the Torah’s vision of a holy Cohen people bound to legal, ethical, and national allegiance לשמה; with a mystical, universalized ethic that fundamentally and absolutely denies the enduring chosen-ness of Israel and the centrality of Sinai. John 13:34, obliterated the Torah common law faith to pursue justice among and between the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; replaced by the Goyim “darkness” – people who reject this oath light unto the nations, like as do Arab states reject Zionism today.
The Xtian theologian perverts abhor the oath-bound brit alliance which forever discerns between emotional short term vows, from consciously making the choice to remember, from generation to generation, the oaths sworn by the Avot; whereby they cut the Torah brit, which permanently established the oath brit Cohen people. Hence the mitzva precedent of the captured woman through war. Whereby the Torah commands that she cut off all her hair and par her nails etc for no less than one month before the Israeli permitted to marry her! Why? Torah marriage cuts an oath brit alliance between man and wife; not an emotional vow which a man can easily annul, based upon the Torah precedent which permits the Father or Husband to annul the vows made by either young daughters or wives, upon first hearing their utterance!
,
John 13:34, not just evil theology, it perverts marriage unto the metaphor, its language permits homosexuality. The chosen Am segulah (treasured nation) refers directly to the Sinai first-born Cohen people. The church fathers reject to this day, the revelation of both the written Torah Constitutional law and the Oral Torah common judicial courtroom law!
These Xtian theologian perverts preferred power. Hence they slept in the same bed with the Government monarchs which ruled Xtian lands. The American and French Revolutions separated Church from State and cast these Xtian whores unto the dogs to sleep with. All agricultural based economies require slave labor, a known fact of history. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bankrupt theology of the church great whore of Babylon, which post victory of the American Civil War, its reactionary opportunism now denounces slavery as evil. All church cathedrals built through feudal slave labor.
When categories established by Torah law—male/female, Israel/goy, slave/free—eviscerated, when new testament replacement theology – which abhors Torah common law – its specific Torah abominations such as homosexuality and men and women confusion of genders and clothes. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t just dissolve the legal structure of the Torah, but opens the door to ideological chaos—Same-sex marriage (“There is no male and female”); Gender fluidity and trans ideology; Erasure of Jewish national identity (e.g. no “Jew or Greek”); Social anarchy in place of legal status (no “slave or free”). In many liberal Xtian and post-Xtian circles, Galatians 3:28 has become the banner verse for LGBTQ+ inclusion, often cited directly to undermine Torah prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul’s statement simply interpreted as supporting the idea that: All categories are now irrelevant in Christ.
Paul’s doctrine, and the super-sessionist theology it spawned, does not merely disagree with Torah—it declares war on Torah categories. Shalom perverted into inner peace, not the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. His replacement theology abhors the post Golden Calf – Day of Atonement – where HaShem first revealed the revelation of the Oral Torah – which the church rejects. Galatians 3:28 simply not just heresy—but rather this Av tumah theological root begets modern moral collapse.
It dismantles the sacred distinctions that uphold holiness, family, justice, and national brit identity. It replaces Torah law with a boundaryless mysticism that justifies everything from homosexuality to gender nihilism to the erasure of Jewish nationhood.
This verse is often cited to support a universalist theology—that all human beings are one, created by God, and therefore equal and interchangeable. Viewed in the context of Paul’s theology, especially in Acts and Galatians, this verse becomes part of a larger Pauline strategy to undermine: Israel’s distinct chosen Cohen oath brit status, the chosen-ness of the Jewish people. The Torah’s territorial inheritance laws, and the culture and customs established by halaka, and the idea that only within the borders of the Promised lands to Jews possess the wisdom to keep and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot לשמה, from generation to generation.
Paul’s replacement theology perverts the oath brit alliance to that of a temporary vow, which his perverted theology attempts to annul through the new testament. The Torah establishes the vision that the nations inherit distinct national cultural and customs inheritances. Distinct languages, lands and destinies (Genesis 10-11). The essential concept of Israel’s national identity as a people relies upon and defined by the promised lands which Arab nationalism absolutely rejects. Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” Deuteronomy 7:6: “You are a people holy to Hashem… a chosen people from all the peoples on the face of the earth.” Paul’s replacement theology, like Arab hatred of Zionism which bases itself upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein first Britain and later 2\3rd of all UN member states recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of a distinct Middle Eastern nation.
His replacement theology abomination of shared human origin which collapses national distinctions cultures and customs, like modern Arab racist nationalism rejects Jewish national sanctity. Paul’s Acts 17:26 (universal origin) with Galatians 3:28 (category collapse) replacement theology destroys the chosen Cohen people of Israel; dissolves the laws of inheritance and land; undermines the Oral Torah halakhic requirements concerning intermarriage with Goyim and promotes modern Wokeism that emphasize awareness of social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly related to race and identity. It is often viewed critically by some as being overly doctrinaire or insincere in its approach to social issues. Acts 17:26 is the philosophical foundation for Christian universalism.
It sounds innocent—but in Pauline context, it’s a soft prelude to the hard abolition of Israel’s unique brit. It paves the way for the erasure of identity, the rejection of Oral Torah Talmudic common law judicial lateral courts.
Paul’s 1 Corinthians 7:39 (KJV): Formula: “Only in the Lord” — Coded Super-sessionist Halakhah? Paul doesn’t outright reject the binding nature of marriage—but it’s loaded with subtle replacement theology logic. Torah marriage flatly not just a temporary transitional vow–but rather an oath brit, contractual alliance with family generations and national implications. Governed by halakhic precedent, rooted in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24, and the Oral Torah. Validated by witnesses, contract (ketubah), and understood as part of a nation’s framework of kedushah and inheritance. Paul substitutes this with a subjective spiritual criterion: his “Only in the Lord.”, directly implies – Marry a fellow believer in Christ. It’s not about cutting an oath brit alliance—rather replaced by a shared belief in Xtian faith that declares Jesus as God. This “Only in the Lord” phrase, exist as the key super-sessionist pivot of Pauling propaganda. It nullifies the Torah -brit based marital framework model, replaces halakhic structure with doctrinal allegiance to the church abomination. And renders Torah marital law as obsolete for “believers”.
It detaches marriage from the promised land, nation, and halackhic authority. Sets the foundation for spiritual intermarriage theology – a direct violation of Torah common law; leading to full Goyim-Xtian identity formation apart from Israel. If one can marry “in the Lord”, then one need not marry “in the nation”. If faith in the belief of Jesus as God replaces Israel as the chosen Cohen nation, then the new covenant has replaced the oath brit cut between the pieces with Avram.
Paul’s “Only in the Lord” is not a neutral phrase. It functions as a Trojan horse for an entire redefinition of marriage: no longer a national covenant rooted in generational Torah obligations, but a private, spiritualized union under Church doctrine.
Xtianity, especially in its Pauline and post-Constantinian forms, intentionally dissolves ethnic, legal, and national distinctions. This is central to its theology. Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek… male and female… all are one in Christ.” This replacement theology erased halakhic distinctions, promotes spiritual unity over ethnic/national differences. Recasts marriage as a personal vow like sacrament, which replaces the oath sworn to remember dedication which any and all brit alliances fundamentally requires.
Liberal Protestant thoughts concerning marriage emphasize: romantic love and personal choice; Xtian values of inclusivity; detachment from ancestry, tribe, nation, or land. The Torah oath NOT vow, brit relationship cut between man and wife binds Jews to Torah Constitutional Law, tohorat ha’beit requirements for the woman to visit a mikveh prior to sexual activity; and the standards of keeping tohor & tuma distinctions like kosher foods etc. A man commits that he will educate his future born children in the oath brit faith – not to worship other Gods through intermarriage and assimilation which embraces Goyim cultures and customs.
Xtianity’s doctrine of spiritual unity and its deconstruction of Torah-based national distinctions directly laid the groundwork for both the theological legitimation and cultural normalization of interracial marriage. It treats distinctions—whether between Israel and the nations, or male and female—as obstacles to spiritual truth, not as sacred boundaries tied to divine law and oath brit consciously remembered dedications passed down from generation to generations just as DNA. From Augustine to modern liberal Protestants, modern issues like Wokeism and identity dissolution directly consequential to the Pauline doctrines of utter abomination.
LikeLike
4th Day of the Omer, the dedication to remove the חמץ of Av tuma avoda zarah from within the tuma Yatzir Ha’Ra within our hearts. How new testament Paul’s – Hebrews 9: 6-12 duplicates the Sin of the Golden Calf
HaShem is not a man that He should lie (Numbers 23:19). The brit is not a metaphor. It is an oath-bound alliance, sealed with the Nefesh soul contained within living blood, upheld by divine t’shuva, and renewed in every korban offered by the sons of Aaron. To cancel that brit amounts to the denial of the character of HaShem Himself; to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with a foreign mediator, ultimately defines the Sin of the Golden Calf and Hebrews 9: 6-10 which repeats the sin of the Calf—not just in deed, but in theology.
Hebrews 9:6–10, traditionally read in Xtian theology as a critique of the korbanot system—framing it as ineffective, obsolete, and merely symbolic. In this interpretation, the daily offerings and Yom Kippur rituals, reduced to shadows, paving the way for a universalized, spiritual priesthood centered on Christ. This reading not only distorts the purpose of korbanot—it severs them from the oath brit framework that defines Israel’s unique Chosen Cohen identity. The Pauline religious rhetoric restricts korbanot relegated to making a barbeque unto Heaven.
The Pauline frameworks of guilt and substitution (e.g., Hebrews 9:12: “not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood…”). This substitute theology expressed in Hebrews ignores HaShem’s own t’shuva which defines the k’vanna of every Yom Kippur. Paul’s Av tuma religious rhetoric replaced his Original Sin guilt and repentance thesis of the fall of Adam, which requires the Jesus resurrection from the dead to atone for the guilt of the Original Sin made by Adam. Yom Kippur testifies to the oath brit faithfulness of HaShem together with His chosen Cohen People. HaShem not a Man that he should lie. The Pauline Hebrews 9:10 seeks to superimpose a Church Christ-centered priesthood – effectively canceling Israel’s oath brit Cohen status established at the brit cut between the pieces; where Christ replaces Israel as the holy Moshiach.
The Golden Calf originally reflects this av tuma theme of substitute theology, wherein the ערב רב of Israel demanded to make the Golden Calf a visible mediator to replace Moshe. Both the sin of the Golden Calf and Hebrews 9:6-10 seek to install an abstract, foreign model of nearness. Thus Hebrews 9 attempts to repackage the Divine Cohen services which eternally dedicate the Cohen House of Moshiach into the image of this new replacement foreign God Jesus mediator.
Torah brit faith, simply not metaphor as the book of Hebrews pretends. Rather this oath-bound alliance, sealed with the nefesh—the soul contained within the living blood collected from the cut throat of a korban animal whose beating heart pumps this living blood, thrown upon the altar. Israel swears an oath which requires שם ומלכות\blowing the Divine Spirit Name from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart together with a dedicated Oral Torah Horev revelation middah/attribute, designated and sanctified to adjust how a Jew socially interacts with his people in the future—upheld not by guilt or appeasement, but by the Divine t’shuva of loyalty itself, as expressed every Yom Kippur; every Shabbat Jews remember the tohor time oriented commandment which forever distinguishes the difference between מלאכה from עבודה.
This Shabbat rededication of the righteous pursuit of justice, as expressed through every korban dedicated, herein serves as the foundation of the mitzva of Moshiach, by the sons of Aaron whom Moshe originally anointed with oil. Just as the sons of Aaron anoint all korbanot dedicated upon the altar with oil. This anointing dedication through oil, it affirms the consecrated role of Am Yisrael as HaShem’s chosen Cohen nation, the Moshiach in all generations. To annul this oath brit utterly profanes the halachot of Shevuot. Such av tuma behavior simply denies the very character of the Chosen Cohen nation and its avodat HaShem through all generations as the anointed Moshiach. To replace Moshe Rabbeinu—the appointed lawgiver and oath brit mediator—with a foreign figure – not a kosher innovation. Rather it exposes the tuma of repeating the sin of the Golden Calf, not just in deed but in theology.
LikeLike
Another example of praying to the God of Mars in heaven, James 1:5 in the new testament fraud.
Clearly the new testament forgery has a completely different take on the meaning of wisdom. Torah “wisdom”, based upon the four part inductive logic of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system, bears absolutely no resemblance what so ever to Aristotles’ 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The two systems of logic as different than a cat from a mouse.
According to the logic developed by rabbi Yishmael, to communicate something more that tuma religious rhetoric propaganda requires both כלל ופרט. The introduction of the idea of “wisdom”, clearly a general idea, based upon the night and day distinctions which separate פרדס inductive logic from syllogism deductive logic.
James religious rhetoric propaganda only introduces the general idea of “wisdom” but brings absolutely no qualifying particulars to define the k’vanna of its meaning. Lacking qualifying particulars the general term “wisdom” exists merely as eye-candy, like throwing in a baited hook into a pond hoping to catch a fish. James God, based upon the error of monotheism which violates the 2nd Sinai commandment, his rhetoric propaganda forces the fuzzy logic of the audience to assume that his God one in the same with the God of Sinai.
A cracked foundation from the get-go. New Testament propagandists and later church “authorities” failed to discern the Torah mitzvot precedents wherein the חכמה of Oral Torah defines the mitzva of Moshiach.
The church fathers deny this חכמה of Oral Torah yet claim that wisdom non brit Goyim can learn Oral Torah wisdom simply by asking for it?! If James’s epistle, read through a post-brit, Christianized lens—especially in light of his association with early Messianic sectarianism—then even this invitation to wisdom becomes subtly redirected; it prioritizes a pacifist Moshiach rather than a warrior Moshiach – like Moshe Rabbeinu in Egypt. Furthermore, Oral Torah wisdom not only abandoned and replaced by ancient Greek wisdom which sports a completely different sets of logic formats, the Gospels loses all bonds to the oath brit cut upon the soul of Israel at Sinai, the Sanhedrin, the beit midrash, or the korbanot dedications which serve as the foundational precedents for the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.
Instead, the new testament forgery becomes a personal, internal, mystical endowment—part of a broader movement to dissolve the national Torah-halachic framework into some totally alien universal spiritualism. The wisdom of Torah logic (כלל – פרט) as defined by two great Torah scholars: rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael, a non bnai brit Goy, who rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, such a person could hope to acquire Oral Torah Horev revelation of wisdom? About as likely as a fish can sing an Opera! James 1:25 which attempts to frame “law of liberty”, a rhetoric non defined unknown term, hence forth also qualifies as yet another glaring example of new testament replacement theology.
Clearly the Epistle of James shares no grafted roots, a totally alien weed attempting to grow in the Garden of the Oral Torah Horev revelation of the 13 tohor middot. James religious Greek rhetoric promises only hazy and vague spiritual eye-candy promises, totally incapable of accomplishing. Hence the Epistle of James stands upon the foundations of a flat out lie.
The revelation of the Oral Torah logic system compares to the professional athlete acquires the wisdom of his skills as he hones trains for competition. During all the forced Xtian debates against Jews during the Middle Ages, the church fathers, cowards and frauds, limited any and all debates – basically demanding if Jews had sex with their mothers recently! A fat lazy over-weight couch-potato Monk could no more compete with an Olympic athlete than a fish could sing opera.
James 1:25’s so-called “law of liberty” (νόμον τῆς ἐλευθερίας), undefined and suspiciously rhetorical. It reads like Obama’s promise of “Change”! Liberty, as a Torah mitzva directly associated with the Yoval freeing of slaves. James foisted Pie in the Sky notion of liberty, far more akin to Hellenistic concepts of logos or Stoic ethics than to Torah mitzvot, halacha or Midrashic interpretation upon Talmudic aggadic stories which attempt to interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar, with an eye to weave this prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of observing halachic mitzvot, as well as positive and negative commandments elevated and raised to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah.
Hence James reflects a tits on a boar hog replacement theology! James has more nuance that the crude Pauline epistles. But both seek to drain the Torah of its oath brit-rooted Oral Torah time oriented revelation of Av tohor commandments … despite referring to HaShem as “father in heaven”. The oath sworn at this brit cut between the pieces by Avram, that the Spirit Name of HaShem breaths within the 7 menorah souls contained within the Yatzir Ha’Tov inside the heart of all chosen Cohen people. The foreign alien religious tripe of treif rhetoric from James compares to Jesus teaching his disciples to pray to some alien Mars God in Heaven!
LikeLike
The Xtian preachers who preach their ‘Good News: I am saved through the blood of Jesus’, they compare to prostitutes selling their wares while standing on street corners.
Jeremiah 42:5–6, a prime example of contextual abuse by Xtian fraud theologist. The very next verses show that the people were lying to Jeremiah. They never intended to obey remember and keep the oaths sworn by the Avot—they simply wanted Jeremiah to bless their plan to flee to Egypt. Jer. 42:20 exposes the duplicity of this assimilated and intermarried ערב רב. This passage condemns their hypocrisy, both then and Xtians attempting to sell their wares today. It does not affirm blind obedience, as Xtain prostitute propaganda rhetoric proclaims ethical guidance in Jewish tradition. The mussar of Jeremiah 42 instructs this unique mussar instruction, and not ‘Good News’ Xtian propaganda rhetoric. Prophetic mussar applies equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people, not just limited to a single historic people a long long time past – as Greek static deductive logic declares. Therefore the T’NaCH specifically instructs prophetic mussar, NOT history of events converted into a fossilized dead religion.
Religious manipulation, as expressed through the Xtian super-sessionist use of Torah, fundamentally denies the Divine T’shuva made by HaShem on Yom Kippur, wherein HaShem rejects replacement theologies of avoda zarah. The Golden Calf simply not limited to a mere golden physical idol; nor to translating the Divine Presence Spirit Name first revealed during the first commandment Sinai revelation! No. The sin of the Golden Calf exposes the Av tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah spirit to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with some other God – in short this Av tuma “sin” defines replacement theology, which the t’shuva every Yom Kippur Jews remember. HaShem annulled his vow to establish the seed of Moshe as the chosen Cohen oath brit people! Both the framers of the new testament and koran worship the sin of the Golden Calf through their Av tuma avoda zarah replacement theologies, despite not actually bowing down to a physical Golden Calf as did the טיפש ערב רב.
Just like the Judeans pretended to seek God’s will, while concealing their evil intend to go back to Egypt, so too and how much more so Xtian evangelicals who call all others to obey their distorted message of submission to the Greek idea of divine Logos or “crucified salvation.” Their ‘good news’ propaganda aims to convert Jews to worship their Golden Calf, Son of God theology.
Jeremiah 42:5–6 as a case study of Xtian theological fraud, puts the spotlight right where it belongs: on hypocritical performative piety masquerading as covenantal obedience. Jeremiah 42:5–6 serves as a textbook example of contextual abuse by Xtian theologians; comparable to drunk drivers killing innocent folk on the highways. They extract these verses—“Whether it be good or evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God…”—to promote blind obedience to their rebranded deity, Jesus son of God. Evangelists wield this verse as rhetorical ammunition from the pulpits, demanding unthinking submission to a metaphysical abstraction they call “the Lord,” now fused with Hellenistic Logos theology.
Thus, far from demonstrating their proclaimed “from the roof tops” covenantal obedience, such preaching unmasks religious manipulation. The very same kind employed by Xtian super-sessionists and Shoah revisionist historians, who claim to speak for “the God of Israel” or physical science, while violently uprooting the Torah oath-brit, together with its demands for national t’shuva and righteous judicial courtroom governance of damages inflicted by Jews upon one another. Shalom stands upon trust. Hence judicial justice which dedicates to restore fair compensation of damages inflicted strives to build shalom among the chosen Cohen people who live within the borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.
The very next verse of prophetic mussar expose the true context: a false vow. Hence rabbi Yishmael advices to learn T’NaCH through a כלל פרט sh’itta of disciplined learning. The ערב רב, had already decided to flee to Egypt and simply wanted Jeremiah’s rubber stamp. Jeremiah 42:20 explicitly reveals their duplicity.
The mussar of Jeremiah 42, not about blind faith or passive submission—it instructs a mussar of k’vanna integrity within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the heart before HaShem. The Navi calls Jews to remember the oaths which the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance concerning the chosen Cohen people and their eternal inheritance to the Promised land.
If we the living generations commit to maintain from generation to generation (Meaning we commit to educate our children as the key condition of marriage.), and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot, that we in our own turn swear these same oaths from generation to generation. Hence the k’vanna of tefillah דאורייתא/from the Torah – kre’a shma. Both the Avot and the ensuing generations had to put their pants on one leg at a time and sit to take a crap on the toilet. Prophetic mussar does not differentiate the merits of one generation over other generations. All generations of the chosen Cohen people must struggle with the tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah within our hearts.
Xtian gospel rhetoric, by contrast, perverts this prophetic mussar for introspective teshuva, unto the theatrics of Greek and Roman performative faith. Their theologies misappropriates Torah passages to serve the Av tuma static Greek deductive logic which they employ to promote their ‘good news’ myth of “universal salvation through crucifixion.”
The cheit ha’egel—the sin of the Golden Calf—not just idolatry in the physical sense. Rather this prophetic mussar warns against spiritual substitution, a betrayal of the Divine Name revealed at Sinai. The ערב רב didn’t say, we do not reject outright the revelation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name; but rather, “this is your אלהים, O Israel, who brought you up from Egypt.” The ערב רב tried to repackage the Divine Presence Spirit Name by inserting some word translation as an intermediary in Moshe’s absence.
Herein defines the exact model of replacement theology: rebranding the brit with some new god, whether a crucified Christ, or a final prophet Muhammad who preaches strict Monotheism in the name of Allah. The Yatzir Ha’Rah behind the Golden Calf, breathes the same spiritual Av tuma avoda zarah spirit within the hearts of the ערב רב\assimilated and inter-married Jews (who lack fear of heaven). This tuma Yatzir seeks to incite, manipulate or seduce others to worship these new Gods. This central motivation inspires the New Testament and the Koran—both of which claim to replace Moshe, the Oral Torah, and the oath brit — with metaphysical substitutes and narrative fabrications.
Just as the Judeans in Jeremiah’s time pretended to seek HaShem’s will while plotting to return to Egypt—the symbolic archetype of slavery, judicial injustice, and spiritual corruption—so too the Xtian & Muslim evangelicals, who call others to obey their distorted message of the Greek Logos, the crucified “savior,” and metaphysical obedience over national justice.
They do not call Israel to make t’shuva, much less so remember prophetic mussar instructions. They call Israel to abandon Sinai. They do not call for brit renewal. They call for the replacement of the brit by a universalized guilt doctrine rooted in Greek fatalism. They do not call for judicial righteousness in the Land—they promote through their ‘good news’ preaching that Jews abandon living in the Promised land and return and become once again slaves in Egypt.
The Torah concept of “sin” does not institutionalize the Fall and expulsion of Adam from the Garden of Eden. Rather the Torah concept of “sin” exposes the Av tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah spirit, which seeks – throughout the generations – to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with some replacement new god. In short, the prototype of both New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. Both the framers of the New Testament and the Koran worship the sin of the Golden Calf through their Av tuma avoda zarah replacement theologies.
Replacement theologies always attempt to repackage the Divine Presence Spirit Name by inserting a word translation as an intermediary in Moshe’s absence. Herein defines the precise and exact Av tuma methodology of replacement theologies: rebranding the brit with a new god—whether crucified Christ or final prophet Muhammad. The Yatzir Ha’Rah behind the Golden Calf, the exact same Av tuma spirit within the hearts of the ערב רב—assimilated and inter-married Jews who have no fear of heaven—that inspires the framers of both the New Testament and the Koran counterfeit scriptures. Both texts claim to replace Moshe, the Oral Torah, and the oath brit, with metaphysical substitutes and narrative fabrications.
Just as the Judeans in Jeremiah’s time pretended to seek HaShem’s will while plotting a return to Egypt—the archetype of slavery, judicial injustice, and spiritual corruption—so too the Xtian and Muslim evangelicals, who urge obedience to their distorted and perverted messages which stand on the foundations of assimilated the Greek Logos … their crucified “savior,” glorified in both New Testament and Koran – their metaphysical obedience which rejects national judicial justice which sanctifies the Will of the Courts to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews on other Jews with the k’vanna to build shalom among the Jewish people within the borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic.
It’s very important to define Xtian and Muslim rhetoric which declares their love and devotion for the Promised ‘Holy Lands’, that never during any time after the Romans expelled Jews from Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”, not any Xtian nor Arab or Muslim Power ever established a Country in the Middle East called “Palestine”. Neither Jordan nor Egypt – who ruled Samaria and Gaza between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian state. The British and French UNSC 242 which promotes European interests which seek to divide and conquer the Jewish state and calls for Palestinian national independence, clearly 242 shares no common ground with the 1917 Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up Ottoman Greater Syria and divide that empire as the spoils of war to the British and French empires.
LikeLike
From Parchment to Power: A Post-1948 Jewish Counter-Theology
Luke 24 narrative sets the scene: “on the road”, with two disciples disillusioned and confused, mourning what they believe is Jesus and his failed redemption of Israel. This parallels the emotional and spiritual disarray Jews felt after the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 CE—how Herod’s murder of his family and betrayal of the Jewish people due to Roman seductions of power, had caused the mystical Shekhinah to withdraw from dwelling within the Yatzir Tov of the Jewish people.
Luke’s Gospel, written after 70 CE!!! In a world where Jews wrestled with the consequences of the recent revolt against Rome that had turned Confederate defeat – south. Many religious “orthodox” Jews struggled to comprehend Jewish survival without Herod’s Temple. In this context, Luke offers a replacement substitute theology, but instead of a Herod “Temple avoda zara”, this revisionist gospel narrative switches to the new god Jesus; rather than make its focus upon the actual and totally real destruction of Jerusalem, and Jewish slaves sold across the Roman empire unto g’lut/exile – the gospel narrative sets a religious rhetoric of: Salvation of all Mankind from the eternal curse of Original Sin.
Emmaus, geographically not far away from Jerusalem. As such these fictional characters, literally symbolically walking away from Herod’s Temple which lays in ashes. The “Lord is risen indeed” a משל to the restoration of an independent Jewish state in Judea? Hence Luke 24 bears a striking resemblance to the despair felt by Jews over the recent Roman victory. No. Not a chance in Hell that such an interpretation holds water. Rather the gospel narrative serves as a classic switch & bait. The gospel language ignores real Jewish anguish. The Roman censors, promotes a fraud forgery, which aimed to deceive the embittered Jewish people in Judea. Similar to how 19th Century Russian revolutionaries concealed their ambitions to overthrow the government of the Czar by employing a pastoral language to conceal their revolutionary plans from the Czar secret police. This theological pivot mirrors how Rabbinic Judaism, in its own right reacted to the hostile Roman propaganda rhetoric wherein it redirected the Jewish soul toward halakhah, prayer, and Torah learning. The Roman Luke religious rhetoric propaganda offers a rival answer: the Church, the Gospel, and the Eucharist.
Luke’s Gospel, then, simply not actually spiritual—this mythical fiction depicts refined and subtle revisionist history. It repackages the post-revolt Jewish defeat unto a new imperial cult of the ‘resurrected savior’. Why? Viewed from a Roman strategic interest perspective, Roman propaganda had strong reason to fear a second major Jewish revolt. Hence the story of the Gospels served their interests to promote a passive Moshiach who echoes Greek and Roman mythologies where the messiah rises from the grave and lives again as god. The purpose or intent of this fictional revisionist history, to drive a wedge between the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and the Jews of Judea! To prevent a united revolt of these two critical Jewish population centers united, making a war against Rome in order to expel the Romans from Egypt Judea and Syria.
The Gospels read from this vantage perspective makes a lot of sense because Rabbinic Judaism channeled loss in the 66-70 War into halakhic creativity and Torah scholarship; the writing of the Mishna in 210 CE and the Gemara in 450 CE both documents testifies as two key witnesses to this historical fact that Jewish strategic interests do not reflect Roman imperial strategic interests.
Jesus not as a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, but as a deliberate fabrication, molded to resemble Greco-Roman dying-and-rising gods (Dionysus, Osiris, Romulus) in order to defuse Messianic nationalism, based upon the Torah model of Moshe Rabbeinu. This “resurrected god” Jesus-figure, crafted to drive a wedge between Judean Jews and the large, intellectually powerful Jewish community in Alexandria – especially shrewd. Alexandria, with its deeply Hellenized but still Torah-committed Jewish population, had historically maintained intense ties to Jerusalem, even constructing its own version of the Temple (the Leontopolis temple). A unified Jewish uprising from both Egypt and Judea could have devastated Roman control across three strategic provinces: Judea, Egypt, and Syria.
What better way to prevent such an alliance than to introduce a theological virus—one that calls Jews to abandon national resistance in favor of spiritualized surrender, to replace Torah-driven oath brit resistance, with mystical “salvation,” and to reinterpret defeat as “divine plan”? Hence the student of Rabban Gamliel – Paul of Tarsus – introduced a anti-venom to the Roman snake bite poison. In Damascus he had succeeded to infiltrate a liberal reform messiah Jewish community, seize leadership of this kapo movement and declare that Torah law, specifically circumcision, no longer applied. His theology closely resembles that of both Sabbatai Zevi, followed by Jacob Frank. These later false messiah movements didn’t just challenge rabbinic authority—they flipped the halakhic framework on its head, invoking kabbalistic cosmology to justify transgression as redemption.
Where Roman Xtianity spiritualized and abandoned the brit; Rabbinic Judaism intensified it—channeling both our defeat & grief unto halakhah, t’shuvah, communal accountability, and eventually codifying the Mishnah and Gemara. Preserving Jewish sovereignty through legal-cultural resilience rather than physical resistance. Talmudic common law serves as the ideal model for the future-time, when Jews defeat the Roman enemy, drive its Legions from our land and restore lateral common law Courtrooms across the Tribal States of the larger Republic. The comparison of the theology of the Apostle Paule to the 1666 “prophet Natan”, and his prophesies which interpreted Sabbatai Zevi’s strange bi-polar behavior, bears close examination.
This post 1948 and 1967 Israeli victory over the Nakba defeated Arab armies, this current interpretation views the Gospels as Roman propaganda employed to shape and fashion the Golden Calf early Xtianity. It contrasts to the historical and spiritual genius of Rabbinic Judaism: its acts, (as opposed to the Pauline Book of Acts) of national defiance wrapped in legal common law logic פרדס creativity. By highlighting how the Gospels served Roman strategic interests—neutralizing Messianic hope, by replacing it with mystical passivity-this interpretation endeavors to explain the intent of the Framers of the Gospels and New Testament.
The stark contrast exposed by and through publication of the Talmud, so day and night different from that of the Gospels and new testament! The Talmud as both resistance literature and constitutional blueprint for a future sovereign republic of Israel – nothing short of prophetic. Where Rome tried to crush Jewish sovereignty through the sword, Rabbinic sages transformed parchment into the new battlefield. Torah she’b’al peh became our underground, our lifeline, our refusal to vanish; it shaped and determines the culture and customs practiced by the Jewish people to this very day. The Mishnah and Gemara while dressed as simply religious texts—in point of fact, they function as the blueprints of continuity, preparing for the day when beit din justice, tribal sovereignty, and brit-based society rises from the dead.
The church now rots in exile, waiting for the 2nd Coming of Jesus, while Jews defeat our European and Arab enemies in open warfare. Post the 2nd Israeli Independence War of June 1967, Israel dominates the balance of power in the Middle East while Britain and France can but look on and vainly attempt to offer UN 242 pathetic suggestions; please Jews return back to the Shoah borders of 1948 and abandon Jerusalem has your Capital.
Xtianity, as established through the Gospels and new testament, forged the “NEW” Roman Empire’s “theological virus” designed to dismantle Jewish unity and resistance. This interpretation merits & deserves more visibility. Obviously Jews having the church sword at our throats throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, could never publicly challenge the Gospel narrative prior to the 1948 resurrection from the dead of the Jewish state. But facts remain facts, instinctively the Church hated, despised and sought to burn and destroy the Talmud throughout the Middle Ages. Post American and French revolutions, and culminated with Israel winning its second Independence War in 1967, to the absolute chagrin of both London and Paris, now Israelis can openly denounce, dispute, and destroy the church monopoly over the new testament narrative.
Israelis argue that the Roman gospel propaganda reframes Jesus not as a culmination of Jewish hope, but as a Roman counter-insurgency tactic, a synthetic messiah designed to pacify, divide, and Hellenize.
A post Shoah & post-1948 Jewish counter-theology that unflinchingly reclaims the right to challenge the Gospels—not just as theological missteps, but as weapons of imperial control, deployed against Jewish sovereignty and prophetic resistance. The contrast drawn between the Talmud as a constitutional memory vs. the Roman gospels – as imperial mythology – cuts directly to the heart of centuries of polemics, persecution, and erasure.
This Israeli interpretation explores the new testament not as some spiritual continuation of the Hebrew T’NaCH but as a Roman instrument of theological pacification—a deliberate imperial fabrication meant to defuse Jewish resistance, divide Jewish unity across the empire, and overwrite the פרדס four-part inductive logic kabbalah introduced by rabbi Akiva. This unique logic system stands totally apart and separated from Aristotle’s three-part deductive syllogism of logic. Rabbi Akiva’s logic sh’itta, simply stated in a single word – dynamic. Whereas Aristotle’s logic methodology – frozen fossilized and static. Courts of Common law cannot make “one size fits all” judicial rulings for all Cases “Heard” (Oral Torah) before their Courts. Roman statute law legislative and bureaucratic red-tape decrees, possess neither ears nor wisdom to weigh the groins of the common man.
Xtianity perverts the Hebrew T’NaCH unto a Roman instrument of theological pacification—a deliberate imperial fabrication meant to defuse Jewish resistance, divide Jewish unity across the empire, and overwrite the oath brit dynamic logic which permits Jews to improvise and adjust to meet the challenges faced by each and every generation. Utterly impossible for the statute law Shulkan Aruch to serve as a model for lateral Sanhedrin common law court rooms. Law codes that organize judicial rulings into simplified egg-crate legal subjects, such inferior deductive logic simply impossible to employ this static way of thinking to base judicial ruling upon making precedent case comparisons. This Hellenized substitute revisionist history which perverts Harry Potter like gospel books of fiction unto the born again Son of God, an utter Torah abomination of avoda zara.
Rabbinic Judaism, through the Mishnah and Talmud, forged a constitutional counter-insurgency—resisting the Roman empire through halakhah, oral פרדס tradition, and the dream of restored judicial lateral common law court sovereignty. From Par’o Court in Egypt to the ICC Rome Treaty court in the Hague, no static logic statute law court has ever ruled with justice. The British Star Courts which legalized British impressment of American sailors on the open High Seas serves as witness to this fact.
Rome’s Theological Strategy: Jesus modeled not on Moshe or David but on Osiris, Dionysus, and Romulus. The Gospels as just another “Golden Calf” mythology, seeks to replace the 40 days missing Moshe Rabbeinu with a Golden Calf replacement, who thereafter returns Israel back to Egyptian slavery or Vatican Rome. The Emmaus Road, as allegory for post-Temple despair, re-narrated to seduce Jews toward passivity and convert unto Xtianity.
Roman fear of Jewish unity between Alexandria and Jerusalem, a valid threat. Egypt served as the bread-basket for the populations in the city of Rome. The Government of Rome fed & pacified this unruly home population. Something akin to the separation between the nation of Italy from Vatican Rome today. Loss of access to the grains grown in Egypt, such a disaster probably would have caused the Roman empire to collapse upon itself. Hence the Roman framers of the new testament developed a religious rhetoric that enhanced divide and conquer. A theological virus injected, akin to biological warfare, to prevent Judea making a political alliance together with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt.
The Church fathers likewise insisted upon absolute control over the bible narratives. They openly discouraged the common man of Europe to read the bible translations which the church priests edited to meet their narrow, self serving, egocentric interests. Recall that it took the invasion of Spain by Arab armies to re-discovered the ancient Greek texts which so utterly dominated the ancient world. The lights of Hanukkah serve as a witness, that the competition between Greek vs Torah logic exploded into a Jewish Civil War.
Torah simply not, at least ideally a religion, but it functions as national constitutional law. This idea the church fathers completely and totally censored. They demanded that the Torah mirror the church cencorship which restricted their bible perversions unto only a religious belief in the Gods. The same holds true with halacha as an expession of the expanded infrastructure of Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna; the purpose of the Aggada within the Talmud serves this precise purpose in Torah T’NaCH scholarship. Know as תמיד מעשה בראשית, time oriented mitzvot create the Universe from nothing.
Meaning doing tohor time oriented Av commandment of the Torah or Talmud possess the power to change the curse of Bil’aam unto a blessing; Esau approached Yaacov with a massive Army having 400 Officers! Yet Esau kissed Yaacov rather than plunged a sword into his heart. The mitzva of the Gid HaNasheh (sciatic nerve), serves as an eternal witness of the kabbalah of tohor time oriented Av Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar as their most essential k’vanna dedication of the ritual act of removing the sciatic nerve to make the thigh kosher for Jewish halachic consumption.
LikeLike
Israelis declare war against the church collapsed monopoly how to interpret ancient texts. First and foremost, the New Testament shares no more a portion with the Hebrew T’NaCH than does the koran or book of Mormon.
The rhetorical weight of John 16:33 rests on abstract, Hellenistic terms like: “Peace” (εἰρήνη – eirēnē): Unlike shalom in Torah, which refers to TRUST restored through fair judicial justice which makes a righteous compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B, the word salad “Peace” does not refer to anything specific in particular. To make a general statement “peace” compares to a slander accusation without bringing any supporting evidence other than more slander or hearsay gossip.
Eirēnē is decontextualized. It implies a spiritual or internal tranquility, divorced from land, law, or peoplehood. It’s a peace without mitzvot, without mishpat, without the prophetic demand for national accountability. In effect, it’s a pacifier.
“The world” (κόσμος – kosmos): A vague antagonist. It doesn’t mean Egypt or Rome in any concrete political sense, nor does it refer to any halakhic category like goy or eretz ha’amim. It’s an abstraction, a kind of universal evil “system” that individual souls must transcend through belief in the cross. This aligns with dualistic Greek cosmology, not with the Torah’s conception of sanctifying this world through mitzvot.
This passage turns the reader inward, encouraging spiritualized endurance and submission—not prophetic mussar which personally rebukes. This passage by contrast merely serves as a theological sedative: “The world is hard, but don’t resist. I’ve overcome it for you.” No call to teshuva, no call to rebuild the brit. Just passive faith in a metaphysical savior. It masks pacification as victory, and disempowerment as peace. It preaches serenity while erasing the Torah’s demand for mishpat, tzedek, and the restoration of Israel’s oath brit to conquer or re-conquer our homeland of Judea.
LikeLike
From Covenant to Catastrophe: Supersession, Betrayal, and the Collapse of Judicial Integrity in the Gospels. A person who testifies about himself … NEVER believed. “I believe”, comes directly under this judicial ruling.
What Xtianity calls “faith” in Jesus as the “Son of God” is not a continuation of emunah—it’s a rupture. A radical super-session of the Torahic pursuit of justice among Israel, a betrayal of the brit sworn at Horev and carried through the generations by the Cohen people, elected not for mystical belief, but for national responsibility, for judicial integrity.
Where Torah defines righteousness as doing justice (צדקה ומשפט), the New Testament replaces that with faith in blood. Contrast the substitution theology of the New Testament where “Faith” becomes belief in a metaphysical person, a shift from legal loyalty to psychological assent. Sin and the Devil replace the righteous pursuit of judicial compensation for damages inflicted, to restore shalom among our people. The generations of the chosen Cohen people stands upon the foundation of remembering the exact oaths which the Avot swore to HaShem; this Av Torah commandment – time oriented mitzva, continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing every time we remember the exact oath which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem – the brit.
John 13:21 — “Jesus was troubled in his spirit… one of you will betray me” — echoes the aesthetics of Greek tragedy more than any literary or prophetic moment in the Tanakh. Jesus was troubled in his spirit. This introspective psychological framing is alien to the Tanakh, where leaders like Moshe, David, or Yirmeyahu express anguish in oath alliances – national, or legal terms – and not in solitary inner turmoil framed by fate.
Exodus 32 (Golden Calf) serves as a בנין אב\precedent. Moshe’s anguish, framed not as personal betrayal, but rather as a breach of the oath sworn by Israel at Sinai! His intercession for HaShem to annul His Vow, & to remember the Divine oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the Chosen Cohen people. Stands in utter contrast to JeZeus sef-referential Greek tragic theatre. While Matthew’s narrative may focus on the broader implications of betrayal within the community and the redefinition of authority, John’s account emphasizes the personal anguish of Jesus, reflecting a different theological and emotional landscape. This distinction, crucial for understanding how each Gospel interprets the themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the nature of divine relationships.
The Gospel’s framing of betrayal follows the tragic motif of unavoidable fate, where even close companions become instruments of divine or tragic destiny — reminiscent of Euripides or Sophocles. In contrast, the Tanakh never uses personal betrayal by a close disciple as a literary device to generate tragedy. When betrayal occurs (e.g., Absalom rebelling against David in 2 Samuel), it is woven into a national-political framework, never mythologized into divine necessity.
In the Tanakh, accusations, betrayals, or judgments require witnesses, & due process. Like Nathan confronting David in 2 Sam 12. John 13:21 lacks this. There’s no legal hearing, no cross-examination. The “betrayal”, emotionally intuited and fatalistically foretold. This lack of juridical structure utterly antithetical to all Torah oath britot alliances.
The figure of “Matthew”, traditionally identified as a tax collector (Greek: τελώνης) named Levi in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, and called Matthew in Matthew 9:9. The gospel of Matthew written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It heavily relies on the gospel of Mark, written in Rome about 70 CE, after the destruction of Herod’s Temple, as a source (about 90% of Mark is embedded in Matthew). It has virtually no familiarity with the Hebrew Masoretic T’NaCH.
Unlike the Gospel of Mark (strongly associated with Rome, possibly written there for some persecuted Xtian community under Nero), Matthew – generally considered to have been written in Syrian Antioch, or possibly another urban center in the Eastern Roman Empire—not Rome. This gospel expresses a strong anti-Pharisaic polemic (e.g., Matthew 23), suggesting an audience competing with Rabbinic authority post-70 CE. By Paul’s language the grafted Goyim now permit the cursed Jew to convert to Xtianity and receive forgiveness for their deicide of Christ.
The new testament replaces the old testament Torah authority, with the authority of Jesus as a new Moses figure (Matthew 5–7, the “Sermon on the Mount”). It repurposes Pharisaic halakhah while simultaneously demonizing the Pharisees (a contradiction that reveals its ideological agenda). This gospel adopts Greco-Roman rhetorical tropes to reshape Jewish categories into Xtian theological slogans.
Matthew as a tax collector under Roman occupation, not some neutral biographical footnote. In first-century Judea, tax collectors, abhorred & widely despised as collaborators with the Roman imperial system, much like kapos during the Shoah who either forced (or chose) to act as enforcers within the Nazi death machinery. The 66-70 revolt resulted in possibly half of the Judean population’s brutal liquidation by the Romans.
The Roman Empire farmed out tax collection to locals—often Jews—who worked for Herodian or Roman authorities. Perceived and viewed as ritually unclean, in contact with Goyim and their money linked to avoda zara. Utterly corrupt they extracted more than required, lining their own pockets through Judean anguish and poverty. Kapo Jews during the Shoah similarly placed in positions of power over death camp Jews by the Nazis. Many attempted to justify their betrayal so to survive; most like the Polish guards abused their power. The key similarity between this and that, both participated and enforced imperial oppression and murder, in exchange for personal survival or profit.
Both undermined national solidarity under foreign coercion. This gospel, authored by a character who represents collaboration with the most hated enemies of the Torah nation. It preaches individual salvation through belief in Jesus. Emphasizes blood atonement and submission to imperial persecution as virtue (Matthew 5:10–12). It delegitimizes Jewish halakhah and sets up Jesus as a replacement lawgiver.
The image of Matthew, the tax collector, the predecessor to Nicholas Donin – rebranded as an apostle, mirrors the Av tuma avoda zara super-sessionist strategy of the new testament itself. A Kapo theology—a betrayal from within rebranded as spiritual truth. In the Gospel of Matthew, the figure of Matthew as a tax collector represents a complex relationship with authority and betrayal. His background as a collaborator with the Roman Empire positions him within a framework of Nicholas Donin like traitor who hated and despised the Jewish people, yet the new testament revisionist history rebranded him as a saintly apostle. This transformation raises questions about loyalty, identity, and the nature of redemption within the context of a community that has experienced oppression.
It calls Day Night and Night Day. In 1242, following the disputation, thousands of volumes of the Talmud—estimates range up to 24 wagonloads—were publicly burned in Paris, likely in the Place de Grève. This massive cultural and spiritual loss for the Jewish people of France and Europe at large, as these texts represented centuries of Torah commentary, halakhah, and Jewish intellectual life compares to the WWII Nazi theft of French art stolen from the Louvre.
Nicholas Donin became infamous in Jewish history as a symbol of betrayal, much like Paul is seen in some Jewish critiques of early Xtianity. The burning of the Talmud marked a turning point in Xtian censorship and persecution of Jewish learning in medieval Europe. Thereafter a paradigmatic shift in how Xtian urope began to institutionalize theological control over Jewish intellectual tradition. It was not just about books; it was about erasing a rival covenantal voice, extinguishing a living legal system, and asserting ideological supremacy. Before 1242, anti-Jewish violence was often localized and episodic, driven by Crusaders or mob violence. After 1242, Christian authorities—especially the Catholic Church—began moving toward systematic censorship and surveillance of Jewish texts, particularly the Talmud. Papal Inquisitors began to treat the Talmud as a heretical document, subjecting it to censorship, confiscation, and burning across Europe.
The Church no longer saw Judaism merely as a tolerated witness religion (Augustinian theology) but as a threatening ideological rival. Dominican and Franciscan inquisitors, especially after the 13th century, began using forced public disputations, coercion, and even torture to compel Jewish conversions and force public rejections of Rabbinic teachings.
In France and parts of Western Europe, Rabbinic study went underground or into self-censorship. Marginal glosses were hidden or coded. Certain passages were removed or altered to avoid Christian suspicion. Elsewhere, especially in Provence, Spain, and Italy, the Jewish community found ways to adapt: hiding manuscripts, disguising commentary, or smuggling texts. This period also saw the rise of Ashkenazi responsa literature and the decentralization of yeshiva culture, as communities were forced to rebuild their intellectual life from ashes.
Nazi-like book burnings became the “passion” of the Cross. Aragon (1263) after the Disputation of Barcelona. Rome (1553) under Pope Julius III, who ordered the Talmud burned again throughout the Papal States. And many local events throughout Germany, Italy, and even Eastern Europe in the centuries that followed.
Raymond Martini, Pablo Christiani, the Matthew of their days, and other Jewish converts, used Jewish texts against the Jews, quoting midrash or aggadah out of context to support Christian messianic claims. This weaponization of scholarship—a turning of Jewish tradition against itself in theological debates, often backed by coercive power.
Works like the Mishneh Torah (Rambam), Arba’ah Turim (Rosh’s son, Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher), and later the Shulchan Arukh were part of the effort to codify and preserve halakhic clarity amid growing external threats. Some turned toward Kabbalah (e.g., Sefer haZohar) as an inner resistance—preserving divine truth in esoteric forms inaccessible to Christian censors. Jewish liturgy began to include kinnot (lamentations) over the destruction not just of Temples, but of books and batei midrash (houses of study).
The 1242 burning of the Talmud was not an isolated horror—it was the beginning of a systematic theological campaign to erase Jewish legal memory, to sever the oral Torah from the people entrusted with it, and to replace covenantal justice with ecclesiastical dominance. But the Jewish response was resilient. Torah didn’t die in Paris. It moved. It adapted. And it remembered.
ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ἐλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου\/For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death\/. Jesus directly compares to the Golden Calf. The new testament replacement theology foists Jesus in the stead of Moshe, just as did the ערב רב, mixed multitudes of assimilated and intermarried Jews did with the Goden Calf.
Classic projectionism and switch-bait nonsense rhetoric propaganda. Define: law of the Spirit of life as it applies to any legal judicial system in any country throughout Human History? If we interrogate it through the lens of real-world legal systems—Babylonian, Mosaic, Roman, Napoleonic, Anglo-American common law, etc.—this “law of the Spirit” is untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Hence this religious rhetoric propaganda exists only as a theological slogan that floats above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero common ground with Hammurabi’s Code, Athenian democracy, Talmudic jurisprudence of Common Law/Oral Torah, US Constitution, Islamic Sharia, Modern international law.
What Paul calls “law” here is not law in any legal sense. It’s a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of structure. The so-called “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2) is entirely untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Paul’s language constitutes a theological slogan that floats untethered above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero jurisprudential common ground with codified systems listed above.
What Paul calls “law” is not law in any legal sense. It is a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of statutory structure, procedural enforcement, or binding communal authority. Thus, the New Testament doesn’t fulfill Torah. It replaces emunah with emotionalism. It displaces the legal with the mystical. It turns a national covenant into private belief. And it betrays the brit at Horev in favor of Hellenistic myth. That is its foundation—and its fraud. The Gospels, guilty of the ultimate betrayal: not just of a man, but of a people, of a legal tradition, and of an oath that still binds the chosen Cohen people.
LikeLike
From Feudalism to the UN: How International Law Recreates Medieval Structures to Contain Jewish Sovereignty
UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334 reflect an imperial logic that attempts to redefine Jewish sovereignty not on the basis of national independence, but on external moral frameworks crafted by global elites. Much like the Church tried to reassert its medieval authority over populations moving toward emancipation and civic equality, the post-1967 international community—through the UN—often acts as a neo-medieval power bloc, trying to re-feudalize Jewish national rights. Through the propaganda of “International Law” the UN seeks to redefine the Jewish People as Feudal subjects of the UN, mantain the protectorate status, and not acknowledge Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of “nations”. A political Apartheid policy directed against Israeli Jews.
The Church of Europe once said: “You are not a people unless we say so.” The UN says: “Your borders, capital, and legitimacy are not yours to define. The UN and “international press”, like Democracy Now, continuously employs morality propaganda whereby Israel get’s condemned. The current war in Gaza serves as a fresh example. Oct 7th 2023 Hamas invades, inflicts a pogrom, killing some 1400 Israelis and taking some 250 hostages, an attack similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemn Israel. The UN ICJ and ICC accuse the leaders of Israel of the crime of Genocide.
The MSM propaganda press always publicly condemns Israel over the post ’67 “Occupied Territories”, and “stolen Palestinian lands” despite the simple fact that neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The cabal of 3rd world African nations and 22 Arab countries dominate the UN General Assembly’s anti-Israel agenda. England and France together with all other countries other than the US under the leadership of President Trump, refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This cabal of nations assumes that they determine the international borders of the Jewish state and its Capital city of Tel Aviv!
In point of fact, neither the Western Roman empire after it expelled and destroyed Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”. Nor the Arabs who conquered the Middle East. Nor the Muslim Turks. Never in all the annuls of Human history has there ever existed a Palestinian State independent or otherwise. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemns Israelis for stealing and illegally occupying stolen Palestinian lands.
The Balfour Declaration combined with the UN General Assembly vote where 2/3rds of all UN members voted that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East, these two ground breaking events set the foundation of Zionism to this very day.
Comparing the modern UN system (and its web of international law and media discourse) to the medieval Church’s efforts to control national and civic identity merit deep consideration. It questions “UN sovereignty, legitimacy, and the power structures”, like the General Assembly that claim moral authority over nations—especially the Jewish state. Nations that do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel participate in GA condemnations of the Jewish State over and again.
The UN General Assembly often function like medieval hegemonies. Just as the Church once denied legal personhood and nationhood without its blessing, the UN often positions itself as the final arbiter of what constitutes a state, a capital, or legitimate borders. By framing Jewish sovereignty as conditional or revocable, it echoes the feudal Church’s claim to mediate all political legitimacy. UN Resolutions act like papal bulls or canonical decrees—morally binding from the top down, without democratic accountability to the people they affect.
The MSM as a moral propaganda apparatus mirrors critiques of how the medieval Church used sermons, decrees, and public punishments to shape public opinion and suppress dissent. Today, moralizing headlines, asymmetrical coverage, and legalese from bodies like the ICC or ICJ can create a similar effect—defining Israel as a perpetual violator, never a victim. This especially comes into focus post-Oct 7, 2023, when the moral asymmetry in global reactions seemed stark. Hence the analogy to Pearl Harbor isn’t just rhetorical—it highlights the absurdity of demanding restraint from a sovereign state responding to what, under any other context, would be an unambiguous act of war.
The cold fact that Israel is not even included in the Middle East voting bloc and faces systemic isolation by a cabal – an international voting block, despite being a sovereign state, an Israeli counter-condemnation to the UN and its legality. It recalls how ghetto Jews in medieval Xtendom, always denied civic status or land ownership—forced to lend money as our only legal occupation, and then thereafter condemned. Jewish refugee population lived under biased racial laws, and always taxed without rights to fair political representation. The modern twist: Israel, treated by the post ’67 UN as a “conditional” nation, whose very borders, capital, and rights, like medieval Jewry, subject to the approval of an amorphous international morality. That’s not international law; that’s international lordship.
During the current Gaza war, Jerusalem views the UN and its constellation of legal and media institutions squarely in the lineage of supra-national religious authority, like the medieval Church. The UN institutions, while cloaked in the language of universal values, operate with realpolitik interests that often delegitimize Jewish national expression. Just as the medieval Church denied the de jure or de facto rights of Jews to sovereignty, dignity, and space within the political order, the UN often plays gatekeeper—determining which borders and capitals are “legitimate,” regardless of actual historical continuity or democratic will.
The medieval Church had an Index of Forbidden Books; today we have an informal but equally effective system of narrative control: headlines, op-eds, human rights reports, and resolutions that implicitly (or explicitly) decree who is righteous and who is criminal. The demand that Israel show “restraint” after a pogrom-level event is only explicable if Israel is already being viewed through a moral-theological lens, not a legal-political one.
The exclusion of Israel from the Middle East voting bloc and its isolation in forums like the UN General Assembly mirrors the medieval dynamic: Jews could live under Christendom but could not belong to it. The irony that nations with no diplomatic ties to Israel get to vote on its fate, while Israel is denied full parity as a sovereign peer. This resonates strongly with the historical exclusion of Jews from guilds, land ownership, and political decision-making. Israel is a member state in form, but treated as a conditional entity in practice. This isn’t law, it’s lordship.
Not the application of consistent principles, but the imposition of a moral-political hierarchy that demands submission rather than negotiation. Israel’s borders, capital, and even its legitimacy are constantly retried in a global forum that acts more like an ecclesial court than a parliament of equals.
LikeLike
Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com
Trump’s Iran Charade
In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Liberal Kapo Jews. This stinking ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews who promote the hatred of Amalek – antisemitism. They simply have no fear of Heaven. The Torah described the original ערב רב that came out of Egypt as אין להם יראת אלהים. Sinat chinam equals spiritual Amalek.
Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com
Trump’s Iran Charade
In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Liberal Kapo Jews. This stinking ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews who promote the hatred of Amalek – antisemitism. They simply have no fear of Heaven. The Torah described the original ערב רב that came out of Egypt as אין להם יראת אלהים. Sinat chinam equals spiritual Amalek.
Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com
Trump’s Iran Charade
In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
The Oct7th War which spread to a war against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran has radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. The UN has completely discredited its objectivity with the ICC/ICJ attempts to declare Bibi a war-criminal. You drink this blood libel slander like Catholics drink their blood and body of Christ then go out and make a Easter pogrom against Jews based upon some blood libel slander!
Both England and France have broken off diplomatic relations with Israel, prior to the 12 Day War with Iran! Hence neither power has any influence in the Middle East negotiated peace process ie. the Coming Abraham expanded accords which will most likely see a majority of Arab countries developing diplomatic relations with Israel. If a majority of Arab nations recognize the Jewish state, then and only then will Israel join the Middle East voting block of Nations within the UN. A totally unprecedented reality since Israel won its two Wars of national independence back in 1948 and again in 1967.
The latter Independence War, recall that Naser swore to throw the Jews into the Sea and correct the Nakba disgrace where 5 Arab Armies failed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah of the Jewish people! To date, except for Camp David and Abraham Accord Arab nations which currently have diplomatic relations with Israel, post the Israeli victory of 1967, all Arab countries reacted through the Khartoum Conference declaration of 3 No’s. No Peace with Israel. No Recognition of Israel. No Negotiations with Israel.
Arab countries which reject the Jewish state of Israel refer it as “the Zionist Entity”. General Assembly UN Resolution 3379 declared Zionism is Racism! Apparently your revisionist History over-looked these minor FACTS. All Arab countries absolutely reject the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein Britain recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. The League of Nations “Palestine Mandate” awarded to victorious WWI Britain in 1922, based this Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration. Hence b/c Arabs rejected Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East no Arab would ever refer to himself as a Palestinian.
Not till 1964, with the State of Israel as a 16 year old country did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the political opportunism and call his terrorist movement the Palestine Liberation Organization – PLO. That PLO Charter did not condemn Jordanian “occupation” of the Jordan declared “West Bank”. Nor did it condemn the Egyptian “occupation” of Gaza! Only ’48 Israel did the PLO Charter condemn and abhor!!!!
A 6 part Mishnaic mussar of this paper. Avodah Zarah in Our Generation: The Crisis of Jews Who Side With Amalek. In every generation, Amalek takes new forms. Today, it is no different. But what is shocking is not only the hatred of our enemies—it is the collaboration of Jews, raised within Torah civilization or its memory, who now partner with those seeking to dismantle the Jewish state.
When Jewish voices shout “From the River to the Sea,” they are not engaged in protest—they are echoing the genocidal goals of Hamas. When they equate Israel’s defense against a massacre to genocide, they join in blood libel, no different in kind from the medieval slanders that triggered Easter pogroms. When they ally with UN declarations and ICC/ICJ indictments meant to strip Jews of the right to self-defense, they violate the first commandment of Jewish history: “Never again shall Jewish blood be cheap.”
Sovereignty vs. Subjugation: Jews Ruling vs. Jews Ruled: A fundamental distinction separates Jews living as a sovereign nation in their own land versus Jews existing as a minority under non-Jewish rule (galut). Assimilated & intermarried Jews in the West, who function within dominant non-Jewish cultures, have lost connection with Jewish national identity and Torah sovereignty, resembling the biblical Erev Rav—those lacking fear of Heaven and loyalty to the Jewish nation.
Double Standards in Territorial Legitimacy: Prussia vs. Samaria & Gaza: The hypocrisy of the international community – emphasized. While the post-WWII redrawing of European borders—such as Poland and Russia’s annexation of Prussia—is accepted without condemnation, Israel is uniquely targeted for reasserting sovereignty over Samaria and Gaza after 1967. UN Resolutions 242 and 338 are cited as politically biased tools used to delegitimize Israel’s historical and military rights.
Western Imperialism and Regional Domination: Suez to Iran. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as evidence of continued British and French imperial ambitions, cloaked in Cold War geopolitics and economic control (specifically over the Suez Canal). This is paralleled with U.S./British involvement in Iran—removing Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah to prevent the nationalization of oil. The 1979 Iranian Revolution is framed as a reaction to this imperialism. Similarly, prior to the “12 Day War,” the UK and France withdrew diplomatic ties with Israel in protest of their exclusion from influencing a ceasefire in Gaza.
Rejection of the 242/338 Two-State Paradigm by the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are seen as a major geopolitical shift, fundamentally rejecting the British- and French-backed vision of peace based on dividing Israel into two hostile entities—akin to India-Pakistan or North-South Korea. The Accords envision peace without territorial partition, and with increasing normalization between Israel and Arab states, signal the failure of the old colonial-era frameworks.
UN Bias and Historical Arab Rejectionism of the Balfour Declaration wherein a major Great Power recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. The UN based its 1922 Palestinian Mandate upon the Balfour Treaty. The Khartoum Conference (1967) “Three No’s” serves as proof of Arab states’ refusal to accept Israel’s equal rights to self-determination. The UN, particularly via General Assembly Resolution 3379 (“Zionism is racism”), has been complicit in reinforcing this Arab rejectionism of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination. Meanwhile, the ICC and ICJ today continue the Zionism is Racism pattern, under the guise of international law, falsely accusing Israeli leaders of war crimes while ignoring the Oct7th pogrom and declaring the current conflict pre-dates Oct7th. This whitewashes the Oct7th surprise attack, comparable to the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec7th 1941.
The Manufactured Identity of “Palestinians” and PLO Opportunism. The identity of “Palestinians”, a modern invention, emerging only in 1964 with the formation of the PLO under Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. The original PLO Charter made no objection to Jordanian control of the West Bank or Egyptian rule in Gaza, focusing only on dismantling Israel. This opportunistic narrative is framed as a political weapon rather than a legitimate national movement.
The Talmud (Yoma 9b) states:
מקדש שני שהיו עוסקים בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים, מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. Then, the Midrash in Eikha Rabbah and various aggadot go further to compare sinat chinam with the worst transgressions—including idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder—suggesting that internal Jewish hatred is as destructive as idol worship.
G’lut Jews have lost the wisdom to keep and obey the Torah לשמה. Assimilated and intermarried Jews living under foreign alien cultures and customs have abandoned the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur as the foundation which shapes and forms all Torah cultures and customs. As an ערב רב they cling to alien cultures and customs by which they form and shape their identities and values. These foreign cultures and customs which they embrace have become the Gods which they worship.
מידה כנגד מידה a core Torah principle, and that slogans like “From the river to the sea”—when chanted by Jews—do immense damage. Jews who equate the Gaza war with the Shoah genocide equals to the abhorrence to blood libel slanders which produced annual pogroms prior to Easter across Europe. Liberal Jews disgraceful alliance with South African declarations of genocide in Gaza and Apartheid a flat out public chilul Hashem. Such Jews have no portion in the world to Come. These Jews have broken faith with the brit Cohen people, just like as did the Erev Rav which aroused Amalek antisemites throughout the generations. The blood of hundreds of generations of Jews slaughtered cries out and denounces these stinking ערב רב Jews.
When Jews chant “From the River to the Sea,” they are not merely protesting policy—they are aligning themselves with those who dream of Israel’s destruction. This is not political dissent. It is covenantal treason. Like the Erev Rav, they emerge at times of national crisis to confuse the people, distort Torah, and drain morale. Their slogans, shouted from exile and college campuses, do more than harm Israel’s name abroad—they erode our internal unity and desecrate the mission entrusted to Israel at Sinai. These Jews have not merely lost political direction—they have forfeited spiritual clarity. They replace Torah with the gods of globalism, intersectionality, and postmodern guilt. The Torah calls this avodah zarah—not in metaphor, but in law.
The Torah commands the total destruction of Amalek—without mercy, without compromise. This commandment appears in multiple places. Devarim 25:17–19: “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget.”
Shemot 17:16: “Hashem will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”
Shmuel I 15: Shmuel commands Shaul to annihilate Amalek totally, down to every man, woman, child, and animal. When Shaul shows mercy, he is rejected as king.
This as a Torah commandment targets Amalek’s existential war against Hashem and against the Jewish people. Amalek is not simply an enemy—it is a theological and civilizational antithesis to Torah, a force of evil that seeks to destroy the very brit between Hashem and Israel.
The statute law perversion of Hilchot Melachim 5:5 flat out wrong. The 7 laws of bnai noach apply strictly and only to gere toshav temporary residents living within the borders of Judea. Once those Goyim returned to their homelands the 7 laws no longer applied to them. The purpose of keeping those 7 laws: Unlike the refugee Na’Cree stranger who had no judicial rights to fair compensation of damages inflicted. Gere Toshav enjoyed the legal right to sue an Israel for damages and receive fair compensation. Not so the Canaani refugees. An Israel had no legal obligation to compensate them for damages they suffered from an Israel. The purpose of judicial justice – to restore Trust between bnai brit who inflict damages upon one another. The NaCree Canaani refugees never ever trusted during their entire temporary residence within the borders of Judea.
Today we can easily identify Amalek with absolute certainty because assimilation and intermarriage defines avoda zarah and Amalek promotes the worship of avoda zarah. The RambaN’s (Devarim 25) commentary applies today because the Torah defines faith as the pursuit of righteous judicial justice within the borders of the Constitutional 12 Tribe Republic. Sanhedrin 98a: “Moshiach ben David will not come until all judges are restored as of old.” Amalek is not a foreign invader, but a spiritual-political corruption that arises from within, where Torah is abandoned, brit is dissolved, and Jewish trust is betrayed. The king David model dedicates the mitzva of Moshiach upon justice based upon the פרט of the lack of justice served to the baal of Bat Sheva.
The ערב רב who left Egypt – Jews. Amalek attacked these Jews wherein they embraced the ways of Amalek ie assimilation and intermarriage. Amalek by definition: a nation that attacked Israel at its weakest from behind. From behind refers to Jews who have no fear of God.
Sinat chinam and betrayal while similar to precedent cases of mumar, tinok she’nishba, moser, and min, clearly the added blessing within the Shemone Esrei by Shmuel Ha’Katan condemns this ערב רב Amalek internal Jewish abomination no different than the Ben Sorer u’Moreh.
The term “Amalek”, applied to Jews perceived as betraying their people, rather than to alien Goyim people/strangers. This internal betrayal – viewed as particularly egregious because it comes from within the community, undermining the collective identity and mission of the Jewish people. The comparison to figures like Benedict Arnold highlights the seriousness of perceived betrayal during critical moments in Jewish history, such as the fight for independence and survival against external threats. Liberal Reform Jewish movements or individuals, who align themselves with foreign enemies who oppose Israel or Jewish sovereignty, their tuma actions constitute as most base betrayal, meaning Amalek.
Liberal Reform Judaism theology and Jewish political groups or individuals who embrace this Av tuma avoda zarah; who align themselves with anti-Israel sentiments or actions contribute to a form of betrayal which defines the Torah commandment to obliterate Amalek. The seriousness of internal divisions within the Jewish community and the implications of those divisions for Jewish identity and solidarity herein defines the k’vanna of remembering the Torah obligation to utterly obliterate Amalek without showing the slightest regard for mercy.
Hence its the precise mitzvot of killing the rebellious son or the mitzva of utterly obliterating the memory of Amalek betrayal among our people, these key Torah precedents serve to define the k’vanna of רחום revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf.
Another precedent, the destruction of Korach and his children. The Torah commands: The sons does not die for the sins of his father. Yet the sons of Korach all died together with their father! The middah of רחום vetoes the negative Torah commandment. The revelation of Oral Torah tohor middot at Horev prioritizes the k’vanna of tohor middot dedicated to HaShem לשמה. Either when dedicating a korban on the altar or doing halachic mitzvot from the Talmud.
Regardless – doing time oriented tohor Av commandments raises toldot commandments and halachic mitzvot to primary Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar middot dedications לשמה as their k’vanna. Therefore the dedication of tohor middot have a veto power over doing secondary commandments which do not require k’vanna; such as the negative commandment not to put the son to death for the sins of the father. Yet in the case of Korach, the sons – put to death together with their father. Herein defines the k’vanna of רחום; the scape-goat, thrown off a cliff alive on Yom Kippur to serves as a דיוק reverse רחום Torah tohor middah.
LikeLike