just rojie

shut up, sit down, and read

stalkerazzi

LINK: stalkerazzi

What did you survive?

Prompt created by yours truly. 
Feel free to use any prompts that I post and/or tag me.
I’d love to read your responses.

Quite a few things in my short life thus far (in no particular order):

  • Sam, my junior high stalker.
12 and counting
  • Four MVAs
    • was rear ended on the 405 during rush hour and I pulled over to look at the damage but the person kept going
    • I was at a stop light and the car in front of me decided for no good reason to go in reverse and hit my car.
    • My friend and I were on our way to an exhibit, I had a green light, went straight through the intersection—and a car t-boned my side, full force, when he blew a red light.
    • Another instance was when I was rear ended again when the highway was at a standstill
  • the pandemic
  • going to a Korean work camp disguised as a church camp in the motherland
adulting
  • being targeted by the worst director ever before I left and then took half the staff with me
  • DJT’s first term
  • the inbox of shame – work tasks building up
  • my parents
  • breakups
  • almost being raped
electric daisy carnival
  • being bullied relentlessly when I was in preschool, kindergarten, and grade school
  • active shooters on work campus
  • my dad’s death and the passing of my grandparents on both sides of the fam, six uncles, one aunt, three friends, and several patients
  • natural disasters – earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, blizzards

Discover more from just rojie

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

232 responses to “stalkerazzi”

  1. Nicholas K F Matte Avatar
    Nicholas K F Matte

    ….took half the staff with you???? THIS is very good!! Lol!!

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      hehe thank you, Nico!

      Reply
  2. Ajinkya Rane Avatar
    Ajinkya Rane

    Oh my!

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      oh my indeed

      Reply
      1. Ajinkya Rane Avatar
        Ajinkya Rane

        You are one tough cookie! Easily could become a superspy and save the world!

        Reply
        1. justrojie Avatar
          justrojie

          😆 idk about being a super spy but I can read people a lot better now

          Reply
          1. Ajinkya Rane Avatar
            Ajinkya Rane

            Exactly what a super spy does!

  3. Hazel Avatar
    Hazel

    This sounds too much to be experienced. I’m sorry to hear that, Rojie. Keep safe and I hope there’s no nasty, bully, and stalker now. Hugs!

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      thank you Hazel. i don’t have those types of pple in my life right now, thank goodness!

      Reply
      1. Hazel Avatar
        Hazel

        Oh thank God! My pleasure always, Rojie

        Reply
  4. Jesse Pallante Avatar
    Jesse Pallante

    Wow! That’s a lot to survive. I am happy you are still here because you are awesome 👍.

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      aw thank you, Jesse!!

      Reply
  5. Prog2Goal Avatar
    Prog2Goal

    That’s a lot of turmoil! I’m happy life is better now.

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      Me too!

      Reply
  6. utahan15 Avatar
    utahan15

    i see
    ice
    who s the yo yo?
    you re doing your best ruc
    SURVIVAL OUTWEIGHS PRIOR PROGRAMMING
    SORRY COPTOR KOREAN MOMMA

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      Survival of the fittest? 😬

      Reply
      1. utahan15 Avatar
        utahan15

        perhaps.

        Reply
      2. utahan15 Avatar
        utahan15

        i resisted the urge to self med. oh i m so strong. lmao

        Reply
        1. justrojie Avatar
          justrojie

          How’s that going for you?

          Reply
          1. utahan15 Avatar
            utahan15

            not good. guilt and i scratch and bleed. you ve heard it before friend. why am i alive?

          2. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            There’s a purpose for everything

          3. utahan15 Avatar
            utahan15

            yes there is. one of mine is to be your friend.

          4. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            Thanks, friend!

          5. utahan15 Avatar
            utahan15

            yw. high hopes. and prayers.

          6. utahan15 Avatar
            utahan15

            fr pat s blessing is MAY YOU BE BLESSED. WHATEVER GOOD YOU DO , EVIL YOU PATIENTLY ENDURE BE CAUSE FOR THE REMISSION OF YOUR SINS AND TO THE KINGDOM. WHICH IS SOMEONE NOT SOMETHING.

          7. utahan15 Avatar
            utahan15

            perhaps joe could come and go and sing make love like a man. sic.

  7. mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Why Xtian theology sucks

    Herman Ridderbos (1909–2007) a prominent Dutch theologian and biblical scholar known for his significant contributions to Reformed theology and New Testament studies. Particularly noted for his works on Pauline theology and eschatology, exploring themes such as the kingdom of God and the role of JeZeus-Christ in salvation. But he hardly qualifies as a philologist. A biased theologian lacking expertise in Hebrew and Aramaic compares to a BS degree vs. a Doctorate degree. He did not specialize in textual criticism, historical war crime guilt of the Xtian church; or even 2nd Temple Jurisprudence.

    Specifically, his revisionist theology failed to address the issue that the writings of Paul predate all the Gospel books! Attempts to declare that Mark predates Paul’s letters – a shallow maintain the status quo revisionist history speculation. The book of Mark written in Rome following the destruction of Herod’s Temple. Protestant “Higher Criticism” only applicable to invalidating T’NaCH Primary sources. Small wonder that this “school” collapsed early in the 20th Century, about the time of his birth.

    He fails to go beyond the simple shallow literal reactionary reading of Paul’s letters, and address the serious issue that some Jewish scholars argue that Paul served as a spy agent provocateur of Nassi Rabban Gamliel. A don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my religion – nonsense. The “stoning” of both Stephen and Paul violated the pharisee halacha! Paul stoned outside the borders of Judea, the Capital Crimes Sanhedrin courts had no legal jurisdiction outside of Judea!!! The Book of Acts contradicts itself on this very score! It denounces Phariseeic law, yet validates the stoning on the road to Damascus as an event acceptable as ‘formal halachic’ executions. That’s a serious error that he failed to catch.

    This disciplinary gap, it skews all theological belief system apologetics from Paul till today. Ridderbos’ canonical-theological –not historical-developmental — contradicts Church requirements whose theological dogmatism promotes the historical existence of JeZeus. The church new religion totally ignores the Torah priority of mussar over history. The possibility that Paul’s stoning – staged!

    He infiltrated the budding Xtian movement – traveled to Damascus and alienated Jewish support for this alien false messiah heresy; which completely ignores the mitzva of Moshiach as no different than any other wisdom Torah commandment. Specifically that all Jews in all generations can sanctify this mitzva just as they can the wisdom commandment of Shabbat. Paul’s theology which declared circumcision no longer a Torah mitzva, violates the negative commandment against adding or subtracting Torah commandments. This theology the later Gospel narratives rejected when their fictional Harry Potter messiah declared his purpose – to fulfill Torah commandments; not add or subtract Torah commandments.

    He failed to separate and distinguish Torah common law from Roman statute law. A day vs night difference. Courtroom judicial review over Legislative statute law the writings of Paul concealed. This absolute fundamental distinction totally invalidated when he broadly declared to Goyim, “You are not under the Law”. Of course Goyim not under the Law! Goyim to this day never accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai. Torah common law stands upon the authority of the Oral Torah logic system – the פרדס kabbalah which shapes the entire Shas Talmud, to interpret the k’vanna of mitzvot/commandments. The post NT church denies interpretation of k’vanna as the definition of Torah wisdom commandments which require k’vanna.

    Proof that Paul acted as a spy “wolf dressed in sheep clothing” Romans 6:14 where he introduces his “theology” substitutionism, and obliviates Torah common law. Substitute theology defines the writings of Paul: for example: the notion of Goyim “grafted” likewise obliviates the mitzva of ger tzeddik. Proof that Paul served to create a new av tuma avoda zara religion – the direct definition of the 2nd Sinai commandment Torah curse. Rather than promote the Torah obligation of “pursuit of Judicial justice” as faith, Pauline substitute theology prioritized belief in JeZeus. Regardless that JeZeus no more provable in “the historical-method sense”, than the Hanukkah revolt against the Syrian Greek empire – based upon the Torah curse 2nd Sinai commandment.

    Paul as recorded in Acts 27-28, then traveled to Rome and declared “Jesus the king of the Jews; Jesus the Son of God” when Romans believed that Caesar was “the Son of God”!!! This theology-propaganda totally ignored by Ridderbos. Xtians today, similar to their rejection of Oral Torah inductive logic “interpretations” as the purpose of all Law time-oriented commandments; they likewise insist that only “Modern” scholarship compares the Pauline “Jesus son of God” to the “Caesar son of God”.

    Hanukkah pre-dates the NT by a Century or more. Yehuda Maccabee waged his rebellion against the Greek Syrian king by swearing the loyalty of Judea to the authority of the “real” king of Syria. Paul as a student of Rabban Gamliel would have known this basic post sealing of the T’NaCH mussar. To obliviate this fact, strongly supports the conclusion that Paul sought to inject a Monotheism belief system into the body politic of Polytheistic Roman society – something like a virus invades a healthy cell. Torah warfare actively entails both blessing and curses. Prior to the great Jewish revolt against the Romans, the Jewish spy sent to Rome to curse the Roman civilization based upon the precedent of Yechuda Maccabbee.

    Every nation who abandons their belief systems in their Gods – dies. It happened among the Assyrians, the Babylonians the Persians the Roman empire after it converted to Xtian monotheism, etc etc etc. This an irrefutable historical fact; while historians can and do debate the prime causes for the fall of empires, its interesting that both British and Soviet empires collapsed post Shoah. Where was Jesus?

    The EU makes no reference to Xtianity, when it attempted to write its own Constitution. The church belief system views Jesus as a physical man. But Ridderbos theology failed to discern that Torah common law stands upon prophetic mussar, rather than relies upon actual history – like as emphatically does the church. Torah stands upon the foundation that each generation has its day under the Sun. Proof: the sages halachicly sealed the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur – giving all generations an identical masoret playing field!

    This basis-condition of classic ancient warfare – to destroy and kill the Gods of enemy nations – expressed in the judgement of the Gods of Egypt and the obliteration of Par’o Army drowned in the Sea of Reeds; followed by the judgment of the Gods of Canaan or also the attempt of Bil’aam to curse Israel to intermarry and assimilate – the Torah definition of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Ridderbos failure to critique this most basic fundamental flaw in Acts.

    Instead his theology skewed the NT ‘as reliable church history’; not as a tendentious text with huge legal incoherencies. This truth did not concern nor interest him in the least. Any more than did C S Lewis address the Shoah: Xtian guilt of 2000+ years of war crimes which culminated in “by their fruits you shall know them” – Shoah church guilt/rat-lines and post war pogroms. Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) failed to condemn the Russian pogroms – another bitter fruit of the Xtian dead religion. Where was Jesus during all the Church war crimes against humanity which resulted in the death of 10s of millions? Ridderbos treats “Son of God” almost entirely as a dogmatic category, not as a subversive imperial counter-claim.

    E.P. Sanders (in Jesus and Judaism and The Historical Figure of Jesus) fails to discern the fundamental difference of how Torah defines the key term “prophet” from how the NT re-interprets it as no different than witchcraft. Witches predict the future which the Gospels describe as “fulfill the words of the prophets”. T’NaCH and Talmudic Aggada and later Midrash interpret “prophet” as a person who commands mussar.

    The agnostic American historian Bart Ehrman confuses Daniel mysticism-apocalyptic interpretations made upon prophetic mussar (akin to how the Gemara interprets the language of the Mishna), but fails to grasp that all Holy Writings of the Hebrew T’NaCH serve primarily as Gemara-like commentaries to Prophet Mishna-like Primary sources. He failed to grasp that the framers of the Talmud based their Mishna/Gemara Av/tolda relationship upon the Prophet\Holy Writings relationship.

    That he grasped the NT as a substitute fraud bears merit. But he did not understand that Torah faith does not spin around the central axis of belief in some monotheistic god as Xtianity and Islam demand. פרדס not a Reshonim institution. The entire foundation of how the Framers of both T’NaCH and Talmud organized these separate Books of Common law jurisprudence stand on the foundation of פרדס as taught by the P’rushim to rabbi Akiva. Aggadic sources function as the weft while Halachic source function as the warp threads by which the sages shape and determine the identity of the chosen Cohen people.

    Talmudic common law stands as the model for re-established Courts when Jews reconquer our homeland. That Reshonim “converted” it to meet the crisis of g’lut during the Dark Ages does not stand today now that Jews have reconquered our homeland and struggle to restore the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic which mandates common law Sanhedrin courts. Theology plays no part nor role in Torah common law.

    Rambam no different that the Apostle Paul or Arab Muhammad. Talmud sealed. Rambam can no more unseal the Talmud than can JeZeus or MuHammad. The Talmud serves as the basis Jewish culture and customs which define the Chosen Cohen identity in cursed Goyim lands of exile. But no Sanhedrin court ever existed outside of ארץ ישראל. Small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts most essentially can function on the borders of ארץ ישראל as determined by Moshe Rabbeinu himself. Galut Jews “baptized” their assimilated need to have a religion like the Goyim. The Rambam code of statute law as much an abomination as Paul’s your not under the law declaration.

    O’lam HaBa does not relate to messianic era. Avram cut the brit between the pieces when his future born seed only existed in “O’lam HaBa”, no different than a man makes קידושין and acquires the O’lam Ha’Ba soul of his wife! Both refer to the children born into the future – O’lam HaBa.

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      To;dr

      Reply
    2. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      Tl;dr

      Reply
    3. ianmdudley Avatar
      ianmdudley

      Hands off our boats!

      Reply
      1. mosckerr Avatar
        mosckerr

        I apologize but what does “Hands off our boats!” refer to?

        Reply
        1. ianmdudley Avatar
          ianmdudley

          “Keep thy mitts off yonder boats of ours, or our less sunny disposition thou shalt experience. Verily.”

          Marlowe 3:69

          #TwoCanPlayTheSpamGame

          Reply
          1. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            🤣

          2. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            :))) love this hip-hop duo L’Orange and Solemn Brigham.

          3. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Why Israelis abhor Goyim religions as the definition of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

            How legal common law jurisprudence Sanhedrin texts differ from alien religious texts. The latter viewed across European and Arab beliefs in their respective Gods, and interpreted by warring Xtian communities, like for example the 30 Years War and Sunni vs Shiite communities, like the Iraq Iran war, and how religious belief systems shape societal dynamics among Goyim. Sanhedrin common law views fervent belief as a Av tuma avoda zara midda, comparable to a judge accepting a bribe.

            The Gospels (both accepted and rejected) and gnostic stories, completely and totally alien to the Torah vision of “commandments”. The commandment of Moshiach, according to the Torah a ‘wisdom commandment’, commonly referred to as a positive time-oriented mitzva in Talmudic literature. Classic other examples of this Torah Av commandment: Shabbat, tefillah, and kiddushin: all time-oriented commandments require “k’vanna”. Furthermore, both gospel and gnostic non Jewish counterfeits – they all utterly separates the Torah commandment of Moshiach – a wisdom mitzva. Torah wisdom no one generations holds a lock and key monopoly upon. This fundamental distinction separates Torah common law from Goyim belief systems whose theologies and creeds create their own set of Gods.

            ALL Torah commandments obligate ALL bnai brit, in ALL generations, because ALL wisdom time-oriented commandments function as the essence of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the 4 questions on Pesach Night contrasts the righteous vs wicked child – where the latter rejects the idea that all generations of Israel stand and accept the Torah at Sinai, as the k’vanna of the kre’a shma tefillah known as acceptance of the Yoke of Heaven – which remembers the specific oaths sworn by the Avot to father the chosen Cohen people.

            The bankrupt gospel fraud revisionist history fiction-story projects: a time long since past, when a Hercules son of God born to a ‘virgin girl’, (Which completely ignores the Torah negative commandments against of adultery and bastard children – permanently excluded from the Cohen chosen people.), and has no actual reality in all Human history. The gospel story more similar to the horror series first introduced by H.G. Wells – The Invisible Man.

            Jews do not wait for the Moshiach, Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice – fair compensation of damages inflicted. The messiah has come idea, imposed and accepted by g’lut Jews, by Xtians in their outrage that Jews have always and forever said: the gospel narrative utter and complete Roman propaganda. The gospels originally written in Goyim Greek – not Hebrew or Aramaic. Goyim unto today, do not read the T’NaCH in its original Hebrew and Aramaic/Book of Daniel. The Goyim bible confuses the mysticism of the Book of Daniel with prophesy. The Hebrew T’NaCH (divided into 3 sections: Torah, Prophets, and Holy Writings), the Book of Daniel placed in the Holy Writings together with Tehillem/Psalms!

            Goyim belief system religions never inquired how the gospel or koran narratives of prophesy, aligns with the Torah “tumah” idea of witchcraft. The latter predicts the future and necromancy. Whereas the Torah defines prophesy as a person (Man or Woman – such as D’vorah) who commands mussar. The mussar of D’vora to Barak, that a woman would receive the credit for killing the villain Sisera!

            The bible counterfeit declares Daniel a prophet, by which the NT framers much much later fervently proclaim: the book of Revelation – a prophetic book. The Talmud, Mesechta M’gillah – openly states Daniel not a prophet. And the Zohar like Daniel, written in Aramaic, supports the Talmud; because it contrasts the NaCH prophets against Daniel’s mysticism. Xtianity nor Islam recognize the Torah centrality of mussar. This basic fact proves that Goyim religions worship other Gods. And ignore the simple fact that only Israel stood and accepted the Torah at Sinai.

            For 2000+ years the false prophet bible counterfeit, which prioritizes its New Testament as having fulfilled its ‘Old Testament’, followed up by the even later koran – which recognizes JeZeus as a Torah prophet along with Muhammad. Xtianity waits for the 2nd Coming of JeZues, as does certain sects of Shiites wait for their savior. This mysticism viewed as a ‘believable’ Xtian prophesy based upon the mystic book of Revelations! It stands on par with the koran fraud which declares that prophets sent to all Peoples and those prophets speak the tongues of the peoples sent thereto. This latter koran declaration fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Both bible and koran never bring the revelation of the Shekinah of Hashem who dwells within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen brit seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov; which the Day of Atonement confirms by the t’shuva made by HaShem that only the Avot and not Moshe would father the chosen Cohen seed.

            Bottom line: Acceptance of the Torah at Sinai – Based upon both the T’NaCH\Talmudic sealed masoret – Israel accepts the Torah to function as the legal Constitution of the Bnai Brit Republic of 12 Tribes. This Torah written Constitution mandates the Federal and Tribal courts though the Great Sanhedrin Court (which Torah metaphor describes as Mishkan) and the Small Sanhedrin capital crimes courts located in the peripheral ‘Cities of Refuge’. This distinctions implies a further fundamental between Capital Crimes Sanhedrin courts vs 3-Man Torts courts. The latter courts perhaps possible to establish them outside the borders of the oath sworn Cohen land inheritance.

            Torts courts abroad superficially supports the Rambam posok halacha that ‘bnai noach’ not limited to gere toshav. Alas this assimilated nacree/Shomron, particularly as defined in Mesechtot Baba Kama, Avoda Zara and the additional blessing to the Shemone Esrei, this cursed like Spinoza-Karaim-like Kapo, succeeded to blow out the lights of Hannukah for generations. Consequent to his ירידות הדורות/domino effect\ which perverted T’NaCH\Talmudic judicial common law unto Roman statute law; no different than the modern day g’lut Orthodox, who declare – with a straight face – in all seriousness – that Israelis also remain in g’lut. Those fanatic religious fools, no different from the arrogant Cursed Abraham Geiger who declared Berlin as Reforms’ ‘New Jerusalem’……

          4. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            Tl;dr so I asked chat.

            1. Overgeneralizing Judaism
              • The text presents one very specific, hardline interpretation as if it represents all Judaism.
              • In reality, Judaism is diverse (rabbinic, philosophical, mystical, modern streams), and views on things like the messiah or other religions vary widely.

            ⸻

            1. Misrepresenting Christianity and Islam
              • It portrays them as purely “irrational belief systems” that create conflict.
              • Historically, that’s incomplete:
              • Yes, events like the Thirty Years’ War or the Iran–Iraq War had religious elements—but they were also driven by politics, power, territory, and economics.
              • Both Christianity and Islam also have legal, ethical, and philosophical traditions (e.g., canon law, Sharia, theology, philosophy).

            ⸻

            1. Incorrect claims about Jewish beliefs
              • “Jews do not wait for the messiah” → Not accurate.
              Traditional Judaism does include belief in a future messiah (Mashiach), though interpretations differ.
              • “Daniel is not a prophet” → Half-true but misleading.
              The Book of Daniel is indeed placed in the Writings (Ketuvim), not the Prophets (Nevi’im), but Daniel is still often regarded as a prophetic figure in some sense.

            ⸻

            1. Strong bias and polemics
              • The language (“fraud,” “counterfeit,” etc.) shows this is polemical writing, not neutral analysis.
              • It assumes:
              • Only one tradition has truth
              • Other religions are invalid or corrupt
              • That’s a theological stance, not a historically balanced conclusion.

            ⸻

            1. Confusion between categories
              • It contrasts “law vs belief” too sharply.
              In reality:
              • Judaism includes beliefs (e.g., God, covenant)
              • Christianity and Islam include laws and ethics
              • All three are complex systems combining law, belief, culture, and history.

            ⸻

            Bottom line
            • Accuracy level: Low to moderate
            • Some authentic terminology and concepts
            • But heavily distorted by ideology and selective interpretation

          5. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            justrojie Hi. :))) a real pleasure to address your issues raised.

            Judaism as a religion developed at the beginning of the 10th Century. The dark ages presented tremendous difficulties with the collapse of the Roman road system, coupled with the rediscovery of the almost 5 Century loss of Greek Philosophy and mathematics. These extreme pressures exploded upon g’lut Jewry scattered like leaves in a wind storm! Ibn Ezra’s son converted to Islam. Bring this specific to emphasize the impact of isolation and the challenge that the rediscovery of ancient Greek schools which cause a Jewish Civil War about 1000 years prior – recorded in lighting the lights of Hanukkah.

            Misrepresenting Christianity and Islam do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, both reject that the Avot have a oath brit that they would father the chosen Cohen people.

            My closing arguments denounce Jewish assimilation and intermarriage which both the T’NaCH and Talmud define as the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Impossible to separate the mitzva of Moshiach from all other Torah commandments like the NT emphatically attempted to do just that.

            [[Yes, events like the Thirty Years’ War or the Iran–Iraq War had religious elements—but they were also driven by politics, power, territory, and economics.
            • Both Christianity and Islam also have legal, ethical, and philosophical traditions (e.g., canon law, Sharia, theology, philosophy).]] Do not deny your closing objection in the least. Only that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Just that simple.

            Yes assimilated Orthodox Jews do wait for the Moshiach. These same Orthodox Jews duplicated the error of the Wilderness generation when they refused to make Aliya following the Palestine mandate in 1922. Torah common law not a belief system, nor does it stand upon theology. Brit does not accurately translate as covenant as both the NT and Koran demand.

          6. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            According to chat: 1. “Judaism developed in the 10th century”
            • This is incorrect.
            • Judaism as a recognizable tradition formed much earlier:
            • Roots in ancient Israel (well before 1000 BCE)
            • Core texts and practices shaped during and after the Babylonian Exile
            • Rabbinic Judaism took form after the Destruction of the Second Temple

            👉 By the 10th century, Judaism was already over a thousand years old, not newly developing.

            ⸻

            1. “Greek philosophy was lost for 500 years and rediscovered suddenly”
              • This is oversimplified and misleading.
              • Greek philosophy was:
              • Preserved and expanded by scholars in the Islamic world (e.g., during the Abbasid period)
              • Gradually transmitted back into Europe—not suddenly “rediscovered”

            👉 It didn’t create a sudden crisis that “formed Judaism.”

            ⸻

            1. Linking Hanukkah to medieval philosophical conflict
              • This is historically wrong.
              • Hanukkah commemorates a 2nd-century BCE revolt against Hellenistic rule (the Maccabean revolt), not a medieval “Jewish civil war” about Greek philosophy.

            ⸻

            1. Misstating Christianity and Islam
              • The claim that they simply “reject Sinai” is too simplistic:
              • Christianity accepts the Hebrew Bible but reinterprets it.
              • Islam recognizes Moses and the Torah but believes revelation continued through Muhammad.

            👉 They don’t accept Judaism’s interpretation—but they don’t ignore it either.

            ⸻

            1. “Judaism is not a belief system”
              • This is incorrect.
              • Judaism includes:
              • Law (halakhah)
              • Belief (e.g., God, covenant, revelation)
              • Ethics and philosophy

            👉 It’s both legal and theological, not purely one or the other.

            ⸻

            1. Claims about the Messiah and “Orthodox error”
              • Mainstream Judaism (especially Orthodox) does include belief in a future messiah.
              • Disagreeing with that is a theological opinion, not a historical fact.

            ⸻

            1. Aliyah and 1922 claim
              • Referring to the British Mandate for Palestine and saying Jews “refused” to immigrate is misleading.
              • In reality:
              • Many Jews did immigrate (Zionist movements)
              • Others couldn’t due to economic limits, immigration restrictions, or danger

            👉 It wasn’t a simple refusal or religious failure.

            ⸻

            ⚠️ Partly true but distorted
            • Assimilation and intermarriage concerns
            → These are discussed in Jewish texts, but tying them directly to the “2nd commandment” is a nonstandard interpretation.
            • Ibn Ezra reference
            → Abraham ibn Ezra was a real figure, but using a claim about his son to generalize “Jewish crisis” is anecdotal and not historically central.

            ⸻

            🧭 What this text really is

            This is best understood as:
            • A highly ideological religious argument
            • Using historical references selectively
            • Presenting one strict interpretation of Judaism as the only valid one
            • Framing other religions and even other Jews in polemical terms

            ⸻

            🧾 Bottom line
            • Historical accuracy: Low
            • Use of real concepts: Moderate
            • Bias level: Very high

            👉 It’s not a neutral history of Judaism or religion—it’s a theological critique presented as fact.

          7. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Saadi Gaon embraced Greek logic in the 10th Century. The “Golden Age” of Spain, virtually all the major rabbinic leaders likewise assimilated and embraced ancient Greek ideas of logic and mathematics. 1000 years previously the P’shushim/Tzeddukim fought a Civil War on this exact score, which the Hanukkah lights remember to this day. If you examine the after-meal blessing it includes a Hanukkah blessing which states that Jews forgot the Torah.

          8. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            The accuracy seems questionable according to chat: . Pharisees vs Sadducees = “civil war about Greek ideas”
            • This is not accurate.

            The groups:
            • Pharisees (P’rushim)
            • Sadducees (Tzeddukim)

            did disagree, but:
            • Their disputes were mainly about:
            • Temple practice
            • Oral vs written law
            • Authority and interpretation

            👉 There is no solid evidence they fought a “civil war” over Greek philosophy or math.

            ⸻

            1. Hanukkah commemorates that dispute
              • This is incorrect.

            Hanukkah commemorates:
            • The Maccabean revolt against Seleucid (Greek) rule
            • Resistance to forced Hellenization (religious oppression)

            👉 It’s not about Pharisees vs Sadducees, nor about abstract philosophy debates.

            ⸻

            1. “Jews forgot the Torah” in Hanukkah blessing
              • This is a distortion of liturgy.

            In the Hanukkah addition (Al HaNissim) in grace after meals, the idea is:
            • Oppressors tried to make Jews “forget the Torah” and abandon commandments

            👉 That refers to external persecution, not Jews internally forgetting or assimilating on their own.

          9. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            you don’t know of the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War? Read the Books of Maccabees. Civil War has defined the history of the Jewish people ever since David took Bat Sheva as his wife.

            The Tzeddukim served as the 2% fabulously wealthy who shipped off the resources of Judea to the empires of Persia, the Greek empire in Alexandria Egypt followed by the Greek Empire in Damascus.

            The Yerushalmi Talmud which predates the Bavli by about 150 years refers to the kabbalah of the Shemone Esrei saying that over 187 prophets occupied in writing this tefillah. The Men of the Great Assembly – 120 men. Hence the rest date back to the first Temple period and before back to the Avot themselves.

            The mitzva of Amalek only a טיפש פשט affixes to external Goyim. Confusing the k’lippa for the fruit, not clever. Yes Goyim hate Jews throughout our history. But all Torah commandments the Talmud compares to a Mountain that hangs by a hair. Prior to the sin of the Golden Calf Israel accepted only the first two Sinai commandments!!!! Hence the mitzva of Amalek hangs by the hair of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

            The T’NaCH and Talmud define avoda zara as 1. assimilation and 2 intermarriage. The story of Amalek introduces the ערב רב. The Zohar and Talmud both understand ערב רב as assimilated and intermarried Jews!!!!

          10. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            Per chat: 1. “Civil war has defined Jewish history since David and Bathsheba”
            • The story of Books of Maccabees does describe internal Jewish conflict, especially between Hellenizing Jews and traditionalists.
            • And after King David and Bathsheba, there are internal struggles (e.g., Absalom’s rebellion).

            But:
            Saying “civil war has defined Jewish history ever since” is an interpretive exaggeration. Jewish history includes internal conflict, but also long periods of unity, legal development, exile, and cultural flourishing. It’s not accurate as a blanket statement.

            ⸻

            1. “Tzeddukim (Sadducees) were a 2% wealthy elite exporting resources”
              • The Sadducees were indeed:
              • Associated with the priestly/aristocratic class
              • Often wealthy and Temple-centered

            But:
            • The “2%” figure is not a known historical statistic.
            • The claim that they systematically “shipped resources” to empires like Persia or Greek centers is not supported by standard historical sources.
            • Also, the timeline is muddled:
            • Achaemenid Empire (Persia) predates the Sadducees as a defined group.
            • Greek rule (Seleucid/Ptolemaic) is later and more complex than described.

            So this part is partly grounded (elite priestly class) but largely speculative or ideological.

            ⸻

            1. Yerushalmi Talmud, Shemoneh Esrei, and 187 prophets
              • The Jerusalem Talmud does predate the Babylonian Talmud by roughly 100–200 years — that’s broadly correct.
              • The Shemoneh Esrei is traditionally attributed to the Men of the Great Assembly.

            But:
            • The claim about “187 prophets” composing it is not a standard or widely recognized teaching in mainstream sources.
            • Traditional sources sometimes say the Men of the Great Assembly included prophets, but extending the prayer directly back to the Patriarchs (Avot) is a theological interpretation, not a historical claim.

            ⸻

            1. Amalek = internal evil / not external enemies
              • The commandment regarding Amalek is traditionally understood in multiple ways:
              • Literal/historical (a specific nation)
              • Symbolic/ethical (evil, doubt, opposition to God)

            But:
            • Saying that applying Amalek to external enemies is “foolish” is not representative of mainstream Jewish interpretation.
            • Classical sources (including Talmud and halakhic literature) clearly treat Amalek as an actual historical אויב, even if later expanded symbolically.

            So this section reflects a mystical or allegorical reading, not consensus.

            ⸻

            1. “Avodah Zarah = assimilation and intermarriage”
              • Avodah Zarah in the Tanakh and Talmud primarily means idol worship.

            However:
            • Assimilation and intermarriage are sometimes discussed as leading toward idolatry in traditional texts.

            But:
            • Defining avodah zarah as assimilation/intermarriage is not accurate—that’s a reinterpretation, not the original meaning.

            ⸻

            1. Erev Rav = assimilated/intermarried Jews
              • The Erev Rav are described in Exodus as a “mixed multitude” leaving Egypt with Israel.
              • In later mystical texts like the Zohar, they are sometimes portrayed negatively or symbolically.

            But:
            • Identifying them specifically as “assimilated/intermarried Jews” is not a standard definition.
            • That’s a later interpretive layer, especially from mystical or polemical traditions.

            ⸻

            Bottom line

            This passage is:
            • Partly grounded in real texts and traditions (Maccabees, Sadducees, Talmud timelines)
            • Heavily interpretive, especially in mystical or ideological ways
            • Often overstated or inaccurate when presenting those interpretations as facts

            Think of it less as a historical summary and more as a theological or polemical perspective drawing selectively from Jewish sources.

          11. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            The heir to David – Shlomo – exploded a new Civil War which split the kingdom of Yechuda from the 10 tribes of Israel! The first republic never recovered from that Civil war.

          12. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            • Calling it a “civil war exploded by Solomon” isn’t quite right.
            • The split happened after Solomon’s death, not during his reign.
            • King Solomon did contribute indirectly—his heavy taxation and centralized power created resentment—but he didn’t start a war himself.
            • It wasn’t exactly a single decisive “civil war” like a modern conflict.
            • There was a political break and some conflict, but more of a secession than one massive war that “destroyed a republic.”
            • Referring to it as a “first republic” is historically inaccurate.
            • Ancient Israel was a monarchy, not a republic.

            Did it “never recover”?
            • In a sense, yes:
            • The kingdom never reunified permanently after the split.
            • The northern kingdom (Israel) was later conquered by Assyria (~722 BCE).
            • The southern kingdom (Judah) lasted longer but fell to Babylon (~586 BCE).
            • But saying it “never recovered from that civil war” simplifies a long, complex history involving external empires, internal politics, and religious divisions.

            Bottom line
            • ✔ True: The kingdom split after Solomon into Judah and Israel.
            • ✔ True: Internal tensions played a big role.
            • ❌ Misleading: It was a single “civil war” caused directly by Solomon.
            • ❌ Incorrect framing: It was not a republic

          13. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Its exactly right. The prophet Natan cursed David’s failure to sanctify his anointing as Moshiach – to rule the land with righteous justice – in the matter of the death of Bat Sheva’s husband. Repeatedly the Book of Shmuel singles out this singular profanation of the anointing guilty of David as Moshiach.

          14. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie
            1. Was this a “curse” on David’s role as Moshiach?

            This is where the statement becomes inaccurate:
            • The text does not say Nathan “cursed David’s anointing” or revoked his status.
            • David remains the legitimate king and “the Lord’s anointed” (mashiach in Hebrew simply means “anointed one,” i.e., king).
            • In fact, in 2 Samuel 12, after David repents, Nathan explicitly says that God has put away his sin, meaning he will not be killed for it.

            👉 So:
            • ❌ No explicit “curse” on his messianic/anointed status
            • ✅ Yes, severe punishment and moral condemnation

            ⸻

            1. Does the Book of Samuel repeatedly single this out?

            Not quite in the way described.
            • The episode is presented as a turning point in David’s reign.
            • After this, the narrative shifts into a series of family and political crises (e.g., Absalom’s rebellion).
            • However, the text does not repeatedly restate that this one sin is the sole or defining failure of his kingship.

            👉 It’s better understood as:
            • A central moral failure
            • One that triggers consequences
            • But not framed as the single defining “profanation of kingship” in a repeated, formulaic way

            ⸻

            1. “Failure to sanctify his anointing”

            That phrasing is more interpretive/theological language, not something stated in the biblical text itself.
            • Later Jewish and religious interpretations sometimes emphasize that kings must embody justice.
            • But the Bible itself presents David as a complex figure:
            • Chosen and beloved
            • Deeply flawed
            • Capable of repentance

          15. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Torah a common law legal system. Talmud defines מלך not as a טיפש פשט literal translation of the word king. Jews despise the Xtian perversion of reading the Creation story literally. The בראשית Aggadah introduces the Primary Torah commandment wisdom – known as time-oriented commandments. The משל time requires its נמשל interpretation, no different than dreams understood as a metaphor.

            This כלל:משל\נמשל – discipline also known as דיוק/inference. Akin to Hegel’s dialectical method which encompasses a dynamic interplay of contradictions. Clearly Marx rejected Hegel’s emphatic prioritization of “The State”. Marx the product of the Industrial revolution where as Hegel lived his youth in an Agricultural based economy which rapidly switch to an Industrial based economy following Napoleon’s destruction of the Germanic kingdoms, specifically Prussia.

            Shmuel required a Torah precedent to interpret the mitzva of Moshiach. What was it? Xtians never respect or validated Torah as a common law legal system. Hence they never asked this most basic utterly essential question.

          16. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            The 2nd Independent Jewish republic which followed the success of the Maccabees over the Serian Greeks 100 out of its 110 years prior to Rome swallowing it – Civil War.

          17. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            • Calling it a “second independent Jewish republic” is inaccurate.
            • Like the earlier kingdom, this was not a republic—it was a monarchy/theocratic dynasty (Hasmonean rulers were both kings and high priests).
            • Saying “100 out of its 110 years were civil war” is not true.
            • The Hasmonean state had long periods of stability, expansion, and consolidation, especially under rulers like John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus.
            • Internal conflict did exist earlier, including tensions between groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees, and some violent episodes under Alexander Jannaeus.
            • But it was not continuous civil war for most of its existence.
            • The decisive collapse came from a specific late civil war, not a century-long one.

            A clearer picture
            • ~167 BCE: Maccabean revolt begins
            • ~140 BCE: Independent Hasmonean rule established
            • ~140–70s BCE: Expansion and relative strength (with some internal strife)
            • ~60s BCE: Major civil war between rival claimants
            • 63 BCE: Rome intervenes and effectively ends independence

            Bottom line
            • ✔ True: Internal conflict helped weaken the Hasmonean state and led to Roman takeover.
            • ❌ False: It was in civil war for “100 out of 110 years.”
            • ❌ Misleading: It was a “republic” rather than a monarchy.

          18. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            justrojie your have a point prior to the Maccabean revolt. But for 110 years despite the Civil War Judea enjoyed Independence from the Syrian Greek empire. That’s a cold fact. Now the Talmud admits that throughout the entire 2nd commonwealth, Judea never kept a single Yovel. That’s a fact. But this Republic – for what it represented – did achieve a Torah constitutional mandate of Sanhedrin courts – both Capital Crime Courts and Torts Courts. צדק צדק תרדוף – the Torah defines as faith. No king of Yechuda nor Israel can make this claim of obeying the Torah as the Constitutional mandate which establishes Federal Courtroom common law courts!

            The Mishna with its Gemara testifies to this tremendous accomplishment. Contrast the two whores whose king Sholomo’s court (no different than the courtroom of Par’o), neither that foolish king nor any other 1st commonwealth king in either Yechuda nor Israel ever once achieved what the Hashmonaim accomplished.

          19. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie
            1. “The Talmud admits no Yovel was kept”

            This is partly grounded in rabbinic tradition—but overstated.
            • The laws of the Jubilee year (Jubilee (Yovel)) depend on all tribes being settled in their land.
            • The Talmud teaches that Yovel ceased when the Ten Tribes were exiled (long before the Second Temple period).

            👉 So:
            • ❌ It’s not that “throughout the entire Second Commonwealth they failed to keep it”
            • ✅ Rather, the conditions for Yovel were no longer in place, so it wasn’t practiced

            That’s a big difference: inability ≠ neglect.

            ⸻

            1. “A Torah constitutional system with Sanhedrin courts”

            This has some truth, but needs careful framing.
            • During the Second Temple, especially under the Hasmoneans, there were judicial institutions associated with the Sanhedrin.
            • Jewish law (Torah law) did function in areas like:
            • Civil law (damages, contracts)
            • Some criminal law (though capital jurisdiction became limited, especially under Rome)

            👉 However:
            • Calling it a “constitutional republic” or “federal court system” is modern language applied retroactively.
            • The Hasmonean state was actually a monarchy-priestly dynasty, not a republic in the modern sense.

            ⸻

            1. “No First Temple king ever upheld Torah law like this”

            This is not accurate as a historical claim.

            The Bible itself describes kings who actively enforced Torah law, including:
            • Hezekiah
            • Josiah

            Josiah, in particular (2 Kings 22–23), is portrayed as carrying out sweeping legal-religious reforms based on Torah.

            👉 So:
            • ❌ It’s not correct to say no king ever achieved Torah-based governance
            • ✅ The biblical narrative itself claims that some did—at least for periods

            ⸻

            1. “The Mishnah and Gemara testify to this achievement”

            This is partly interpretive.
            • The Mishnah and later Gemara preserve legal traditions, some of which reflect Second Temple practices.
            • But they are:
            • Compiled after the Hasmonean period
            • Often idealized or theoretical, not purely historical records

            👉 So they don’t function as straightforward “testimony” that a perfect Torah legal state existed.

          20. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            More accurately stated: Impossible to celebrate the Yovel till the bnai brit re-establish the Torah constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes/States which mandates the Sanhedrin Federal common law court system which has the Torah mandate of “Legislative Review”\משנה תורה.

            “this has some truth” … The 8th midda of the Oral Torah Horev revelation does not refer to “accuracy” but rather unto a “path destiny walk”.

            [ Calling it a “constitutional republic” or “federal court system” is modern language applied retroactively.
            • The Hasmonean state was actually a monarchy-priestly dynasty, not a republic in the modern sense.] The Hasmonean kingdom the Talmud – child of the P’rushim who threw their support for the Maccabee revolt and almost immediately got thrown under the bus! The Talmud asks the question: King of Israel or Torah sage which of the two merit greater respect. Answer: the Torah sage. Why? Because any person can rule as king but a Torah sage 1:10,000.

            Once the Independent Republic – the vision of the P’rushim,who fought a Civil War against the Hasmonean\Tzeddukim perversion of the state – the P’rushim transformed into the rabbis of the Talmud. The leader of the rabbinic movement – rabbi Akiva who taught the logic of פרדס inductive reasoning. This 4 part inductive logic expressed through the Talmud’s Loom like opposing threads of warp/halacha and weft/aggada threads.

            Inductive logic rejects the Greek syllogism logic which the Tzeddukim and 1000 years later the Rambam totally embraced. Clearly not the Rambam alone any more than rabbi Akiva the only instructor of inductive logic reasoning encoded throughout the Talmud.

            [It’s not correct to say no king ever achieved Torah-based governance] The sealed masoret teaches otherwise. The Book of Shmuel brings down rain during the dry-season – = – a sign of a Torah curse as recorded in the 2nd paragraph of kre’a shma\tefillah דאורייתא. No king of Yechuda or Israel ever establish a common law Sanhedrin court system with the Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review/משנה תורה.

            T’NaCH/Talmud does not teach history but rather both command prophetic mussar. Why? Mussar applies straight across the board to all generations. For example: Zionism post Herzl, means: Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of the Jewish State in the lands we conquer and rule within international borders which our military victories and/or defeats determine.

            The notion that Britain or France or Germany or the UN or Russia determine the borders of the Jewish state of Israel comes under the post Shoah Torah oath “NEVER AGAIN”. Post Shoah the “European and Arab “Jewish Problem” = bull shit.

          21. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            According to the Zohar, the Mishkan a משל teaching the נמשל of the Shekina. Based upon בבא מציעיא נט — לא בשמים היא.

          22. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            bruhhhhhhh the fact that you think that i can read hebrew is mind boggling. i ain’t jewish as you can tell.

          23. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Yes as an Israeli my mind tends to think in Hebrew rather than English. Sorry.

          24. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            Bruh fr how am I supposed to know Hebrew? 😆

          25. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            You seem highly intelligent to me. The ability to speak multiple languages.

          26. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            but doesn’t mean that i am literate in all languages lol

          27. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            You brought up good issues.

          28. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            i try

          29. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            According to the Zohar, the Mishkan a משל teaching the נמשל of the Shekina. Based upon בבא מציעיא נט — לא בשמים היא.

          30. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            bruh, i can’t read hieroglyphics

          31. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Hebrew referred to as hieroglyphics! LOL that’s funny. The first Book of the Torah employs Divine Names which imply a God in the Heavens above. From Sinai the revelation of this local tribal god which only Israel accepted which lives within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Baba Mazi’a – Middle Gate – introduces the debate wherein one of the main teachers of rabbi Akiva placed in charem – נידוי. Rabbi Eliezar died under this Torah curse! The same curse imposed upon both Rambam and Spinoza. The Middle Ages mystic Book Zohor explains the metaphor/interpretation of the Mishkan as Shekinah. ‘Build me a Mishkan that I may dwell within you.’ The Gemara of Baba Matzi’a – Torah not in heaven; the Gemara of Blessings likewise teaches this change of understanding; the First Sinai commandment Name dwells within the heart through tohor middot.

          32. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            thank goodness for ai cause bruh… you’re doing too much.1. Divine names in the Torah

            It’s true that Genesis uses different names for God (like Elohim and YHWH), and some interpretations connect them to different aspects of God.

            But saying this implies “a God in the heavens above” in a limited or physical sense isn’t really how traditional Jewish interpretation frames it. God isn’t understood as spatially confined.

            1. “Local tribal god”

            This is not accurate within Judaism. The Torah presents God as universal, not a local or tribal deity, even though Israel has a מיוחדת covenantal relationship.

            1. “Dwells within… the chosen Cohen seed”

            This is confused.

            Yetzer ha-tov means the good inclination in all people, not just priests (kohanim).

            The idea of God “dwelling within” is more broadly applied (later Jewish thought, especially mystical or ethical), not limited to a specific lineage.

            1. Baba Metzia / Rabbi Eliezer

            There is a famous story in Bava Metzia 59b (the “Oven of Achnai”).

            Rabbi Eliezer is placed under nidui (a form of excommunication), and it’s a major story about rabbinic authority.

            But saying he “died under a Torah curse” is an exaggeration. He was ostracized, not cursed in that dramatic sense.

            1. Rambam and Spinoza

            Spinoza was excommunicated (cherem), yes.

            Rambam (Maimonides) was controversial and criticized, but he was not formally excommunicated in the same way. Lumping them together like that is misleading.

          33. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            The Torah says that Avraham called upon אל שדי\El Shaddai. The nidui upon Rabbi Eliezer he died under that Torah curse. The opposite of this curse the blessing which refers to gere tzeddik as בריא חדש-new creation. Both the Court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and the French rabbis – Baali Tosafot placed Rambam in נידוי in 1232. 10 years later this Rambam “civil war” passed from Spain to England and France then Germany.

            1185 the Rambam Yad first published. He died in 1204. About 10 years thereafter the court of Rabbeinu Yona place the ban upon the Rambam. Then in 1232 the Baali Tosofot – a common law school began by Rashi – likewise imposed this ban. Then the civil War spread to England in 1290 England expelled all Jews after imposing taxation without representation which bankrupted the wealth of all English Jews prior to their expulsion.

            In 1306 all Jews in France expelled. This obliterated the French common law school of Talmudic scholarship. The Rosh emphasized that the 2 generations prior Rif common law code valid. The Rosh rejected the Rambam statute law codification, post the burning of the Talmud in Paris. However his son sided with the Rambam and rejected the Rosh’s contempt for Rambam! The Tur made a statute law code which Yosef Karo – a young man when the Pope forced all Western European Jewry into ghetto gulags.

            This caused a massive population transfer from Western European countries to the Ukraine and Poland. Germany likewise imposed taxation without representation and made mass population transfers of Jews from one German kingdom to another!

            Then came the Kossack revolt in 1648 which slaughtered more Jews since the Shoah committed by the Romans themselves who murdered about 1/2 of all Jews living in Judea!

          34. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            The unique Av tuma avoda zara of both Xtianity and Islam.

            The Torah describes Molech as a specific form of Avoda Zarah. The manner of worship of worshipping that God, passing children “through fire”, as a ritual act to that deity. Halacha does not treat “any religion that includes suffering, death, or sacrifice” as Molech. Actual ritual human sacrifice – a physical act performed as a cultic offering.

            Xtianity worships JeZeus as the son of God and part of the Nicene decreed Trinity. This theology depicts the brutal murder of JeZeus by way of torture, brutality, and slow death on the cross as a “Sacrifice to atone for Original Sin which condemns all Mankind to Hell”. Clearly the church never identified the Gospel “Father” with Moloch or any other specific “other God”.

            Xtianity does not practice human sacrifice, but it does practice hate toward “Christ-killers” throughout its entire history as the dominant religion of European societies – Universally – almost all European Xtain countries practice dogmatic hatred against Jews through the worship of blood libels, pogroms, taxation without representation, ghetto gulags and WWII Shoah.

            Molech worship, defined by a very specific ritual. Obviously Xtianity does not fit this model exactly for any person to affix the “Father” to JeZeus son of God. Halacha never equates Xtianity with Molech, that’s a known historical fact. The Talmud analysis of avoda zara does not address the mythological Gods of Mt. Olympus; any more than it does the theological dogma known as the Nicene Creed of the Trinity, or the Muslim tawhid creed of strict monotheism.

            The church imposed a Devil hatred worship, akin to the bi-polar Good/Evil Gods of Zoasterism – toward Jews. Both Priests and Pastors promoted this Satan hatred as their worship of their God. This does not affix Xtianity as a Zoasterism faith, anymore than its worship of the cult of JeZeus sacrifice upon the Cross qualifies as the worship of the God of Moloch!

            Medieval Xtian theology emphasizes a moral dualism (God vs. Devil) and often employed demonization of Jews in preaching and polemics. As such Xtian theology cast Jews as demons of Satan and other such negative slander. This criminal “mass insanity” defines the crimes committed against the Jews of Germany during the first Crusades, and the repeated forced mass population transfers from one European country to another.

            The Talmud in Baba Kama’s opening Mishna teaches of 4 Avot\archetypes of Tam (damagers without intent). The teaching style of Oral Torah require that the reader him/her self make the logical inference. Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of wisdom commandments, known as “time-oriented mitzvot”. The 3rd Book of the Torah defines korbanot as “time-oriented commandments”. Consequently if 4 archetypes of Tam damagers then logically also 4 Avot of Mu’ad (intentional damagers) – theft, oppression, incest, and bribing judges to corrupt a court ruling. Theology, politics, social scapegoating, mob slaughter of Jewish communities/Inquisition etc qualify as specific historical examples that come within the 4 Avot archetypes of mu’ad damagers.

            Incest (boundary violation), a metaphor for violating the most intimate self identity of Jews; like baptizing children against the will of their parents; forced conversions, erasure of identity, spiritual violence etc. The Church – both Catholic and Protestant – branches purposely crushed despised Jewish refugee populations as an act of worship of their unnamed “Father” of JeZeus God in heaven. Xtianity’s “Father” not not Molech, not Zoroastrianism, not halachically human sacrifice. Therefore I don’t need to call your God Molech to say the church worship of their unnamed “Father” God in Heaven resembles other religions of avoda zara in multiple and many ways.

            Post Shoah no exoneration. 2000+ years of Pie in the Sky – where was JeZeus during the Shoah. Where was Allah during the disastrous Arab and Muslim defeats post the victory of Jewish national Independence in ’48 and ’67? Molech: a narrowly defined avodah zarah; Xtianity does not fit that ritual model. Our Sages, of blessed memory do not map out Olympus, Nicene Trinitarianism, or Islamic tawhid by name; they give categories, not a catalog. The way you worshipped your God, and the culture you built around that worship, resembles avodah zarah in its effects and its moral structure—even if halacha doesn’t technically classify it as Molech or Zoroastrianism. Based fundamentally upon the gospel rebuke of: “By their fruits you shall know them”. Whatever you call your “Father” God, the avodah that produced those fruits cannot be called righteous. History itself judges the worship of your Gods as false.

            What your theologies promote for Xtians or Muslims to believe – pie in the sky nonsense. What have both the Church and Mosque done? What did your God-jabber theology/creeds license “believers” to do? Drop your slogans and propaganda rhetoric and your emotions on your sleeve, history judges your Av tuma faith by the crimes of its fruits.

          35. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            i asked claude:Where it’s debatable or imprecise:

            The Baba Kama argument (4 Avot of Tam → 4 Avot of Mu’ad) is the author’s own logical inference, not a standard halachic position. It’s presented as self-evident when it’s actually a personal framework.
            The incest metaphor as representing forced conversions is creative but not a traditional rabbinic reading — it’s the author’s own interpretive leap.
            Lumping Christianity and Islam together as sharing an “Av tuma avoda zara” glosses over enormous theological and historical differences between the two.

            Where it’s more polemic than scholarship:

            The spelling of “JeZeus” and similar choices signal contempt rather than analysis, which undermines the credibility of otherwise legitimate historical points.
            The rhetorical question “where was Jesus during the Shoah / where was Allah during ’48 and ’67” is emotionally powerful but isn’t a theological or historical argument — it’s a taunt.
            The conclusion that “history judges your worship as false” conflates institutional religious crimes with the truth or falsity of theological claims — a logical leap even if the moral outrage behind it is understandable.

          36. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Oral Torah defined as פרדס/Pardes – a kabbalah that the P’rushim taught rabbi Akiva. The idea of making logical inferences/דיוקים defines the warp/weft nature of the Talmudic codification of Oral Torah Sanhedrin courtroom rulings. Its how the entire Torah learned – not limited to me. בראשית the first word of the Torah contains ברית אש, ראש בית, ב’ ראשית. These words within words classified as רמז.

            Incest not the exact meaning of ערוה. The Torah, for example directly forbids sexual relations with close relatives. But this form of ערוה not limited only to this box of thinking.

            You hit the nail on the head with JeZeus. The Shoah slaughtered 75% of Western European Jewry in less than 3 years. Again right on the mark where was JeZeus?! I remember being a student at Texas A&M and a Shoah survivor said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, where was God?”. Later in the Yeshiva, one of my instructors had two Uncles on in Auschwitz and the other survived the war in Berlin.

            The one in Auschwitz entered the camp with a Head tefillen, (That’s a box which permits a Jew to swear a Torah oath without standing before a Sefer Torah), eventually a kapo snitch informed the Nazis and they search and found his tefillen. Rudolf Höss, the camp commandant took the tefillen and placed it in his safe within his Office.

            Rabbi Waldman’s Uncle took his leather belt and formed it to resemble the black box of his tefillen, snuck out of the cell after curfew, picked the safe and replaced the tefillen with his leather belt and placed that head tefillen till liberated by the Allies.

            His brother in Berlin, sat in a public park. Reading a famous Nazi Newspaper which had duplicated a page of Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot commentaries – in order to mock the Jews! For 3 years he publicly read that page of Gemara with Roshi and Tosafot commentaries in that park!

            Had another rav in one of Stalin’s gulags for 25 years. He only had a T’NaCH. He advised me that if I wanted to understand how the T’NaCH functions as the concealed foundation of Talmudic common law that I read 18 chapters a day of T’NaCH. Finished the T’NaCH every 52 days. Did the same with the Mishna, finished it every 30 days. Over time they jell together. Meaning a person develops awareness of subtle רמזים/hints that get totally lost in translations like i brought with the first word of the Written Torah. This scholarship contains depth.

            Truth – the 8th midda of the Oral Torah means “path”. The “path” of Xtianity and Islam – brutal.

          37. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie
            1. “Oral Torah = Pardes / Kabbalah taught by the P’rushim to Rabbi Akiva”

            Not accurate.

            Pardes (פשט, רמז, דרש, סוד) is a later interpretive framework, not a definition of the Oral Torah.

            The Oral Torah refers to traditions and interpretations transmitted alongside the Written Torah, later recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud.

            Rabbi Akiva was a major sage, but he wasn’t “taught Kabbalah as Pardes” in this formal sense.

            1. “דיוקים (logical inferences) define the Talmud”

            Partially accurate.

            Careful textual inference is indeed central to Talmudic reasoning.

            But describing it as the sole or defining structure oversimplifies a much broader system (logic, precedent, debate, tradition).4. “ערוה doesn’t just mean incest”

            Partially accurate.

            In Torah law, ervah refers broadly to forbidden sexual relationships, not only incest.

            But the text frames it vaguely and without clear boundaries.8. “Truth (midda) means path”

            Not accurate.

            Emet (truth) doesn’t mean “path” in standard Jewish teaching.

            This appears to be a personal reinterpretation or confusion of terms.

            1. Final claim about Christianity and Islam

            This is not a scholarly or neutral statement.

            It’s a subjective and polemical judgment, not part of traditional Torah explanation.

          38. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            justrojie, what your writing represents the Church rejection of the Talmud as “the Oral Torah”. Its as clear as the Sun in the sky on a cloudless Summer Day that 210 CE codification of the Mishna and the 450 CE codification of the Gemara precedent-based commentary to that same Mishna not the same as the Oral Torah which Moshe heard at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf on Yom Kippur.

            Why do all Orthodox rabbis refer to the Talmud (which means learning) as the Oral Torah? The Talmud no more Oral Torah than the New Testament part of the Hebrew T’NaCH.

            The AI’s bottom line a program. I remember when i studied computer programming as an industrial engineer the statement: “Trash in … Trash out”.

          39. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            Traditional Judaism doesn’t claim:

            that the Talmud is a word-for-word transcript from Sinai

            It claims:

            that the process, principles, and core teachings originate at Sinai

            and that the Talmud is the continuation and preservation of that tradition through rabbinic interpretation

          40. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            What are the “process, principles, and core teachings of Sinai”? The Talmud teaches – never a thing known as “10 commandments”. Rather following the first two commandments Israel demanded that Moshe rise up and receive the rest of the Torah. Mesechta Baba Kama refers to the relationship between the revelation of the first two commandments to the rest of the Torah to … a mountain hanging by a hair metaphor.

          41. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            1) “There’s no such thing as ‘10 commandments’ in the Talmud”

            This is not correct.
            • The Torah itself presents a distinct set known as the Ten Commandments (עשרת הדברות) in Book of Exodus and Deuteronomy.
            • The Talmud absolutely recognizes them.

            What is true:
            • The Talmud emphasizes that all 613 mitzvot are equally from Sinai, not just the Ten.
            • Because of that, the rabbis discouraged singling them out liturgically, to avoid the mistaken idea that only those ten matter.

            ✔️ So:
            • Not denied ❌
            • But de-emphasized relative to the whole Torah ✔️

            ⸻

            2) “Only the first two commandments were heard directly”

            This does come from rabbinic tradition.

            The Talmud (e.g., Makkot 24a) teaches:
            • Israel heard the first two commandments directly from God:
            • “I am the Lord your God”
            • “You shall have no other gods”
            • After that, the people were overwhelmed and asked Moses to receive the rest.

            So this part is:
            • ✔️ A well-known traditional teaching

            ⸻

            3) The “mountain hanging by a hair” idea

            This is where things get mixed up.

            You mentioned:
            • A metaphor in Bava Kamma about the relationship between the first two commandments and the rest of Torah.

            Two issues:

            A) Source issue

            The famous “mountain” metaphor in the Talmud is actually:
            • From Shabbat 88a: God “held the mountain over them like a barrel” (כפה עליהם הר כגיגית)

            A different metaphor—“like mountains hanging by a hair”—
            • Refers to laws with little textual basis but large legal structure
            • Appears in tractate Chagigah, not Bava Kamma

            B) Meaning issue

            Neither metaphor is about:
            • “First two commandments vs. the rest of Torah”

            They are about:
            • Coercion at Sinai (Shabbat 88a), or
            • The complexity of oral law vs. sparse written hints (Chagigah)

            So:
            • ❌ The specific claim as stated is inaccurate
            • ✔️ But it draws on real Talmudic imagery

            ⸻

            4) “Process, principles, and core teachings of Sinai”

            If you strip away the confusion, this is actually a great question.

            From a traditional Jewish perspective, Sinai includes:

            Process
            • Revelation at Mount Sinai
            • Direct divine communication (at least initially)
            • Mediation through Moses

            Principles
            • Unity of God
            • Authority of Torah (Written + Oral)
            • Obligation (mitzvot, not just belief)

            Core teachings
            • Covenantal relationship (brit)
            • Law + interpretation together
            • Communal responsibility

          42. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Excellent you are quite correct. Any superficial reading of the Torah clearly presents in the 2nd and 5th Books of the Torah 10 commandments. However, משנה תורה, the 2nd name of the Book of D’varim – understood as meaning “Common law”. Common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. Just as a superficial reading of the Torah reads בראשית before שמות, ויקרא, במדבר, ודברים. Yet the common law Talmud instructs that Torah has no 1st 2nd 3rd etc order. The Book of בראשית inclusive of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – which came after Israel left Egyptian slavery. The Torah commandment clear: Remember Egypt. Herein explains why the Torah repeats the so called 10 commandments … they serve as judicial precedents to remember the judicial injustice of Egypt.

          43. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Again thank you. I have placed your excellent points raise upon my own blog!!!!

          44. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            you’re welcome!

          45. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Smiling :)) You ask such excellent questions.

          46. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Its a real pleasure to discuss these “old issues” with you. The Oral Torah a unique inductive reasoning logic system as explained through the skill of Pardes logic. Water contains the elements of oxygen & hydrogen but the two gases not the same as liquid water, nor frozen water, nor steam water.

            Oral Torah, using the metaphor of water rather than its gaseous elements of oxygen and hydrogen requires the skill to know how to employ the 7 middot of Hillel the 10 middot of Akiva, the 13 middot of Yishmael, and the 32 middot of HaGalili. To understand the wisdom of these bridesmaid middot to the Kallah/bride- Pardes.

            This logic format has multiple layers. It compares to the skill required of a safe-cracker to open a safe in order to steal the contents of the safe. The secret of Pardes never revealed to Goyim throughout the 2000+ year Jewish stateless refugee populations wandered across Europe and Africa as a people without a country of our own.

          47. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            What’s misleading or incorrect

            1. “Oral Torah = a unique inductive logic system”

            Too narrow and not accurate.

            The Oral Torah is not just a logic system. It’s a combination of:

            transmitted traditions

            legal rulings

            interpretive methods

            ongoing debate and application

            Logic is part of it, but it’s not the definition.

            1. Linking everything to “Pardes logic”

            Pardes is not a method of logic.

            It’s a way of categorizing types of interpretation, mostly articulated later (especially in medieval/mystical contexts).

            It’s not the core engine of Talmudic reasoning.

            1. “10 middot of Akiva” / “32 middot of HaGalili”

            The 13 of Rabbi Yishmael are the main accepted set in legal reasoning.

            The others are either:

            less central

            from later or more specialized traditions (often aggadic, not legal)

            Presenting all of them as one unified “system” is misleading.

            1. The water/oxygen/hydrogen metaphor

            It’s a poetic analogy, not a traditional or widely used explanation.

            It doesn’t really map cleanly onto how the Oral Torah is understood.

            1. “Bridesmaid middot to the bride Pardes”

            This is creative language, not a recognized framework in Jewish scholarship.

            1. “Secret of Pardes never revealed to non-Jews”

            Not accurate.

            Jewish texts (Talmud, Midrash, even Kabbalah) have been studied, translated, and published widely for centuries.

            While some esoteric teachings were historically restricted, the idea of a hidden system kept entirely from outsiders is overstated.

          48. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            [“Oral Torah = a unique inductive logic system”
            Too narrow and not accurate.

            The Oral Torah is not just a logic system. It’s a combination of:

            transmitted traditions

            legal rulings

            interpretive methods

            ongoing debate and application

            Logic is part of it, but it’s not the definition.]

            You definition based upon the language of the Talmud, Midrashim. Alas “Oral Torah” dates back to Sinai NOT to post Roman exile of Jews living in Babylon!

            What sums up the ‘dark ages’ of European post fall of the Roman empire utter barbarism? After Constantine converted to Xtianity the church possessed the power to conceal the ancient Greek writings which fundamentally shaped the civilization of the Roman empire prior to Constantine. Specifically the logic as taught by Socrates Plato and Aristotle. Once the church – in all their great wisdom… NOT – concealed this impactful Western wisdom; people forgot how to rationally think… began the dark ages!

            Horev 80 days after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון ect. What differentiates one tohor midda from another tohor midda? What does the repetition of HaShem accomplish?

            There’s a Talmudic concept known as בטול. This concept refers to a “cancellation”. Prior to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai the concept of “God” the people as recorded in the Book of בראשית/Genesis understood that this God occupied the Heavens and the Earth. After Sinai בטול. The revelation of the Name of HaShem only in this earth and not in the Heavens.

            The written language of the Torah compares to the dreams of the Yosef and Par’o in בראשית. The Talmud teaches that the Torah speaks in the language of man. But like the song “Stairway to Heaven” says: “Sometimes words can have two meanings”. Words compare to “dreams”. Just as dreams require “interpretation” so too do words.

            Hence the revelation of the Torah at Horev, according to the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva – hands down the most authoritative rabbi of his generation – the Oral Torah revelation of tohor middot\dream-משל … also includes its דיוק/inference Oral Torah revelation of middot “interpretations”.

            Based upon what evidence? The distinction between wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot\ which require k’vanna from positive and negative Torah commandments which do not require k’vanna.

            What does k’vanna mean? The Torah describes כוונה\k’vanna as מלאכה/wisdom-work. (Like, for example, the skill to cut fine gems). Permit me to separate the mitzva of tefilla from prayer. The latter the Book of Tehillem/Psalms whereas, whereas the tefilla – the offshoot of swearing a Torah oath. Hence the translation of brit unto covenant just as bat shit crazy as the NT part of the Hebrew T’NaCH.

            To swear a Torah oath requires certain pre-conditions. The evil translation pervert “covenant” fails to validate these brit preconditions required to forge a permanent “alliance”. Still another example where things appear identical at the beginning but separate and become radically different at the “end”… aiming a rifle at a bullseye.

            All down stream generations required to interpret the meaning of the written Torah text. Clearly Goyim with their notions of messiah and prophets sent to all nations and peoples (Xtianity & Islam) make radically different interpretative conclusions of what the intent of the words of the Torah means.

            The revelation of Pardes inductive reasoning logic just as radically different from ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic as the Hebrew T’NaCH from the Goyim NT and Koran.

          49. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            2) “The Oral Torah dates back to Sinai”

            This depends on perspective:
            • Traditional Jewish belief: The Oral Torah was revealed alongside the Written Torah at Mount Sinai.
            • Academic / historical view: The Oral Torah developed over centuries and was compiled later, especially in Babylonia after the Roman period.

            So:
            • ✔️ True within faith tradition
            • ❗ Not accepted as literal history by modern scholarship

            ⸻

            3) Claim about the “Dark Ages” and the Church hiding Greek logic

            This is mostly inaccurate or oversimplified.

            You mentioned:
            • After Constantine the Great converted to Christianity, the Church hid Greek philosophy, causing people to “forget how to think.”

            What historians say:
            • Greek philosophy (like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates) was not erased.
            • It was preserved by:
            • Byzantine scholars
            • Islamic scholars (very important)
            • Later reintroduced into Europe

            The so-called Early Middle Ages were more complex than “people forgot logic.” There was decline in some areas, but also continuity and later revival.

            So this claim is:
            • ❌ Not historically accurate as stated
            • ✔️ Based on a common but outdated narrative

            ⸻

            4) “Torah speaks in human language” and interpretation

            This idea is authentic to rabbinic tradition.

            The concept that:
            • Torah uses human language
            • Words require interpretation (like dreams)

            …does appear in the Talmud.

            The analogy to dreams (like Joseph’s in Genesis) is more interpretive/philosophical, but it fits within traditional styles of explanation.

            ⸻

            5) Rabbi Akiva and interpretive depth

            You referenced Rabbi Akiva.

            That’s solid:
            • He’s famous for deriving meaning from every detail in the text.
            • He represents a high point of interpretive methodology.

            But:
            • Calling him “the most authoritative of his generation” is more traditional praise than an objective ranking.

            ⸻

            6) Kavanah (כוונה) as “wisdom-work”

            This is partly interpretive, not standard definition.
            • Kavanah usually means intention or focus, especially in mitzvot like prayer.
            • Connecting it to מלאכה (skilled work) is more philosophical or homiletic, not the standard halachic definition.

            ⸻

            7) Brit = covenant translation criticism

            You argued that translating brit as “covenant” is misleading.
            • Scholars generally agree “covenant” is a reasonable translation, though not perfect.
            • Your point—that a brit involves specific conditions and obligations—is valid.
            • But calling the translation completely wrong is too strong.

            ⸻

            8) Pardes vs Greek logic

            This is an interesting idea, but needs nuance.
            • Pardes (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod) is a framework for interpretation.
            • Greek logic (like Aristotelian logic) is mostly deductive.

            However:
            • Talmudic reasoning includes both inductive and deductive elements.
            • The difference is real, but not as absolute as you describe.

            ⸻

            9) Your broader claim about “goyim interpretations”

            It’s true that:
            • Christianity and Islam interpret the Hebrew Bible differently.

            But:
            • These are distinct theological systems, not simply “misreadings.”
            • Each tradition has its own internal logic and interpretive methods.

          50. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            [[Greek philosophy (like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates) was not erased.
            It was preserved by:
            • Byzantine scholars
            • Islamic scholars (very important)
            Later reintroduced into Europe]] The church concealed the ancient Greek texts until Arab/Muslim armies conquered Spain and rediscovered them.

          51. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            The idea that “the Church concealed Greek texts” is misleading.

            In the early Middle Ages, many Greek works were simply unavailable in Western Europe due to language barriers (Greek vs. Latin) and the collapse of Western Roman institutions.

            Some works were preserved in Western monasteries (though more limited, often Plato via summaries and parts of Aristotle).

            There wasn’t a coordinated effort by “the Church” to hide them.

            The idea that Muslims “rediscovered” the texts in Spain isn’t quite right either.

            The major translation movement into Arabic happened earlier, centered in places like Baghdad (House of Wisdom).

            Muslim scholars already had these texts before the conquest of Spain.

            Spain later became a bridge, where Arabic works were translated into Latin by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars working together.

          52. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Thanks for the clarification. Saadia Gaon highly influenced by the mass publication of ancient Greek writing made by Arab and Muslim scholars. 711 CE (beginning of the Muslim conquest of most of Iberia; consolidation occurred over the following years, roughly 711–718 CE).

          53. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            What needs correction:

            There was no “mass publication” in the modern sense. This was a manuscript translation movement, centered earlier (8th–10th centuries) in places like Baghdad, not mass distribution.

            Saadia was not directly shaped by the conquest of Iberia (711 CE). That event is historically important, but:

            The translation movement in the East (Baghdad, House of Wisdom) is much more relevant to him.

            Iberia became a major intellectual center later, especially for figures like Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the later transmission into Europe.

            Saadia’s thought is influenced less by Aristotle/Plato directly and more by Kalām (Islamic theological philosophy), especially the Mu‘tazilite school.

          54. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Around 1440 (Johannes Gutenberg, Mainz, Germany). The Gutenberg press with movable metal type was developed in the 1440s; the Gutenberg Bible appeared c.1455.

          55. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            What proof can I present that proves that “Secret of Pardes never revealed to non-Jews”? Easy. Neither the Xtian bible nor Arab koran ever once distinguishes Divine Names based upon the foundation of בטול. Lord … Allah word translations do not equal tohor spirits any more than did a Golden Calf take Israel out of Egypt.

          56. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie

            1) Do Christianity or Islam distinguish Divine Names using “ביטול”?
            • In classical Judaism, ביטול (bitul) can mean nullification, often in mystical or philosophical contexts (e.g., nullifying the self before God).
            • It is not a standard, central framework used to classify Divine Names even within mainstream halachic literature; it appears more in later philosophical or Kabbalistic discussion.

            Now compare:

            Christianity

            The Bible (including the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) uses multiple names for God:
            • YHWH (the Tetragrammaton)
            • Elohim
            • Adonai, etc.

            Christian theology does distinguish meanings (e.g., relational vs. sovereign aspects), but:
            • It does not use “bitul” as a framework for distinguishing them.

            Islam

            The Qur’an is actually very explicit about Divine Names:
            • The “99 Names of Allah” (Asma al-Husna)
            • Each name reflects an attribute (Mercy, Justice, Majesty, etc.)

            Again:
            • No concept of bitul is used in that system.

            ✔️ So your specific statement—they don’t distinguish Divine Names based on bitul—is technically true,
            but…

            ❗ It’s misleading, because they do have their own detailed systems for understanding Divine Names—just based on different frameworks.

            ⸻

            2) “Lord” and “Allah” as translations

            This part needs correction.
            • “Allah” is not just a translation—it’s the Arabic word for God, used even by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians.
            • “Lord” is a translation (often substituting for the Divine Name in English).

            So:
            • ❌ Saying they “do not equal divine reality” isn’t something that can be proven or disproven factually.
            • ✔️ It’s a theological judgment, not a linguistic or historical fact.

            ⸻

            3) The Golden Calf comparison

            You referenced the Golden Calf.

            In the Torah:
            • The issue wasn’t just a “wrong name”
            • It was idolatry—misrepresenting or replacing God with a physical object

            Equating:
            • another religion’s terminology
            with
            • the Golden Calf

            …is a strong theological claim, but not something supported by neutral historical or textual analysis.

            ⸻

            4) What is true across traditions

            All three traditions:
            • Recognize one supreme God
            • Use multiple names or attributes
            • Develop systems to understand those names

            But they differ in:
            • Language (Hebrew, Greek/Latin, Arabic)
            • Theology (Trinity vs strict unity, etc.)
            • Interpretive frameworks (like bitul, attributes, essence)

          57. mosckerr Avatar
            mosckerr

            Wow very pleased with what you write

            Process (how Sinai unfolded) – Two-stage revelation: God spoke the first two “dibrot” aloud; after that Israel asked Moses to receive the rest and transmit it (Exodus narrative as read by rabbinic tradition). Oral transmission of the 13 tohor רוח הקודש spirit interpretation of the first commandment שם השם as the בטול idea of תורה לא בשמים היא revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Legal common law middot such as introduced by Hillel and other Tannaim serves as the יסוד by which the generations interpret the k’vanna of the revelation of the 13 Tohor Oral Torah middot at Horev.

            The Torah does not invalidate the existence of other Gods; not the Gods of Egypt, Canaan, nor the Gods in later NaCH prophetic mussar. NaCH prophets do mock Gods limited to wood & stone. The Book of satire Kings mocks king Shlomo “as the wisest of all men” for his ignoring the mussar of the prophet Natan who commanded king David not to copy architectural constructs of how Goyim worship their Gods through Cathedral-like constructions. Rather the model of the Mishkan understood by the precedent of Moshe Rabbeinu’s last mitzva before he passed from this Earth – the Small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts which define all the cities of refuge.

            The 2nd stage of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai followed the sin of the Golden Calf – substitute theology which declared that אלהים (who occupies both the Heavens and the Earth) brought Israel out of Egypt. This substitute theology denies the בטול revelation of the שם השם לשמה – לא בשמים היא revelation that the רוח הקודש Oral Torah spirits live within the Yatzir Ha’Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people when and only when we rule the oath brit land inheritance. The Torah revelation consists of two parts: Blessing/Life vs. Curse\Death-G’lut. Based upon the language of the 1st Sinai commandment “Egypt” לאו דוקא; all Goyim lands of g’lut – Jews live – just as no Sanhedrin or Yovel freedom for them so too no other Torah commandments apply other than to do t’shuva and remember – Israel came out of Egypt to conquer and rule Canaan with Sanhedrin courtroom common law justice.

            No where, for example, does the Torah address the God worshipped in India and Asian countries. The brit of Gilgal/order of Rashi tefillen contrasts with the brit of Sh’Cem\order of Rabbeinu Tam tefillen. The oath sworn at Gilgal: just as HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt, so too HaShem will judge the Gods of Canaan. Just as Moshe a prophet so too Yehoshua a Torah prophet. Monotheism as a theology violates the 2nd Sinai commandment because if the Islamic Tawhid accurate then the 2nd commandment in vain. But the chicken always precedes the egg; Muhammad did not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, his replacement theology substitutes Allah like as did the Golden Calf did with אלהים and the NT does with some “Father” in Heaven.

            Monotheism, especially as framed by the נדוי Rambam assimilates to the foreign idea of ONE UNIVERSAL GOD. This false avoda zara assimilation validates Jews davening inside Mosques! It declares the Aggada of mesechta Sanhedrin touching the 7 mitzvot applicable to gere toshav to all “bnai noach Goyim in all lands! Mesechta Avoda Zara and in many other places throughout Sha’s teach that only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the שם השם לשמה by definition בטול, limited and restricted to the status of a local tribal god and not the foreign align Universal ONE God theology of alien foreign religious belief systems.

            In like manner the mitzva of Moshiach not limited to some God/Man in the past as Xtian avoda zara attempts to dictate. Rather Torah common law stands upon the יסוד which requires בניני אבות-precedents. The NT worship of avoda zarah – other Gods – rejects the revelation of Oral Torah common law. It rejects Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach despite the Talmud reference to Pinchas as משיח מלחמה or the NaCH reference to king Cyrus as משיח.

            Goyim, by definition reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai\Horev, therefore Goyim worship other Gods. Impossible for Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah to thereafter dictate Torah mitzvot such as does the NT attempt with its false messiah paradigm and as does the Koran with its false definition of prophets sent to all Goyim paradigm. King Shlomo no different than his son at Sh’Cem. Just as Shlomo began his avoda zara “Civil War” curse imposed by the Natan curse following the David Bat Sheva injustice shown to her husband; Aaron dedicated by Moshe as Moshiach to sanctify through korbanot the dedication to rule the land of Canaan with judicial Sanhedrin common law justice. So too Rechavam ignored the elder advisors of king Shlomo just as young king Shlomo initiated building a Temple Cathedral avoda zara rather than establish the Federal Sanhedrin courts as the case of the two prostitutes proves.

          58. justrojie Avatar
            justrojie
            1. Do other gods “exist” in the Torah?
              Classical Judaism is very clear:

            The Torah prohibits worship of any other gods.

            Many authorities (including Rambam) hold those “gods” are not real beings at all, just false constructs.

            Others (like some earlier commentators) allow for the idea that people believed in spiritual forces, but still insist only one God is truly sovereign.

            So saying “the Torah does not invalidate the existence of other gods” is misleading. The consistent message is exclusive loyalty to one God, whether or not other “powers” are treated as illusions or subordinate creations.

            1. Mishkan vs. Temple vs. “cathedral” critique
              There is no traditional source that says Nathan the prophet forbade Temple-style construction because it resembled non-Israelite worship.
              In fact:

            The Temple in Jerusalem is commanded/legitimized within Tanakh.

            Its design is explicitly linked to the Mishkan.
            Calling it “cathedral-like avoda zara” goes against the plain text and rabbinic tradition.

            1. Golden Calf and theology
              The Golden Calf is understood as a grave sin, often interpreted as:

            idolatry, or

            an attempt to create a physical intermediary.

            But the idea that it represents a fully formed “substitute theology” that parallels later religions in the way you describe is not how classical sources frame it.

            1. “Torah only applies in the Land / exile = only teshuva”
              This is not correct in halakhah.
              While some mitzvot are land-dependent, the vast majority apply everywhere, and Jewish law was developed precisely for life in exile. There is no teaching that only repentance applies outside the land.

            2. Non-Jews and Torah
              Rabbinic Judaism does teach:

            Non-Jews are bound by the Seven Noahide Laws.

            These apply universally (Sanhedrin 56–60).

            The claim that these laws apply only in a narrow geographic or historical context is not standard.

            1. Rambam and monotheism
              Rambam is one of the strongest formulators of absolute monotheism in Judaism.
              Presenting his view as a deviation or as “foreign influence” is the opposite of how he is understood within the tradition. His view became foundational.

          59. Islam, Christianity, and “avoda zara”
            Classical sources debate details, but broadly:

            60. Christianity is often treated as problematic or idolatrous in traditional texts.

            Islam is generally regarded by major authorities (including Rambam) as strict monotheism, not idolatry.

            So the blanket statements here don’t reflect the nuance of the sources.

            1. Mashiach
              In Judaism:

            “Mashiach” literally means “anointed one” and can refer to different figures (kings, priests, even Cyrus in Isaiah).

            But there is still a defined concept of a future Davidic messianic king.
            Reducing it only to “legal precedent categories” is incomplete.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Many authorities (including Rambam) hold those “gods” are not real beings at all, just false constructs.]
    Rambam no a respected authority, in my bloated opinion. I am not saying he’s wrong on this score, only that he’s wrong on halacha and its implications across his Yad statute law codification!

    The RambaN for example addresses how polytheism developed. People began by venerating created forces (sun, moon, stars, natural powers) and great figures, then anthropomorphized and multiplied these into distinct gods; social, linguistic, and astrological misunderstandings reinforced the drift from monotheism into idolatry.

    He like all other g’lut Jews struggled with assimilation and intermarriage. The two T’NaCH\Talmudic main classifications of avoda zara. Hence the RambaN emphasizes psychological and cultural causes (fear, need for intermediaries, prestige of rulers/priests) and sees idolatry as a deviation from both the revelation of HaShem which both the bible and koran ignore and the 2nd commandments which stands upon the assumption that Goyim worship other Gods since they reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

    The prophet Shmuel rejected King Shaul as Moshiach over his failure to slaughter the people and cattle of Amalek. The prophet Natan cursed King David with eternal Civil War following his failure to sanctify the dedication of the Torah moshiach mitzva – rule the land with justice.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. Ramban (Nachmanides) on idolatry

    You’re right that Ramban gives a somewhat different emphasis:

    Ramban allows for the idea that God assigned heavenly forces or “sarim” (cosmic intermediaries) to the nations.

    Idolatry, in his view, can involve misdirected worship of real created forces, not just imaginary constructs.

    But a few clarifications:

    He still insists that worshipping anything other than God is absolutely forbidden.

    He does not frame idolatry primarily in terms of assimilation or intermarriage categories. Those are separate halakhic concerns.

    His focus is more theological and cosmological than sociological.

    So your general contrast (Rambam vs. Ramban) has a basis, but the way you frame Ramban is partly overstated and mixed with other ideas.

    1. “Goyim worship other gods because they reject Sinai”

    This is not how classical sources formulate it.

    Rabbinic Judaism does say Israel has a unique covenant at Sinai.

    But it does not reduce all non-Jewish religion to a single category of “rejecting Sinai → therefore idolatry.”

    In fact:

    The Talmud recognizes Noahide obligations for non-Jews.

    Major authorities (again, including Rambam) explicitly say Islam is not idolatry.

    So the blanket equation here isn’t accurate to the sources.

    1. Shmuel, Shaul, and Amalek

    This part needs correction:

    Saul is rejected (1 Samuel 15) because he failed to carry out a specific command regarding Amalek.

    The text criticizes:

    sparing King Agag

    keeping the best livestock

    But:

    It does not say he was rejected for failing to “slaughter the people and cattle” in a general sense or for failing a “messianic mitzvah of ruling with justice.”

    The issue is disobedience to a direct prophetic command, not a general theory of kingship.

    1. Natan and David

    Also overstated:

    Nathan rebukes David over Bat Sheva and Uriah (2 Samuel 12).

    The consequences include:

    turmoil in his household

    violence among his descendants

    But:

    The text does not frame this as an “eternal civil war curse” tied to failure to establish judicial rule of the land.

    It is a moral and personal failing, not a failure to implement a legal-political system.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Perhaps :))) Big Smile on my face! 70 faces to the Torah.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The switch from T’NaCH\Talmudic/Midrashic common law to assimilated Roman Statute Law during the Dark and Middle Ages of Goyim barbarism, anarchy and chaos – compares to the similar impact that the movable printing press likewise shapes and determines statute law religious off the דרך halacha to this very day. The Talmud refers this to a known ירידות הדורות-domino effect upon down-stream generations.

    My Kollel rav, rabbi Eliezer Wolfson from Jerusalem passed in 2025. He showed me a hand-written Baali Tosafot manuscript which differs from the printed Baali Tosofot commentary printed in the Vilna Shas. The latter writes מותר גניבת גוים whereas his hand written manuscript מותר גבינת גוים. The shift from discussing theft to cheese has important halachic implications, affecting the permissibility of various foods depending on their origin and preparation methods. In the 8th פרק daf 116b–117a of mesechta Chulllen, the Rif poskined that once a ruminant consumed something, it became פרשא בעלמא. Rashi disputed with the Rif ruling. But based upon the בכתב יד of rabbi Eliezer Wolfson, the Baali Tosafot supported the ruling of the Rif.

    Israeli dairy rations – built around availability, not ideal nutrition. Corn in general – nutritionally smoother, but not economically dominant. Corn – imported and expensive. The “switch” before Pesach — from a wheat‑based diet to a corn‑based diet — the former – a mixed ration that includes some wheat by‑products to a ration. While the latter attempts to eliminate all possible chametz sources. Israel’s dairy industry relies heavily on: wheat silage, wheat bran, gluten feed, local by‑products (citrus pulp, brewers’ grains, etc.), and imported corn grain and corn silage.

    Wheat silage involves moisture required to achieve fermentation. The most desirable fermentation occurs when silage has a moisture level of 55 to 70 percent, with 60 to 65 percent considered optimum. If silage – ensiled at lower than recommended moisture levels, it may undergo incomplete fermentation or be subject to heat damage and protein breakdown.

    The Israeli milk industry does not use corn all year due to its higher expense. Many European countries rely on imported GMO feed for livestock, including from the U.S., because non-GMO alternatives are often more expensive or unavailable at scale. If Israeli dairies fed a Pesach‑style ration all year, milk prices would rise significantly. The Pesach ration, a temporary, more expensive, less efficient formulation used only because halacha requires it.

    Corn starch ferments more slowly, which is good for rumen stability, but wheat by‑products add fiber, protein, and digestible energy at low cost. Israeli cows are fed TMR (total mixed ration) designed to balance rumen pH, so the risks of wheat are managed. The Pesach ration is a halachic workaround, not a nutritional upgrade. The industry would never choose the Pesach ration year‑round because it costs more, depends on imported ingredients, reduces flexibility in ration formulation, and removes valuable, cheap, local feed sources. Hence the Pesach ration – less economical, not more. Corn is used before Pesach because its non-chametz and safe from a kashrut standpoint. But nutritionally and economically, the normal mixed ration (with some wheat by‑products) is better for the rest of the year.

    The Israeli dairy industry does not switch feed because of the Rif–Rashi debate at all – even if the Rif + Tosafot would permit digested chametz. The issue ““Does digestion turn chametz into פרשא בעלמא?” not the reason for the rabbinic requirement to switch to corn prior to Pesach. Rather – a Jew may not own chametz during Pesach. Despite chametz eaten by a cow becomes halachically irrelevant, and even if the milk is unquestionably permitted … the feed itself remains chametz. And Israeli dairy farms — almost all of which are Jewish‑owned — cannot legally or halachically own chametz on Pesach. The mashbirim (feed suppliers) cannot produce chametz feed for Jewish farms during Pesach. Chag Pesach directly impacts the entire supply chain. Nontheless, if the Baalei Tosafot indeed support the Rif’s principle that digestion nullifies the issur, then milk from cows fed chametz would be halachically permitted, cheese made from such milk would be permitted, the entire gevinat akum discussion shifts, and many modern kashrut stringencies become unnecessary.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. Rif vs. Rashi – digestion as “פרשא בעלמא”

    There is a real discussion in halacha about:

    Whether something fully digested becomes halachically insignificant (“like waste”).

    But:

    This is not a central dispute used to permit chametz-fed animals’ products on Pesach in practice.

    Mainstream halacha does not rely on this to permit owning chametz feed.

    1. Israeli dairy industry and Pesach feed

    This section is actually mostly accurate in practical terms:

    Israeli (and other Jewish-owned) farms avoid chametz feed on Pesach.

    The reason is:

    prohibition of owning chametz (bal yera’eh / bal yimatzeh),

    not primarily concerns about the milk itself.

    Switching feed is:

    more expensive,

    logistically difficult,

    done for halachic compliance, not nutrition.

    That part aligns with how kashrut agencies explain it.

    1. “If digestion nullifies, everything becomes permitted”

    This is where the argument overreaches.

    Even if:

    digestion reduces the halachic status of what the animal ate,

    it does not follow that:

    all downstream products become unrestricted, or

    longstanding rabbinic decrees (like gevinat akum) fall away.

    Why?

    Many halachot are based on rabbinic enactments (gezeirot), not just physical transformation.

    Halacha does not collapse into a single principle like “digestion cancels everything.”

    1. Broader theological claims (about non-Jews, Islam, etc.)

    These are not aligned with mainstream Jewish sources, as noted earlier:

    Judaism does not permit theft from non-Jews.

    Islam is generally treated as non-idolatrous monotheism by major authorities.

    The framing of halacha as restricted to a political sovereignty model is not normative.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Fear of the Lord fails to communicate יראת שמים why? Torah common law not read by stands upon making comparative precedents, Fear of Heaven totally confuses the revelation at Sinai with how early prophets as found in the Book of בראשית understood the Creator as told in the opening creation aggadic story. Abraham did not know the revelation of Sinai Divine Name! So what distinguishes the Divine Names אל שדי אלהים אל ect from the first Sinai commandment Divine Name? This question a person who develops יראת שמים immediately asks.

    The pre-Sinai prophetic revelation understood that HaShem fills the Heavens and the Earth. Whereas the mystic concept Shekinah stands upon the vision that the post Sinai Divine Presence lives only within the Yatzir HaTov hearts of the bnai brit Cohen people. Herein the k’vanna of בכל לבבך\כם intent as learned by rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of tefillah דאורייתא, and also by תורה לא בשמים היא in the Talmud.

    The 2nd Sinai commandment does not say do not worship “idols”. Translations suck. Never such a thing as virgin birth in the T’NaCH and specifically not in the Prophetic Book of Isaiah. Errors shape and define theologies. Both Martin Luther’s Protestant and John Calvin’s impact upon the theology developed by Zwingli of Zurich down the road — kicked the can of theology to support by a vast majority of its members in German the Nazi war to exterminate the Jews.

    The 2nd Sinai commandment does not say do not worship “idols”. Never such a thing as virgin birth in the T’NaCH and specifically not in the Prophetic Book of Isaiah. Errors shape and define theologies. Both Martin Luther’s Protestant and John Calvin’s impact upon the theology developed by Zwingli of Zurich down the road — kicked the can of theology to support by a vast majority of its members in German the Nazi war to exterminate the Jews. Where was JeZeus during the Shoah; “by their fruits you shall know them”.

    The translation “You shall not make for yourself a graven image”, false. אלהים אחרים does not mean “other gods”. Just as Isaiah 7:14 “the virgin shall conceive” does not mean “almah” – which refers to a young girl, aged between 12 to 12.5 years of age – also called נערה.

    The Hebrew “אלהים אחרים” does not base itself upon עצב/pesel – idol, but remembers the Gods of Egypt and the future invasion of Canaan wherein the Gods of Canaan would fall under the God of Israel curse. Goyim never stood and Sinai nor ever accepted this tribal god. Neither the NT nor Koran ever once brings the revelation of the 1st Commandment Divine Name. Clearly JeZeus did not know this because the revelation of the first Commandment of Sinai – this Divine Name – a Spirit and not a word – lives within the heart, based upon the Mishkan model. Confusing a glorified tent and a gold covered Ark for the “Shekinah” -Divine Presence spirit as false as confusing moms apple pie with vinegar.

    Chag Pesach approaches. Consider a real Jewish example – fully understand that Goyim not Jewish and that the Apostle Paul’s idea of grafting false, based upon your complete and total ignorance of the T’NaCH. Shall introduce two separate lines of rational reasoning:

    ONE

    The switch from T’NaCH\Talmudic/Midrashic common law to assimilated Roman Statute Law during the Dark and Middle Ages of Goyim barbarism, anarchy and chaos – compares to the similar impact that the movable printing press likewise shapes and determines statute law religious off the דרך halacha to this very day. The Talmud refers this to a known ירידות הדורות-domino effect upon down-stream generations.

    My Kollel rav, rabbi Eliezer Wolfson from Jerusalem passed in 2025. He showed me a hand-written Baali Tosafot manuscript which differs from the printed Baali Tosofot commentary printed in the Vilna Shas. The latter writes מותר גניבת גוים whereas his hand written manuscript מותר גבינת גוים. The shift from discussing theft to cheese has important halachic implications, affecting the permissibility of various foods depending on their origin and preparation methods. In the 8th פרק daf 116b–117a of mesechta Chulllen, the Rif poskined that once a ruminant consumed something, it became פרשא בעלמא. Rashi disputed with the Rif ruling. But based upon the בכתב יד of rabbi Eliezer Wolfson, the Baali Tosafot supported the ruling of the Rif.

    Israeli dairy rations – built around availability, not ideal nutrition. Corn in general – nutritionally smoother, but not economically dominant. Corn – imported and expensive. The “switch” before Pesach — from a wheat‑based diet to a corn‑based diet — the former – a mixed ration that includes some wheat by‑products to a ration. While the latter attempts to eliminate all possible chametz sources. Israel’s dairy industry relies heavily on: wheat silage, wheat bran, gluten feed, local by‑products (citrus pulp, brewers’ grains, etc.), and imported corn grain and corn silage.

    Wheat silage involves moisture required to achieve fermentation. The most desirable fermentation occurs when silage has a moisture level of 55 to 70 percent, with 60 to 65 percent considered optimum. If silage – ensiled at lower than recommended moisture levels, it may undergo incomplete fermentation or be subject to heat damage and protein breakdown.

    The Israeli milk industry does not use corn all year due to its higher expense. Many European countries rely on imported GMO feed for livestock, including from the U.S., because non-GMO alternatives are often more expensive or unavailable at scale. If Israeli dairies fed a Pesach‑style ration all year, milk prices would rise significantly. The Pesach ration, a temporary, more expensive, less efficient formulation used only because halacha requires it.

    Corn starch ferments more slowly, which is good for rumen stability, but wheat by‑products add fiber, protein, and digestible energy at low cost. Israeli cows are fed TMR (total mixed ration) designed to balance rumen pH, so the risks of wheat are managed. The Pesach ration is a halachic workaround, not a nutritional upgrade. The industry would never choose the Pesach ration year‑round because it costs more, depends on imported ingredients, reduces flexibility in ration formulation, and removes valuable, cheap, local feed sources. Hence the Pesach ration – less economical, not more. Corn is used before Pesach because its non-chametz and safe from a kashrut standpoint. But nutritionally and economically, the normal mixed ration (with some wheat by‑products) is better for the rest of the year.

    The Israeli dairy industry does not switch feed because of the Rif–Rashi debate at all – even if the Rif + Tosafot would permit digested chametz. The issue ““Does digestion turn chametz into פרשא בעלמא?” not the reason for the rabbinic requirement to switch to corn prior to Pesach. Rather – a Jew may not own chametz during Pesach. Despite chametz eaten by a cow becomes halachically irrelevant, and even if the milk is unquestionably permitted … the feed itself remains chametz. And Israeli dairy farms — almost all of which are Jewish‑owned — cannot legally or halachically own chametz on Pesach. The mashbirim (feed suppliers) cannot produce chametz feed for Jewish farms during Pesach. Chag Pesach directly impacts the entire supply chain. Nontheless, if the Baalei Tosafot indeed support the Rif’s principle that digestion nullifies the issur, then milk from cows fed chametz would be halachically permitted, cheese made from such milk would be permitted, the entire gevinat akum discussion shifts, and many modern kashrut stringencies become unnecessary.

    Two

    Fundamental distinctions which radically change the intent and interpretation of Torah as a political foundation/Constitution vs the religions established through Biblical and Koran counterfeits. Goyim never accept to this day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They do not thereafter dictate any Torah commandment. Not Moshiach nor who or what qualifies as a prophet. Daniel a mystic not a prophet. Oral Torah by definition interprets the k’vanna of wisdom commandments\time-oriented mitzvot.

    Jewish Halacha despite Middle Ages assimilation to Greek logic philosophies – which in effect negated the Chanukkah lights – halacha contained within the Gemara “commentary” to a specific Mishna – serves as courtroom witnesses who testify based upon observance of the Mishnaic case viewed from different perspectives. Halacha after the Roman exile of Jews from Judea “converted” into religious law – with rabbinic decisors (geonim, rishonim, acharonim) who fill the function of spiritual-legal guides whose rulings regulated communal religious existence in cursed g’lut. Halacha of this much later statute law assimilated codes, copied Roman law, much like the bible influenced by the printing press.

    Despite these codes, imposed by decisor “authorities” such as Rambam or Karo, halacha simply not religious law. But remains precedents by which witnesses testify a Case heard before a Sanhedrin common law courtroom, viewed from different perspectives. A living human being shares no comparison to a mirror reflection or photograph of that person stored in a vault for hundreds of years. Still another example: The Cathedral copy-cat Temple built by king Shlomo merely a “photograph” of the Torah commandment צדק צדק תרדוף – which serves as the foundation of judicial common law courtrooms mandated by the Torah written Constitution. As determined by a Torah precedent: Moshe’s establishment of 3 Cities of Refuge with their small Sanhedrin courts.

    If you take the time to learn the Hebrew T’NaCH you will see the day vs night difference between the Hebrew T’NaCH which the Xtian bible has replaced. For example: how a person organizes ideas changes what that person understands. Take the “Order” of – GOD vs dog. The Xtian bible translations did just that with their institution of Chapter & Verse organization which replaced the Hebrew sugya/sub-chapter Order. Something akin to Grover Cleveland’s decision to abandon all original US President advice from Washington – Madison – father of the US Constitution – inclusive of Andrew Jacksons’ free banking rejection of European Central Banking.

    Yes, today even the Hebrew T’NaCH also modified through printers – to include Xtian chapter and verses! But within the Torah scrolls & Hebrew T’NaCH, remain odd gap/spaces scattered throughout all that literature. Starting with the 5 Books of the Torah scrolls read on shabbat and organized around an internal פ & ס. These two Hebrew letters refer to “sugyah” – sub-chapter and “Parech” – chapter. The printed Hebrew T’NaCH – originally likewise organized in hand written manuscripts prior to the printing press movable type 1455 invention – employ easily observable gaps which separate one sub-chapter from another. The printing press invention directly impacted the 1611 KJB together with the Catholic Bibles. Just as did the chapter system, developed early in the 13th century by Archbishop Stephen Langton 1205-1227. The verse system introduced in the 16th century – Santes Pagnino produced a versed Latin Bible in 1551.

    The Catholic bibles based upon Latin translations. They include deuterocanonical books whom Ezra and other post destruction of the 2nd Temple, Tannaim Era survivors excluded from the Hebrew T’NaCH literature. King Cyrus of Persia, whom the prophetic Book Isaiah refers to as “moshiach”, permitted Jews to return back to Judea after our 70 year Babylonian exile ordeal. The Catholic/Protestant 30 Years War terminated in 1648. Martin Luther moved the Catholic deuterocanonical books to an “Apocrypha” section in his 1534 German bible.

    William Tyndale executed in 1536. Convicted of Lutheran heresy—mainly for his Protestant theological writings (e.g., justification by faith, denial of transubstantiation) and related polemics; his English Bible translation viewed as a direct challenge Lutheran Church authority. Strangled at the stake, then his body was burned. The Lutheran church sided with Hitlers’ Nazism. Nonetheless his translations omitted some deuterocanonical books prior to his betrayal and State murder. John Calvin treated them as separate and apart from “Scripture”. The 1611 King James Bible reflects that Protestant tradition and relied heavily on Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible.

    A substantial portion of German society—including many Protestants and Catholics—backed or accommodated the Nazi regime, especially in the 1930s, motivated by nationalism, anti‑communism, fear, and the regime’s social/order promises. Major church bodies made compromises (e.g., the Protestant Reich Church movement, concordats and local accommodations by Catholic bishops). Anti‑Jewish violence did not end in 1945—notable examples like the 1946 Kielce pogrom in Poland show continued lethal antisemitism and communal breakdown after the war. Moral accountability for mass support remains a valid and widely held judgment against all biblical translations, based upon the language of the gospels themselves: “by their fruits you shall know them”. Where was Jesus during Xtian war crimes throughout history from the Crusades to the blood libels to pogroms to mass expulsions to ghetto gulags etc?

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “Fear of the Lord” vs. יראת שמים

    It’s reasonable to say “fear” is an imperfect translation.

    In Jewish thought, yirat shamayim includes awe, reverence, and moral awareness, not just פחד.

    But:

    Claiming the translation “totally confuses Sinai vs. Genesis theology” is an overreach.

    Classical sources (Rashi, Rambam, etc.) do not build that distinction the way you describe.

    1. Divine Names (אל שדי, אלהים, etc.)

    It’s true that different names of God reflect different aspects (justice, mercy, covenant, etc.).

    It’s also true the full revelation of the Divine Name is emphasized at Sinai (Exodus 6:2–3).

    But:

    The idea that pre-Sinai figures had a completely different theology or that the Name becomes a “spirit only in the heart of a specific group” is not standard Jewish teaching.

    1. Shechinah “only in the hearts of Israel”

    Not accurate.

    Classical sources say the Shechinah dwells among Israel, in the Mishkan/Temple, and even in exile.

    But not exclusively inside individuals’ hearts in the restrictive sense you describe.

    1. Second Commandment / “idols” / אלהים אחרים

    This section is largely incorrect:

    The Torah explicitly prohibits both:

    other gods (אלהים אחרים)

    graven images (פסל / תמונה)

    Standard translations like “idols” and “graven images” are legitimate.

    1. Isaiah 7:14 (“almah”)

    You are correct that “almah” means “young woman,” not necessarily “virgin.”

    That point is widely accepted in Jewish scholarship.

    But:

    Extending that into a sweeping claim about all translation theology is overgeneralized.

    1. Claims about Christianity, Islam, and history

    These parts are not accurate and often polemical:

    Mainstream Judaism does not frame all non-Jews as simply rejecting Sinai and therefore invalid.

    Statements like:

    “Where was Jesus during the Shoah”

    “translations caused Nazism”

    are theological opinions, not historical or scholarly conclusions.

    History is far more complex:

    Some Christians supported Nazism, others actively resisted and saved Jews.

    Antisemitism has multiple causes, not reducible to Bible translation.

    1. Halacha as “common law vs. Roman statute law”

    Halacha does involve case-based reasoning, similar in some ways to common law.

    But:

    ❌ There was no historical “conversion” into Roman statute law
    ❌ Rambam and Shulchan Aruch are not foreign impositions

    They are core parts of Jewish legal tradition.

    1. Printing press and chapter/verse

    Mostly correct with caveats:

    Chapter divisions came from Christian scholars (Stephen Langton).

    Verse numbering developed later.

    Jewish texts originally used parashot (פתוחות/סתומות).

    But:

    This did not fundamentally distort Torah meaning the way you claim.

    Jewish learning still follows traditional structures (parashah, sugya, etc.).

    1. Tosafot manuscript claim (גניבת גוים vs גבינת גוים)

    As mentioned earlier:

    This is a very serious and highly doubtful claim.

    Judaism does not permit theft from non-Jews.

    “גבינת גוים” (non-Jewish cheese) is a real topic; “permitted theft” is not.

    Without strong academic evidence, this should be treated as unreliable.

    1. Israeli dairy / Pesach

    This part is mostly accurate:

    Feed changes are due to chametz ownership laws

    It’s more expensive and less efficient

    But:

    It has nothing to do with Rif vs. Rashi debates in practice.

    1. Overall framework

    The biggest issue isn’t one detail—it’s the system as a whole:

    It redefines:

    Torah as a political constitution only

    Halacha as courtroom testimony only

    God as a localized “Sinai-only” presence

    These are not how Tanakh, Talmud, or mainstream Jewish tradition understand them.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The vast majority of religious Jews would most emphatically agree with you concerning Rambam and Karo etc. I represent a secular Jewish opposition to Orthodox Judaism. :)))

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    what kinda secular jewish opposition??

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Achad Ha’Am’s cultural zionism understood that its impossible to establish a Jewish state without Jewish cultural traditions shaping this civilization.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    He argued it was insufficient, not impossible, and potentially dangerous to establish a state without cultural groundwork.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    I start with his basic argument and have further enhanced it. My writings would place me in his camp of Cultural Zionism.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    why enhance?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Because pre Jewish state and post Shoah Jewish state two radically different world views. Pre Jewish state Jews lived as a stateless refugee people for 2000 years since the Romans obliterated the Jewish 2nd Republic. Post Shoah Jews stand and declare “NEVER AGAIN” shall Goyim, not European, Arabs, or Muslims – dictate “their” Jewish Problem and impose “their” Final Solution(s).

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    hm interesting. i’m learning quite a bit.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Me too, you raise excellent points.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Planting the mussar seeds of justice within the hearts of the Jewish people as Chag Pesach approaches.

    The traditional vertical court system fails to deliver true justice and equality, whereas the T’NaCH and Talmud present a transformative vision through horizontal courts that empower justices to collaborate in decision-making. The standard model of judicial systems worldwide, including Israel, operates on a vertical framework where individuals face the State, and the government funds the salaries of judges and prosecutors.

    In contrast, the T’NaCH and Talmud propose a different vision of courtroom justice. My scholarship emphasizes the establishment of a court of three Torts Justices, specifically designed to address cases of physical damages. This model represents a radical shift from vertical British Star-courts to horizontal courts, akin to the American Revolution’s establishment of the jury system.

    I have served as a judge on a 23-member Sanhedrin Capital Crimes exile court and later on the Great Court in Jerusalem, consisting of 71 justices for Final Appeals. Unfortunately, many of my rabbinic peers concentrated their legal education on statute-law and religious halachic ritual codifications developed during the dark days of Jewish exile in Europe and Arab lands, a period characterized by political chaos and called the ‘Dark Ages.’ The post-Shoah modern Jewish state bears little resemblance to those long-suffering societies that lived as stateless refugees, deprived of essential social and political rights.

    The Talmud vision to serve as the model of common law courts when the Jews reconquered our homelands away from any Goyim attempts to dictate terms. The Talmud bases its vision of common law courts upon the earlier T’NaCH common law prophetic commands of mussar. Prophets commanded mussar to kings, fully aware that mussar a person cannot command. Not to kings nor to all generations living thereafter. Mussar, as a rebuke, compares to a seed that sprouts and grows from within the hearts and not from words which denounce wrongs made by people long since dead. The vision of prophetic mussar – plays a long game.

    Confronted with defeat, I failed to convince or sway a majority of my judicial peers that the Torah Constitution mandates common law courts; wherein one justice, in the 3 man most simple Torts example, appointed as the prosecution – opposed by a second justice who argues the defense. Both required to write a brief of precedent cases, wherein that judge attempts to sway or persuade his opposing other – court justice judge – that the case-precedents contained in his “brief”, more closely resemble the case currently heard before the court. And visa-versa, the same equally applies with the judicial opposing Case/precedent brief. Only in a situation where both of these opposing justices, that they failed to persuade their opposing “other” – of the merits of their precedents – only in this dead-lock would the 3rd court Judge rule one way or the other.

    The specific case where Rav Shwartz argued that the Sanhedrin should judge a judicial dispute of damages which occurred in the jurisdiction of American courts. I failed to convince Rav Shwartz that mesechta Sanhedrin Aggadita which refers to bnai noach goyim only referred to gere toshav persons living within the borders of Judea. Rav Shwartz relied upon the ruling of the Rambam. I failed to convince a majority of my Sanhedrin peers that statute law not the same as common law. An absolute disgrace for the post Shoah Sanhedrin courts to base our legal system upon Roman statute law legal systems – on par with the NT wolf dressed in wool metaphor.

    Rav Shwartz focused upon the tactics of the case at hand and failed to perceive the strategic ‘Big Picture’.
    Lateral common law court justices do not receive any salary from State authorities or figures. Just as kashrut police should not receive a salary from the stores they police for kashrut. A lateral common law court – similar to Israeli health insurance – court justices paid a salary from legal insurance till the people who make a damage claim dispute require a courtroom hearing. One against another wherein the guilty agrees to pay a portion of court costs – the time required for the court to resolve their damage dispute; restore trust by awarding fair compensation of damages inflicted upon the injured party.

    The T’NaCH prophets vision of common law expressed through the precise medium of mussar. If compared to the metaphor of a Loom prophetic mussar contrasts with Talmudic common law “threads” which make the warp/weft woven fabric of Talmudic common law. Mishnaic common law, expressed through prior Case/Rule judicial ruling precedents. The Gemara – both within the Yerushalmi and later Bavli – employs halachot as judicial precedents. Meaning, these judicial halachic precedents משל instruct the נמשל of witnesses testifying what they personally saw in a case heard before a Sanhedrin court. Just as the ‘Front/Top\Side views of a blueprint present different picture images, so too the perspectives seen by different eye-witnesses before the court.

    The statute law codification of religious ritual observance made during the Dark Ages of Jewish exile no more apply to a Sanhedrin court in post Shoah Israel than the Sanhedrin court has a judicial mandate to judge Goyim disputes in foreign lands abroad! The jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin בטול to within the borders of Israel just as the first Commandment Sinai Name בטול to the Divine Names in the first Book of בראשית wherein the Avot witnessed the vision of God in the Heavens above and the Earth below. Whereas the Sinai revelation makes, so to speak the Ari’s mysticism – Tzimtzum; תורה לא בשמים היא. Meaning the Spirit of the 1st Commandment Name – post the Yom Kippur revelation of the 13 tohor spirits/Oral Torah – that this שם השם לשמה Spirit dwells only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

    What conditions must exist for this בטול of אל שדי in the Heavens above to השם restricted to the Yatzir Ha-Tov tohor middot within the Cohen peoples’ hearts? Only to the living and not the dead. Jews tuck their tzitzits into their pockets with visiting a grave. Mitzvot לשמה only apply with living Jews within the borders of ארץ ישראל. Jews living in foreign lands – remain in Egypt. Slaves no more free than Judea ruled by Roman appointed kings or governors.

    Consequently the spirits of the 13 tohor middot which Moshe Rabbeinu heard on Yom Kippur – where HaShem made “t’shuva” and remembered that only the Avot would father the chosen Cohen seed, not Moshe, nor JeZeus, nor Muhammad. Claims of ‘Son of God’ compare to Ishmael bound upon the altar by Avraham! All substitute theological belief systems, such as the Tawhid or Trinity – equal to and no different from Goyim who style themselves as being “bnai Noach” while living in Goyim countries abroad. The revelation of the 1st Commandment שם השם לשמה made only to the 12 Tribes of Israel who came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan. Hence rabbi Akiva argues that the Wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come. World to come learns from the brit cut between the pieces wherein Avram asked what could אל שדי give his seeing he had no seed? That oath brit cut there, stands upon the oath that the Avot, starting with Avram, would father the chosen Cohen people — in the future עולם הבא.

    The din of כרת, this Torah curse – the opposite of the ברכה known as ger tzeddik. Just as the latter a new creation so too the former. Hence the court has the mussar mandate of נידוי. For example: if a man profanes his קידושין oath, and refuses to return Title to the acquire נפש עולם הבא soul of his wife, the court can impose the din of כרת, based upon the precedent of the Wilderness generation who refused to rise up and conquer the land of Canaan. The נידוי din imposed upon the Wilderness generation, does it not likewise explain the din of the Shoah upon European Jewry.

    This type of lateral court the vision of both the T’NaCH and Talmud, excludes by definition the T’zeddukim or the alien Goyim – imported by the Assyrian king who conquered the kingdom of the 10 Tribe republic of Israel, whose decree imposed a mass population transfer of the tribal kingdom of Israel. Who replaced a foreign peoples, from other nations – equally conquered by that same evil empire. This specific alien people who embraced the Torah, due to their great dread: “fear of lions”, planted by the Assyrian king in Shimron – historically the lands of Samaria; the NT Greek work refers to these despise foreign imported aliens – as Samaritans – whom the Jews greatly despised. Ezra’s generation (Ezra 4:1-3) rejected the “assistance” of the Shimronim to build the 2nd Temple.

    Isaiah, a great prophet of the kingdom of Yechuda, referred to king Cyrus as “moshiach’. He permitted Yechudim exiles to return and rebuild our nation. But the great king, while he paid from his own national treasury the expense to build Ezra’s Temple, that king rule an empire of 127 conquered collapsed nation states like the examples of both conquered kingdoms of Yechuda and Israel. Yechuda, the name of the 4 son of Yaacov, king Cyrus labelled Yechudim as “Jews”. That name, has stuck to this very day in time.

    The Book of Esther, set during the reign of King Ahasuerus, often identified with Xerxes I of Persia; about 2 generations prior to king Cyrus who permitted Jews to return from conquered Babylonian exile. The Persian empire conquered the defunct Babylonian empire – occupied the current State of Iraq today.

    The Gemara – a commentary on the Mishnah. A compilation of Jewish oral laws codified by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, rather than a direct commentary on rulings of the Great Sanhedrin. While the title of ‘Great Sanhedrin’ the Romans technically maintained/permitted. That “court” compares to the ‘Great Sanhedrin’ established by Napoleon! That Gemara commentary written in Iraq, supplemented an earlier attempt to do the same thing within the borders of Judea itself. But the Yerushalmi attempt collapsed about 90 years after rabbi Yechuda made his first formal codification of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings, established prior to the Romans imposing first king Herod and later Roman governors to ruled that tiny land – which the Romans renamed as Palestine.

    This latter name, the League of Nations referred to in their 1922 Palestine Mandate, which authorized Britain to restore a Jewish national home in “Palestine”, based upon the 1917 Balfour Agreement and the policy of the Great King Cyrus of the extinct Persian empire destroyed by Alexander the Great. All Arab and Muslim conquered provinces, ruled by Britain and other European great powers, who later attained their own national independence, condemned both the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate which directed England to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

    All Arab Israeli wars fought starting with the 1948 Independence War, Arab and Muslim warring states fundamentally reject that dhimmi Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. Arabs argued that once lands conquered by Arabs, that those lands could not change their status. Since the Camp David Accords and later Abraham Accords more and more Arab and Muslim countries have started to recognize Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.

    Since the 1948 War of National Independence, foreign state imperialism has attempted through UN Resolutions to determine the borders of the Jewish state. But Israel, once it won its national Independence ceased to exist as a ward of the UN protectorate mantle. Post ’67 UN “Star Courts” have attempted to treat Israel as a protectorate of the UN. Such Top-down decrees, serve only foreign attempts by countries like England and France to restore their deposed ‘Great Power’ status across the Middle East. Especially after Eisenhower & Stalin forced London and Paris to withdraw their attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal. Post ’67 with LBJ tied down in the Vietnam War, Britain and France attempted to restore their dominance in the balance of power in the Middle East by introducing UN Resolution 242.

    Great Power interference through the UN Security Council, indicates a collective ‘Great Power’ effort to address ME conflicts … to dominate the balance of power in the ME. The UN 242 language “the right of all states to live in peace”, implies Palestine as a State! Later UN Resolutions of condemnations over settlements and occupation proves conclusively the hostile intent of ‘Great Powers’ to dominate the balance of Power in the Middle East. Absolutely no different than from the attempt in 1956 to seize the Suez Canal. These so-called defrocked great powers – they do not determine the borders of the Jewish state nor the Capital of the Jewish state anymore than Britain and France determine the borders of the US or Russia or the respective Capital cities of those Independent Nation states.

    Post the Oct7th Abomination War, UN Top-down justice attempted to declare a unilateral decree which condemned Jerusalem guilty for the war-crime of genocide. The ICJ and ICC, the later Israel never validated the Rome agreement, likewise condemned the Israeli PM as a war-criminal. Despite the failure of the International Red Cross to visit Israeli hostages held in Hamas dungeons and UNRWA’s participation in the Oct 7th massacre.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “Horizontal vs. vertical courts”

    This distinction isn’t how Tanakh or Talmud describe courts.
    Classical Jewish law (halacha) already has structured courts:
    Beit din of 3 for monetary cases
    23 judges for capital cases
    71 (Sanhedrin) for national matters
    These are neither “modern state courts” nor your proposed model. They’re their own system with defined procedures.
    There’s no source describing judges acting as “prosecutor vs defense vs tie-breaker” in the way you outline.

    1. “Common law vs statute law” applied to Talmud

    The Talmud is not “common law” in the American sense, nor is Rambam simply “statute law.”
    Halacha includes:
    case analysis (like precedent)
    principles and categories
    later codification (Rif, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch)
    Rambam’s code is widely accepted as a valid and foundational halachic work, even by those who also value the sugya-based method.

    1. Claims about Rambam

    Saying Rambam imported foreign theology or “perverted” Torah is far outside normative Jewish discourse.
    He’s one of the most authoritative figures in Jewish law and philosophy. Disagreements exist, but not in the sweeping way presented here.

    1. Mussar as “court structure”

    Mussar in Tanakh refers to ethical rebuke and moral development, not a legal system design.
    Prophets rebuked kings, but that’s not the same as establishing a judicial model like the one described.

    1. Personal claims (serving on a Sanhedrin, etc.)

    There is no widely recognized, authoritative Sanhedrin today with the structure described.
    Claims like serving on a 71-member Great Sanhedrin court in Jerusalem are not verifiable within mainstream Jewish institutions.

    1. Jurisdiction and halacha

    The idea that halacha only applies inside Israel or only to certain groups in the way described is not standard.
    Jewish law has always functioned both in Israel and in the diaspora, with different applications but not the total dismissal suggested here.

    1. Historical and textual claims

    Some details are partially נכון (like differences between Mishnah and Gemara, or court sizes),
    but they’re woven into conclusions that don’t follow from the sources.
    Other statements are inaccurate or oversimplified (for example, about Esther and Cyrus timing, or how courts functioned).

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The Talmud describes the Sanhedrin in a semi-circle formation physically. But its the pairs the Nassi vs the Av Beit Din which defines the Case/Din common law system of the Mishnaic rulings.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “Pairs of Nasi vs Av Beit Din define the system”

    This is not how the Talmud describes the court’s function.
    The Nasi (president) and Av Beit Din (chief justice) were important leadership roles, but:
    They were not opposing sides (like prosecution vs defense).
    They did not structure the court as a two-sided system.
    Cases were decided by the entire panel of judges, through discussion and majority vote.

    1. How decisions actually worked

    Judges would:
    Hear testimony
    Deliberate together
    Each express an opinion
    In capital cases especially:
    Voting followed specific procedures (e.g., starting from the junior judges)
    The system is collective and deliberative, not adversarial in the modern sense.

    1. “Common law system” framing

    Calling it “common law” is misleading.
    While the Talmud uses reasoning and precedent-like discussion, it’s not organized like:
    Anglo-American common law
    nor a system built on opposing legal briefs between judges

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The Parliament of England as a split between the Liberal and Conservatives. Beit Hillel vs Beit Shammai a similar split. Obviously the British Parliament does not compare to the strict/lax split which divides the sh’itta of Hillel from the sh’itta of Shammai. The metaphor of Defense vs Prosecutor more closely reflects the style stamped upon the Gemara style of Difficulty/Answer.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Talmudic common law came long before the British common law court system a development some 1600 years later.

    Normative discourse. Rambam was 800 years past. His opinions addressed a g’lut community not a Jewish Independent state. Rambam fled from Spain to Egypt due to the ultimatum – convert to Islam or die.

    Has not ever been a Independent Jewish state since the Romans destroyed the Hashmonaim kingdom till 1948.

    Stand corrected. Esther – known as a Jewish queen of Persia and the wife of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). Cyrus the Great, on the other hand, was the founder of the Persian Empire and lived before Esther’s time.

    Thank you :)))

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “Talmudic common law came long before British common law”

    Chronology: basically correct.
    The Mishnah (c. 200 CE) and Talmud (c. 500 CE) predate the development of English common law (starting ~11th–12th century).
    But: calling the Talmud “common law” is not precise.
    There are similarities (case analysis, reasoning),
    but it’s a distinct legal system, not an early version of British common law.

    1. Rambam and exile (g’lut)

    True: Rambam lived in exile and wrote for Jewish communities under non-Jewish rule.
    Also true: he fled persecution and eventually settled in Egypt.
    But:
    His works are not limited to exile conditions; he explicitly writes laws for:
    a restored Sanhedrin
    a Temple
    a Jewish state (e.g., Hilchot Melachim)
    So saying his opinions only address exile is incomplete.

    1. “Convert to Islam or die” (Rambam’s flight)

    Partly true but simplified.
    The Almohad regime in Spain/North Africa did impose harsh pressure, including forced conversion.
    Rambam’s family fled that environment.
    But the exact framing of a single direct ultimatum is more complex historically.

    1. “No independent Jewish state from Romans until 1948”

    Mostly correct in broad terms, but not perfectly precise.
    After the Roman destruction (70 CE) and especially after Bar Kokhba (135 CE), Jewish sovereignty ended.
    There was no sustained independent Jewish state until 1948.
    Minor caveat:
    The Hasmonean kingdom actually predates Roman destruction and ended earlier (63 BCE under Roman influence).
    So your timeline is basically right, but compressed.

    1. Esther vs Cyrus

    Correct.
    Cyrus the Great (6th century BCE) came before Esther.
    Esther’s story is typically placed during the reign of Ahasuerus (often identified with Xerxes I, 5th century BCE).
    Your correction here is solid.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    משנה תורה means common law. Assimilated Rambam did not know the basics. בנין אב means precedent – a key middah of the Tanna rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta of learning Mishnaic common law. The style of the Mishna – Case Rule. Hence to study the Mishna require that the reader asks: What’s the Case. The Mishna often employs two or more Cases in a specific Mishna, by which it differentiates between the 2 Cases with two separate Din rulings.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    what’s the best permanent hair dye for dark brown hair, that will cause the least damage

    If you’ve got dark brown hair and want a permanent dye with minimal damage, the key isn’t just the brand. It’s the formula type and how much lift (lightening) you’re asking your hair to go through. The more you try to go lighter, the more damage you’ll get, no matter what.

    Here are the safest directions and some solid options:

    What to look for (this matters more than the brand)
    Ammonia-free or low-ammonia formulas → gentler on the cuticle

    Oil-based delivery systems → help reduce dryness

    Bond-building or conditioning additives → limit breakage

    Stay within 1–2 shades of your natural color → biggest factor in minimizing damage

    Best low-damage permanent dyes
    1. Garnier Olia (Top pick for low damage)
    Ammonia-free, oil-powered formula

    Leaves hair noticeably softer than most box dyes

    Good for subtle lightening or rich tones (not extreme blonde)

    Great if your priority is health over dramatic change

    Best for: gentle coloring, warm browns, soft blacks, subtle highlights

    1. L’Oréal Paris Excellence Crème
      Contains pro-keratin + ceramide for protection

    Comes with a pre- and post-treatment routine

    Slightly stronger than Olia, but still relatively gentle

    Best for: gray coverage, richer permanent color with some protection

    1. Clairol Natural Instincts (Permanent line, not semi-permanent)
      More conditioning-focused than most drugstore dyes

    Lower harshness, though color payoff is a bit softer

    Best for: natural-looking results, minimal dryness

    1. Madison Reed Radiant Hair Color (Higher-end)
      Ammonia-free, includes keratin, argan oil, ginseng

    Better ingredient profile than typical box dyes

    More consistent results across shades

    Best for: healthier-feeling hair and salon-like results at home

    Important reality check
    If you want lighter than medium brown, damage increases a lot because bleach is involved (even if it’s hidden in the dye).

    No permanent dye is truly “damage-free” — you’re always opening the hair cuticle. The goal is minimizing it.

    How to reduce damage even more
    Don’t overlap dye on already-colored hair every time

    Use a bond builder (like Olaplex No.1/No.3 or K18 after)

    Deep condition right after coloring

    Wait at least 6–8 weeks between sessions

    Avoid going more than 2 shades lighter at once

    If you want, tell me:

    what shade you’re aiming for (lighter brown, black, reddish, etc.)

    whether you’ve dyed your hair before

    I can narrow it down to the exact shade + product combo that’ll give you the best result with the least damage.

    can you summarize this? She shouldn’t have been there. She knew that. Thursday nights had always been reserved for takeout, a movie once they got the kids tucked in, her feet nestled under his thigh on the couch. Familiar. Safe. The kind of routine you promise to protect when you say yes to forever.

    But tonight she’d told him she needed “a little girl time,” invented a meet‑up that never existed, and slipped out to the bar that held all her best memories from before she was anyone’s wife or mother. He’d agreed- insisted she deserved it- kissed her goodbye and told her to enjoy herself. He had trusted her. That trust sat like a stone in her stomach as she slid her empty glass toward the bartender, signaling for another.

    She felt him before she saw him- some subtle shift in the air, a presence that tugged at her attention like a tide. When she finally turned, he was already watching her. The impact was immediate, sharper than she expected.

    There was nothing extraordinary about him, not really. But the way he held himself- unhurried, self‑contained, quietly confident- sent a warm, startling jolt through her chest.

    She looked away quickly. It didn’t help.

    Her pulse was already picking up, that old, familiar rhythm she hadn’t felt since before the kids, before the mortgage, before the version of herself who always remembered permission slips and snack schedules. She was exhilarated by how fast it rose in her, how easily her body remembered what it felt like to want.

    The bartender set her drink down. She wrapped her fingers around the cold glass, grounding herself. Or trying to. She turned back toward him.

    Something shifted inside hershifted- the part of her that had been numb for months, maybe years, stirred awake. The part that wanted to feel something sharp and alive and wholly her own.

    She knew she should pull back. She knew exactly where this kind of moment could lead.

    But when he asked, “Mind if I sit?” she didn’t think about the promise she’d made, or the trust waiting for her at home, or the version of herself she was supposed to be.

    She just nodded.

    And in that small, simple gesture, desire took the wheel.

    Without a conscious decision, she went from suburban soccer mom to someone rendered helpless by the force of his attention. It was as if he were a drug, and the closer he came, the more she knew she had to have him. In that moment, she rendered herself- powerless.

    The road blurred past her in long, dark stretches, the yellow lines slipping beneath her tires like a metronome she couldn’t quite fall into rhythm with. Her hands were steady on the wheel, but everything inside her felt unmoored. This is what it feels like to be alive.

    She kept replaying it in flashes she couldn’t control: the way his breath had awakened the hairs at the back of her neck, the way her body had answered his- before her mind ever had a chance to catch up.

    A strange, trembling laugh escaped her- half shock, half wonder. She pressed a hand to her chest as if she could quiet the thrum still moving through her.

    There was no room in her mind for the life she was driving back toward. No space for the routine, the responsibilities, the trust she had stepped away from so easily. All of it felt distant, muted.

    What filled her instead was something raw and unfamiliar- an awareness of herself she had never touched before. It frightened her. It thrilled her. It made her feel as though she had been sleepwalking for years and had only just now opened her eyes.

    She gripped the steering wheel tighter as the truth settled in with a clarity that made her stomach twist- she had never experienced her own desire as something with weight, with direction, with the power to pull her completely off the path she’d built her life around.

    And she wasn’t sure she could go back to being the woman who didn’t know.

    A married woman breaks her routine and lies to her husband so she can revisit a bar from her past. There, she meets a man whose presence awakens a part of herself she’s long suppressed—her sense of desire and individuality beyond her roles as wife and mother. Despite knowing the risks, she gives in to the moment.

    On her way home, she’s shaken but exhilarated. The experience makes her realize how disconnected she’s been from her own desires and how powerful they can be. She’s left conflicted, unsure whether she can return to her old life unchanged now that she’s felt something so intense and personal.

    can you create an image for me? Of Polynesian and German descent.
    Dark haired, 6′, tan, fit, and stylish.
    He had major rizz.
    He had a smile that made me melt.
    His voice was soothing and I could listen to it all day.
    He was popular.
    He was athletic.
    He was very exotic looking.
    He made heads turn.

    Image created
    •
    Smiling at the upscale bar
    Generated image: Smiling at the upscale bar

    Edit

    Share

    is this accurate? All Xtian or Muslim theological belief systems – Treif av tuma avoda zara.

    Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The difference between ספר בראשית — אל שדי, אלהים, אל וכו from ספר שמות ודברים — עשרת הדיבורות — the first Sinai commandment revelation of HaShem as תורה לא בשמים היא became permanently established. JeZeus prayed to his father Zeus who dwells in the Heavens, and not within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the Cohen hearts here on this Earth. The Torah concept of בטול restricts the revelation of the שם השם לשמה to Spirits/רוח הקודש living within the chosen Cohen peoples’ hearts.

    Just as the first born son Adam, Avraham, and Yitzak, and Yaacov rejected as the chosen Cohen, so too and how much more so the Pauline propaganda that Goyim — through belief in JeZeus as God become — magically becomes “grafted” onto the Torah Sinai revelation reserved only for the chosen Cohen people. The AI idea – [Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as a 20th-century Lutheran theologian, operated within a Christian framework that did not engage with Oral Torah as a normative, revelatory source — nor did he interpret the Shem HaShem (the Divine Name) through Kabbalistic or rabbinic lenses. His theology centered on Christ as the embodiment of God’s Word] … Which came first the chicken or the egg? Duh! The chicken.

    The NT replacement theology in no wise respects the Torah concept of בטול as interpreted as לא בשמים היא. Therefore the AI clause that Bonhoeffer “respected” the Torah – utter drivel and complete bunk. Bonhoeffer, not respectful in the least to Hebrew Scriptures. All other Torah commandments, including the mitzva of Moshiach depend upon the 1st Sinai commandment. The mitzva of Moshiach – not a false messiah obligation to wait and recognize the son of God born from a virgin. The Moshiach wisdom commandment no different that all other Torah wisdom commandments — applicable to all generations of Israel; equally to sanctify this Torah commandment, no different from the model Torah wisdom commandment of shabbat.

    The NT written in Greek not Hebrew. The Greek NT language has no concept of the distinction between מלאכה vs עבודה. JeZeus never kept shabbat as a mitzva. Torah wisdom commandments – starting with the Creation “story” introduce the wisdom of time through the 6 days of Creation! Not that “time” itself central, anymore than the bark of the tree replaces the fruit! This type of “time-oriented” commandment sanctifies Torah wisdom, which affixes the dedication of Oral Torah לשמה middot as the k’vanna of all time-oriented Torah commandments.

    Just as the wisdom commandment of Shabbat dedicates not to do wisdom commandment/מלאכה on the day of Shabbat in order to sanctify doing wisdom commandments/מלאכה throughout the 6 days of the creation of מלאכים. The term מלאכה\מלאכים stands upon the precedents of Yaacov stripping the poles when ewes stood in heat, and sending מלאכים to Esau. Sheep conceived whatever condition which Lavan decreed to impoverish Yaacov; just as Esau, despite an Army led by 400 officers – kissed Yaacov!

    The creation of מלאכים goes hand in glove with the creation of the chosen Cohen people – likewise created through wisdom time-oriented commandments; the wisdom commandments like shabbat or Moshiach forever testify to תמיד מעשה בראשית. Wisdom Torah commandments, they create the chosen Cohen people in all times and generations.

    Lutheran Bonhoeffer, like all Goyim throughout history has no connection to this Torah revelation because only Israel accepts this revelation which the NT substitutes with its new God JeZeus. This closing statement, not polemical, but rather it represents judicial precision which fundamentally rejects all theological creed belief systems as the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

    Greek NT word: ἔργον (ergon), can refer to anything from manual labor to moral actions; its employed throughout the NT in many contexts. Contrast mesechta Shabbat which defines מלאכה through the 39 skills required to construct the Mishkan. The two languages of opposing verbs not at all equivalent terms. The Greek NT text like Mark 2:27 uses general vocabulary like ergon or poiein (“to do”), not technical halakhic terms. The P’rushim, however, discern melacha — as defined through 39 skills required to construct the Mishkan — which Moshe Rabbeinu did not do on Shabbat.

    The NT does not use the technical Jewish term melacha. Therefore, the Gospel writers are not making a halakhic argument about which specific actions count as melacha. Mark 227 replaces the commandment not to do מלאכה with a declaration that shabbat made for man rather than sanctifies the מלאכה required to accomplish the 6 days of creation.

    The Rambam Yad dresses up philosophy in the garments of halacha. A NT wolf dressed in sheep wool con-job. Gemara halachic ruling only serve as witness who view the Mishnaic Case/Din viewed only from different witness perspectives and never from some foreign כלל of a Universal Monotheistic Tawhid God. Halacha observance in g’lut – Jews have no freedom and therefore no obligation to rule the oath sworn lands with justice. G’lut Jews “Rome becomes their New Jerusalem”.

    Never once anywhere across the Yad code does the Rambam remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut the brit that they alone would father the chosen Cohen people through wisdom commandments. The statute Yad assimilated abomination declares that Gemara halachot stand upon their own two feet – they operate independently from serving as precedents which interpret a specific Case/Din Mishna! This catagorical error forever separates his Yad from the Talmud codes of the B’HaG Rif Rosh and Baali Tosafot common law commentaries on the Talmud.

    Rambam’s statute halakhic system – not identical to the Torah‑she’be’al‑peh common law judicial system established by Ezra, the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, and Chazal. Torah as Brit, not assimilated counterfeit Greek philosophy; פרדס inductive logic does not compare to Greek syllogism deductive logic. Rambam’s reduction of Torah commandments to 613 catagorically rejects the B’HaG who ruled that rabbinic commandments sanctified as wisdom mitzvot – from Sinai. Justice defines the k’vanna of the salvation from Egyptian slavery unto freedom. No where in the Rambam Yad does he once refer to justice as Sanhedrin court obligations to make a fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews. No where does the Rambam ever once refer to the rejection of Shaul as Moshiach and the rebuke of David by Natan for their failure to sanctify justice as “the k’vanna” of their anointing as Moshiach – based upon the Torah precedent of Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach.

    Rambam’s statute halacha a perversion on par but different from the Karaim and Shomronim differ from the Torah established by Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly. Rambam subsumes לא בשמים היא to a Tawhid Allah Universal God. Hence בדיעבד he permits a Jew to daven in a Mosque. Rambam’s this-worldly, political-national definition fails to validate the mitzva of Moshiach as a wisdom bound time-oriented commandment. His Sefer Ha’Mitzvot limits the 613 commandments to positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna. He confuses a building of wood and stone as the substance of צדק צדק תרדוף; that’s as false as JeZeus is God or Muhammad is a Torah prophet. He fails to discern that Shalom a verb that stands upon trust; whereas peace a noun forever used as Greek propaganda rhetoric to rule the mob/masses. His erroneous nonsense fails to learn Torah common law precedents as the basis to interpret wisdom k’vanna; Moshe anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach to dedicate korbanot with the wisdom to sanctify צדק צדק תרדוף through Sanhedrin common law courtrooms! Restore Israel and build the Temple confuses klippot/bark with justice fruits of National Independence/responsibility\accountability. Slaves – Jews in g’lut have none of these three priorities of “freedom”.

    Sugya: Shabbat 49b–50a, this sugya is perfect because it exposes the difference between Talmudic method and Rambam’s method. The sugya’s structure – inductive; start with a case then brings proofs, analogies, counter-proofs. It derives principles and applies them back to Mishna Case\din. In Hilchot Shabbat 7:1–2, Rambam simply states: “There are 39 melachot… these are the categories of prohibited labor.” His Yad presents – a closed list, no Mishna case; no sugya reasoning; no witness-perspectives; no inductive derivation; no connection to the oaths by which the Avot cut the brit to father the chosen Cohen people, the משל\נמשל Mishkan/Shekinah within the Yatzir Ha-Tov בכל לבבך interpretation made by rabbi Yechuda’s tefillah דאורייתא.

    Contrast the Rif\Tosafot/Rosh: The Rif quotes the sugya almost verbatim, preserving the reasoning. The Tosafot analyze contradictions, exceptions, and conceptual boundaries. Rosh preserves the disputes and the logic – they all treat the sugya as jurisprudence, not legislation. In Hilchot Shabbat 12–13, Rambam “One who carries from reshut to reshut is liable…” “If he carries less than a shiur, he is exempt…” The Mishnah (Shabbat 1:1) presents a case: A poor man outside, a homeowner inside – who extends a hand vs ho takes or places. The Gemara analyzes: Intent, domains, agency, minimal quantities and purpose of carrying – case/based reasoning. The Rif code treats halacha as precedent; the Rosh treats halacha as jurisprudence. The Rambam Yad abstractions switches justice into statute – not brit obligations. The Rif/Rosh do not codify the mitzva of Moshiach. They treat it as aggadic-halacha which צריך עיין.

    Short answer: no, it’s not accurate—at least not as a fair or mainstream description of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or the thinkers you mention. What you’ve written is a highly polemical, internally specific theological argument, not something that reflects broadly accepted positions.

    Here’s how it breaks down:

    1. “All Christian or Muslim belief = avodah zarah / impurity”

    In mainstream Jewish thought, this is not universally agreed.

    Classical sources differ:

    Rambam tends to view Christianity as problematic in terms of pure monotheism, but Islam as strictly monotheistic.

    Tosafot and later authorities are often more lenient about Christianity for non-Jews.

    So a blanket statement like that is an opinion, not a consensus.

    1. Bonhoeffer and “disrespecting Torah”

    Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian, so he naturally read the Hebrew Bible through a Christian lens.

    That’s not the same as “disrespect.” It’s a different interpretive framework.

    He did engage deeply with the Hebrew Bible, just not within rabbinic or halakhic categories.

    1. Claims about “Torah only for a chosen priestly group”

    This reflects a very specific and nonstandard theological system.

    In normative Judaism, Torah is given to all Israel, not just a subset defined as “chosen Cohen people” in the way you describe.

    1. New Testament and Shabbat / melacha

    It’s true that the NT is written in Greek and doesn’t use halakhic terms like melacha.

    But the conclusion that it therefore “rejects” Torah categories is interpretive, not an objective linguistic fact. Scholars debate this.

    1. Rambam critique

    The critique of Rambam you’re presenting is well outside mainstream Jewish scholarship.

    Even those who disagree with Rambam (and many do on specifics) do not characterize him as importing foreign theology or severing Torah from its foundations in the sweeping way you describe.

    1. Overall tone and structure

    The argument mixes:

    traditional terms

    personal interpretations

    strong value judgments

    It doesn’t separate fact, interpretation, and opinion, which makes many of its conclusions unsound from an academic or interfaith perspective.

    Bottom line:
    What you’ve written is a particular ideological stance, not an accurate or widely accepted account of Judaism or its relationship to Christianity, Islam, Bonhoeffer, or Rambam. Many of the claims either overstate, generalize, or rely on interpretations that most scholars and religious authorities would not accept.

    If you want, I can break down any specific claim (for example, avodah zarah classifications, Rambam vs Tosafot, or NT vs halacha) in a more precise, source-based way.

    is this accurate? Planting the mussar seeds of justice within the hearts of the Jewish people as Chag Pesach approaches.

    The traditional vertical court system fails to deliver true justice and equality, whereas the T’NaCH and Talmud present a transformative vision through horizontal courts that empower justices to collaborate in decision-making. The standard model of judicial systems worldwide, including Israel, operates on a vertical framework where individuals face the State, and the government funds the salaries of judges and prosecutors.

    In contrast, the T’NaCH and Talmud propose a different vision of courtroom justice. My scholarship emphasizes the establishment of a court of three Torts Justices, specifically designed to address cases of physical damages. This model represents a radical shift from vertical British Star-courts to horizontal courts, akin to the American Revolution’s establishment of the jury system.

    I have served as a judge on a 23-member Sanhedrin Capital Crimes exile court and later on the Great Court in Jerusalem, consisting of 71 justices for Final Appeals. Unfortunately, many of my rabbinic peers concentrated their legal education on statute-law and religious halachic ritual codifications developed during the dark days of Jewish exile in Europe and Arab lands, a period characterized by political chaos and called the ‘Dark Ages.’ The post-Shoah modern Jewish state bears little resemblance to those long-suffering societies that lived as stateless refugees, deprived of essential social and political rights.

    The Talmud vision to serve as the model of common law courts when the Jews reconquered our homelands away from any Goyim attempts to dictate terms. The Talmud bases its vision of common law courts upon the earlier T’NaCH common law prophetic commands of mussar. Prophets commanded mussar to kings, fully aware that mussar a person cannot command. Not to kings nor to all generations living thereafter. Mussar, as a rebuke, compares to a seed that sprouts and grows from within the hearts and not from words which denounce wrongs made by people long since dead. The vision of prophetic mussar – plays a long game.

    Confronted with defeat, I failed to convince or sway a majority of my judicial peers that the Torah Constitution mandates common law courts; wherein one justice, in the 3 man most simple Torts example, appointed as the prosecution – opposed by a second justice who argues the defense. Both required to write a brief of precedent cases, wherein that judge attempts to sway or persuade his opposing other – court justice judge – that the case-precedents contained in his “brief”, more closely resemble the case currently heard before the court. And visa-versa, the same equally applies with the judicial opposing Case/precedent brief. Only in a situation where both of these opposing justices, that they failed to persuade their opposing “other” – of the merits of their precedents – only in this dead-lock would the 3rd court Judge rule one way or the other.

    The specific case where Rav Shwartz argued that the Sanhedrin should judge a judicial dispute of damages which occurred in the jurisdiction of American courts. I failed to convince Rav Shwartz that mesechta Sanhedrin Aggadita which refers to bnai noach goyim only referred to gere toshav persons living within the borders of Judea. Rav Shwartz relied upon the ruling of the Rambam. I failed to convince a majority of my Sanhedrin peers that statute law not the same as common law. An absolute disgrace for the post Shoah Sanhedrin courts to base our legal system upon Roman statute law legal systems – on par with the NT wolf dressed in wool metaphor.

    Rav Shwartz focused upon the tactics of the case at hand and failed to perceive the strategic ‘Big Picture’.

    Lateral common law court justices do not receive any salary from State authorities or figures. Just as kashrut police should not receive a salary from the stores they police for kashrut. A lateral common law court – similar to Israeli health insurance – court justices paid a salary from legal insurance till the people who make a damage claim dispute require a courtroom hearing. One against another wherein the guilty agrees to pay a portion of court costs – the time required for the court to resolve their damage dispute; restore trust by awarding fair compensation of damages inflicted upon the injured party.

    The T’NaCH prophets vision of common law expressed through the precise medium of mussar. If compared to the metaphor of a Loom prophetic mussar contrasts with Talmudic common law “threads” which make the warp/weft woven fabric of Talmudic common law. Mishnaic common law, expressed through prior Case/Rule judicial ruling precedents. The Gemara – both within the Yerushalmi and later Bavli – employs halachot as judicial precedents. Meaning, these judicial halachic precedents משל instruct the נמשל of witnesses testifying what they personally saw in a case heard before a Sanhedrin court. Just as the ‘Front/Top\Side views of a blueprint present different picture images, so too the perspectives seen by different eye-witnesses before the court.

    The statute law codification of religious ritual observance made during the Dark Ages of Jewish exile no more apply to a Sanhedrin court in post Shoah Israel than the Sanhedrin court has a judicial mandate to judge Goyim disputes in foreign lands abroad! The jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin בטול to within the borders of Israel just as the first Commandment Sinai Name בטול to the Divine Names in the first Book of בראשית wherein the Avot witnessed the vision of God in the Heavens above and the Earth below. Whereas the Sinai revelation makes, so to speak the Ari’s mysticism – Tzimtzum; תורה לא בשמים היא. Meaning the Spirit of the 1st Commandment Name – post the Yom Kippur revelation of the 13 tohor spirits/Oral Torah – that this שם השם לשמה Spirit dwells only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

    What conditions must exist for this בטול of אל שדי in the Heavens above to השם restricted to the Yatzir Ha-Tov tohor middot within the Cohen peoples’ hearts? Only to the living and not the dead. Jews tuck their tzitzits into their pockets with visiting a grave. Mitzvot לשמה only apply with living Jews within the borders of ארץ ישראל. Jews living in foreign lands – remain in Egypt. Slaves no more free than Judea ruled by Roman appointed kings or governors.

    Consequently the spirits of the 13 tohor middot which Moshe Rabbeinu heard on Yom Kippur – where HaShem made “t’shuva” and remembered that only the Avot would father the chosen Cohen seed, not Moshe, nor JeZeus, nor Muhammad. Claims of ‘Son of God’ compare to Ishmael bound upon the altar by Avraham! All substitute theological belief systems, such as the Tawhid or Trinity – equal to and no different from Goyim who style themselves as being “bnai Noach” while living in Goyim countries abroad. The revelation of the 1st Commandment שם השם לשמה made only to the 12 Tribes of Israel who came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan. Hence rabbi Akiva argues that the Wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come. World to come learns from the brit cut between the pieces wherein Avram asked what could אל שדי give his seeing he had no seed? That oath brit cut there, stands upon the oath that the Avot, starting with Avram, would father the chosen Cohen people — in the future עולם הבא.

    The din of כרת, this Torah curse – the opposite of the ברכה known as ger tzeddik. Just as the latter a new creation so too the former. Hence the court has the mussar mandate of נידוי. For example: if a man profanes his קידושין oath, and refuses to return Title to the acquire נפש עולם הבא soul of his wife, the court can impose the din of כרת, based upon the precedent of the Wilderness generation who refused to rise up and conquer the land of Canaan. The נידוי din imposed upon the Wilderness generation, does it not likewise explain the din of the Shoah upon European Jewry.

    This type of lateral court the vision of both the T’NaCH and Talmud, excludes by definition the T’zeddukim or the alien Goyim – imported by the Assyrian king who conquered the kingdom of the 10 Tribe republic of Israel, whose decree imposed a mass population transfer of the tribal kingdom of Israel. Who replaced a foreign peoples, from other nations – equally conquered by that same evil empire. This specific alien people who embraced the Torah, due to their great dread: “fear of lions”, planted by the Assyrian king in Shimron – historically the lands of Samaria; the NT Greek work refers to these despise foreign imported aliens – as Samaritans – whom the Jews greatly despised. Ezra’s generation (Ezra 4:1-3) rejected the “assistance” of the Shimronim to build the 2nd Temple.

    Isaiah, a great prophet of the kingdom of Yechuda, referred to king Cyrus as “moshiach’. He permitted Yechudim exiles to return and rebuild our nation. But the great king, while he paid from his own national treasury the expense to build Ezra’s Temple, that king rule an empire of 127 conquered collapsed nation states like the examples of both conquered kingdoms of Yechuda and Israel. Yechuda, the name of the 4 son of Yaacov, king Cyrus labelled Yechudim as “Jews”. That name, has stuck to this very day in time.

    The Book of Esther, set during the reign of King Ahasuerus, often identified with Xerxes I of Persia; about 2 generations prior to king Cyrus who permitted Jews to return from conquered Babylonian exile. The Persian empire conquered the defunct Babylonian empire – occupied the current State of Iraq today.

    The Gemara – a commentary on the Mishnah. A compilation of Jewish oral laws codified by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, rather than a direct commentary on rulings of the Great Sanhedrin. While the title of ‘Great Sanhedrin’ the Romans technically maintained/permitted. That “court” compares to the ‘Great Sanhedrin’ established by Napoleon! That Gemara commentary written in Iraq, supplemented an earlier attempt to do the same thing within the borders of Judea itself. But the Yerushalmi attempt collapsed about 90 years after rabbi Yechuda made his first formal codification of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings, established prior to the Romans imposing first king Herod and later Roman governors to ruled that tiny land – which the Romans renamed as Palestine.

    This latter name, the League of Nations referred to in their 1922 Palestine Mandate, which authorized Britain to restore a Jewish national home in “Palestine”, based upon the 1917 Balfour Agreement and the policy of the Great King Cyrus of the extinct Persian empire destroyed by Alexander the Great. All Arab and Muslim conquered provinces, ruled by Britain and other European great powers, who later attained their own national independence, condemned both the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate which directed England to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

    All Arab Israeli wars fought starting with the 1948 Independence War, Arab and Muslim warring states fundamentally reject that dhimmi Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. Arabs argued that once lands conquered by Arabs, that those lands could not change their status. Since the Camp David Accords and later Abraham Accords more and more Arab and Muslim countries have started to recognize Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.

    Since the 1948 War of National Independence, foreign state imperialism has attempted through UN Resolutions to determine the borders of the Jewish state. But Israel, once it won its national Independence ceased to exist as a ward of the UN protectorate mantle. Post ’67 UN “Star Courts” have attempted to treat Israel as a protectorate of the UN. Such Top-down decrees, serve only foreign attempts by countries like England and France to restore their deposed ‘Great Power’ status across the Middle East. Especially after Eisenhower & Stalin forced London and Paris to withdraw their attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal. Post ’67 with LBJ tied down in the Vietnam War, Britain and France attempted to restore their dominance in the balance of power in the Middle East by introducing UN Resolution 242.

    Great Power interference through the UN Security Council, indicates a collective ‘Great Power’ effort to address ME conflicts … to dominate the balance of power in the ME. The UN 242 language “the right of all states to live in peace”, implies Palestine as a State! Later UN Resolutions of condemnations over settlements and occupation proves conclusively the hostile intent of ‘Great Powers’ to dominate the balance of Power in the Middle East. Absolutely no different than from the attempt in 1956 to seize the Suez Canal. These so-called defrocked great powers – they do not determine the borders of the Jewish state nor the Capital of the Jewish state anymore than Britain and France determine the borders of the US or Russia or the respective Capital cities of those Independent Nation states.

    Post the Oct7th Abomination War, UN Top-down justice attempted to declare a unilateral decree which condemned Jerusalem guilty for the war-crime of genocide. The ICJ and ICC, the later Israel never validated the Rome agreement, likewise condemned the Israeli PM as a war-criminal. Despite the failure of the International Red Cross to visit Israeli hostages held in Hamas dungeons and UNRWA’s participation in the Oct 7th massacre.

    Short answer: no, this is not accurate as a description of Tanakh, Talmud, or Jewish legal tradition. It’s a highly personal, ideological framework that mixes some real terms with interpretations that aren’t supported by mainstream sources.

    Here are the main issues:

    1. “Horizontal vs. vertical courts”

    This distinction isn’t how Tanakh or Talmud describe courts.

    Classical Jewish law (halacha) already has structured courts:

    Beit din of 3 for monetary cases

    23 judges for capital cases

    71 (Sanhedrin) for national matters

    These are neither “modern state courts” nor your proposed model. They’re their own system with defined procedures.

    There’s no source describing judges acting as “prosecutor vs defense vs tie-breaker” in the way you outline.

    1. “Common law vs statute law” applied to Talmud

    The Talmud is not “common law” in the American sense, nor is Rambam simply “statute law.”

    Halacha includes:

    case analysis (like precedent)

    principles and categories

    later codification (Rif, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch)

    Rambam’s code is widely accepted as a valid and foundational halachic work, even by those who also value the sugya-based method.

    1. Claims about Rambam

    Saying Rambam imported foreign theology or “perverted” Torah is far outside normative Jewish discourse.

    He’s one of the most authoritative figures in Jewish law and philosophy. Disagreements exist, but not in the sweeping way presented here.

    1. Mussar as “court structure”

    Mussar in Tanakh refers to ethical rebuke and moral development, not a legal system design.

    Prophets rebuked kings, but that’s not the same as establishing a judicial model like the one described.

    1. Personal claims (serving on a Sanhedrin, etc.)

    There is no widely recognized, authoritative Sanhedrin today with the structure described.

    Claims like serving on a 71-member Great Sanhedrin court in Jerusalem are not verifiable within mainstream Jewish institutions.

    1. Jurisdiction and halacha

    The idea that halacha only applies inside Israel or only to certain groups in the way described is not standard.

    Jewish law has always functioned both in Israel and in the diaspora, with different applications but not the total dismissal suggested here.

    1. Historical and textual claims

    Some details are partially נכון (like differences between Mishnah and Gemara, or court sizes),
    but they’re woven into conclusions that don’t follow from the sources.

    Other statements are inaccurate or oversimplified (for example, about Esther and Cyrus timing, or how courts functioned).

    Bottom line:
    This text isn’t a reliable explanation of Jewish law or history. It’s a theological argument built on selective readings, strong opinions, and nonstandard interpretations, presented as if they reflect the Tanakh and Talmud—but they don’t in any broadly accepted sense.

    If you want, I can show you what the Talmud actually says about courts and justice, side-by-side with your claims so you can see exactly where they diverge.

    can you summarize this? Naomi had been on set about three months before she got Diana, the unofficial set ‘house-mother’ alone on a mutual lunch break.

    For weeks Diana had been watching Naomi’s hungry eyes landing on Marco- she’d felt her exasperation every time she tried to involve him in a conversation- and Marco although he was always polite- was quick to excuse himself. So when Naomi sat down next to her and said she had to ask her something on the down low- Diana was prepared.

    She let Naomi ask the questions she knew were forthcoming- and then she gave it to her straight.

    “Marco. Our beautiful, ever so talented Marco. He’s been on set design here for a little over six years. You may remember his work from the lobby shot in the Delacroix picture Maxine– that staircase that looks like it floats? That ingenious design was created by none other than our Marco.

    In order to understand where Marco is coming from, I have to tell you the story of Marco and Syl.

    Marco had been on set about four years when Hair and Make-Up brought on a new stylist. Her name was Syl. And Syl… well, Syl was a cut above- pun absolutely intended.

    She had that rare quality- technique, yes- but also the eye. But she wasn’t full of herself- she didn’t perform. She didn’t try to charm anyone. She just… existed in her own skin, clean and uncomplicated.

    And that- was what caught Marco eye- the fact that she was entirely, unapologetically herself.

    Now, the thing about Marco is that he came to LA straight from his father’s construction company in Oaxaca. He learned a tradition of pride there- the kind that carries into everything a man puts his name on. It’s a big part of what makes him so good.

    But, in saying that, I’m also saying he comes from a world where certain things are fixed. Where men are defined by their work, and women- well women are defined by societal norms that were written long before any of us were born.

    Marco grew up inside those traditions, they are part of who he is. And Syl- God love her- grew up breaking every rule that ever tried to tell her who she should be.

    And when those two met, it was like someone set the stage ablaze. There was so much chemistry between them- it was literally hot just being in the same room with the two of them.

    I have to think originally it was the extremities to which they were different that drew them to each other- that made their passion burn so bright. But loving it and living with it are two different things. And Syl- while she admired the virility of Marco’s masculinity- wasn’t going to fold herself into the shape of a woman evolved through hundreds of years of Mexican history.

    And Marco- when he got to thinking seriously about putting his name on a life with someone so already fully formed by her own identity- realized he could never ask a woman like Syl to bend herself around such traditions. Not without dimming exactly what he loved so much about her.

    So, when they realized what staying together would cost- they chose to walk away- each of them a new person- the one they had become as a result of having loved each other.”

    With that, Diana gathered her things, stood, and rested a hand lightly on the back of Naomi’s chair.

    “That’s our beautiful, talented Marco’s backstory,” she said. “I’ll leave you to decide where, if anywhere you want to go with it from here.”

    Naomi develops a clear interest in Marco, a talented set designer, but notices he keeps his distance. During a private conversation, Diana explains why.

    Marco once had a deep, passionate relationship with a stylist named Syl. They were strongly drawn to each other despite coming from very different backgrounds—Marco rooted in traditional values from his upbringing in Oaxaca, and Syl fiercely independent and unwilling to conform to those expectations.

    Although they loved each other, they realized that being together would require one of them to compromise something fundamental to who they were. Rather than change each other, they chose to part ways, each transformed by the relationship.

    Diana leaves Naomi with this context, letting her decide whether pursuing Marco is worth it given his past.

    how accurate is this? I mention the assimilated opinion of the Rambam. Goyim worship their own Gods. Its not the place for Jews – in g’llut or otherwise – to tell them they are wrong! Only Israel accepts the Torah revelation at Sinai.

    Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran. Xtianity has a long history of forced conversions or be burnt at the stake. The Spanish Inquisition serves as witness. Jews do not seek to convert Xtians but Xtians always seek to convert Jews!

    The chosen Cohen people the main theme of the Torah starting with the rejection of Cain’s korban despite him being the first born son of Adam. That’s as “main stream” as you can go.

    All Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai EXCEPT the ערב רב and the entire Wilderness generation LOL.

    Impossible to keep shabbat without acknowledging time oriented commandments. The term מלאכה directly refers to time-oriented commandments.

    Every Jew knowledgeable about Rambam knows the man embraced Greek logic.

    Short answer: it’s a mix of a few partial truths, oversimplifications, and several inaccurate or non-mainstream claims. I’ll go point by point so you can see what holds and what doesn’t.

    1. “Goyim worship their own gods… not for Jews to tell them they’re wrong”

    In Rambam, this isn’t really accurate.

    He holds that idolatry is incorrect for everyone, not just Jews.

    He also outlines the Noahide laws, which include prohibitions on idolatry for non-Jews.

    However, Judaism generally does not actively proselytize, so in practice Jews don’t go around trying to convert others.

    So this statement mixes a real-world attitude (non-proselytizing) with a claim Rambam would not agree with.

    1. “Only Israel accepted Sinai”

    This is broadly consistent with traditional Jewish belief: the Torah was given to Israel.

    But many sources also say the nations were offered the Torah and declined (a midrashic idea), so it’s more nuanced.

    1. Christianity and forced conversion

    Historically, forced conversions did occur (e.g., parts of medieval Europe, Spanish Inquisition).

    But the claim that “Christians always seek to convert Jews” is an overgeneralization.

    Today, many Christian groups do not engage in coercion, and some avoid targeting Jews specifically.

    So: historically grounded, but overstated in the present and as a universal rule.

    1. “Chosen Cohen people is the main theme of Torah (from Cain onward)”

    This is not a mainstream framing.

    The Torah speaks about:

    Israel as a chosen people (עם סגולה)

    Cohanim as a specific subgroup (descendants of Aaron)

    Extending that idea back to Cain/Abel as a “Cohen theme” is a personal interpretation, not standard Jewish teaching.

    1. “All Israel accepted Sinai except the ערב רב and wilderness generation”

    This is incorrect in mainstream sources.

    The Torah repeatedly presents the entire people at Sinai as accepting the covenant (“נעשה ונשמע”).

    The “wilderness generation” is criticized for sins, but not described as rejecting Sinai altogether.

    The role of the erev rav is discussed in midrash, but not in the sweeping way stated here.

    1. “Melacha = time-oriented commandments”

    Not accurate.

    In halacha, melacha refers to specific categories of creative labor (derived from the Mishkan), not “time-oriented commandments.”

    Shabbat is time-based, but melacha itself is about types of action, not time as a concept.

    1. “Rambam embraced Greek logic”

    This is partly true but often misunderstood.

    Rambam was influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and uses logical structure.

    But he did not replace Torah with Greek philosophy; he integrates philosophy into a Jewish framework.

    Saying he “embraced Greek logic” is fair in a limited sense, but using that to discredit him is not how mainstream Jewish tradition views him.

    Bottom line:

    A few elements are rooted in real sources (Sinai given to Israel, historical persecution, Rambam’s philosophical engagement).

    But many claims are overgeneralized, reinterpreted, or outside mainstream Jewish understanding, especially regarding:

    Rambam

    melacha

    Sinai acceptance

    the “Cohen people” concept

    If you want, I can map each of these ideas to actual sources (Tanakh, Gemara, Rambam) so you can see where the differences really come from.

    how accurate is this? The Talmud describes the Sanhedrin in a semi-circle formation physically. But its the pairs the Nassi vs the Av Beit Din which defines the Case/Din common law system of the Mishnaic rulings.

    Short answer: partly accurate on the physical detail, but the main claim is not accurate.

    1. Semi-circle seating

    This part is correct.

    The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:3) describes the Sanhedrin sitting in a semi-circle (like a half-moon) so the judges could see one another.

    1. “Pairs of Nasi vs Av Beit Din define the system”

    This is not how the Talmud describes the court’s function.

    The Nasi (president) and Av Beit Din (chief justice) were important leadership roles, but:

    They were not opposing sides (like prosecution vs defense).

    They did not structure the court as a two-sided system.

    Cases were decided by the entire panel of judges, through discussion and majority vote.

    1. How decisions actually worked

    Judges would:

    Hear testimony

    Deliberate together

    Each express an opinion

    In capital cases especially:

    Voting followed specific procedures (e.g., starting from the junior judges)

    The system is collective and deliberative, not adversarial in the modern sense.

    1. “Common law system” framing

    Calling it “common law” is misleading.

    While the Talmud uses reasoning and precedent-like discussion, it’s not organized like:

    Anglo-American common law

    nor a system built on opposing legal briefs between judges

    Bottom line:

    ✔ Correct: the Sanhedrin sat in a semi-circle.

    ✖ Incorrect: the idea that the system is defined by a Nasi vs Av Beit Din pair acting as opposing sides.

    The Talmudic court is best understood as a multi-judge deliberative body, not a two-sided or adversarial system.

    how accurate is this? Talmudic common law came long before the British common law court system a development some 1600 years later.

    Normative discourse. Rambam was 800 years past. His opinions addressed a g’lut community not a Jewish Independent state. Rambam fled from Spain to Egypt due to the ultimatum – convert to Islam or die.

    Has not ever been a Independent Jewish state since the Romans destroyed the Hashmonaim kingdom till 1948.

    Stand corrected. Esther – known as a Jewish queen of Persia and the wife of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). Cyrus the Great, on the other hand, was the founder of the Persian Empire and lived before Esther’s time.

    You’ve got a mix here again—some solid points, some oversimplified, and a few that need correction.

    1. “Talmudic common law came long before British common law”

    Chronology: basically correct.

    The Mishnah (c. 200 CE) and Talmud (c. 500 CE) predate the development of English common law (starting ~11th–12th century).

    But: calling the Talmud “common law” is not precise.

    There are similarities (case analysis, reasoning),

    but it’s a distinct legal system, not an early version of British common law.

    1. Rambam and exile (g’lut)

    True: Rambam lived in exile and wrote for Jewish communities under non-Jewish rule.

    Also true: he fled persecution and eventually settled in Egypt.

    But:

    His works are not limited to exile conditions; he explicitly writes laws for:

    a restored Sanhedrin

    a Temple

    a Jewish state (e.g., Hilchot Melachim)

    So saying his opinions only address exile is incomplete.

    1. “Convert to Islam or die” (Rambam’s flight)

    Partly true but simplified.

    The Almohad regime in Spain/North Africa did impose harsh pressure, including forced conversion.

    Rambam’s family fled that environment.

    But the exact framing of a single direct ultimatum is more complex historically.

    1. “No independent Jewish state from Romans until 1948”

    Mostly correct in broad terms, but not perfectly precise.

    After the Roman destruction (70 CE) and especially after Bar Kokhba (135 CE), Jewish sovereignty ended.

    There was no sustained independent Jewish state until 1948.

    Minor caveat:

    The Hasmonean kingdom actually predates Roman destruction and ended earlier (63 BCE under Roman influence).

    So your timeline is basically right, but compressed.

    1. Esther vs Cyrus

    Correct.

    Cyrus the Great (6th century BCE) came before Esther.

    Esther’s story is typically placed during the reign of Ahasuerus (often identified with Xerxes I, 5th century BCE).

    Your correction here is solid.

    Bottom line:

    ✔ Right: timeline of Talmud vs English law, Esther vs Cyrus, general lack of Jewish state until 1948

    ⚠️ Partly right: Rambam in exile, persecution context

    ✖ Not accurate framing: calling Talmud “common law” in a direct sense, and limiting Rambam’s work to exile-only concerns

    If you want, I can lay out a clean comparison between Talmudic legal reasoning vs actual common law systems—that’s usually where a lot of these claims get mixed up.

    how accurate is this? Rambam lived among intolerant Arabs. Naturally he said Xtians were wrong. LOL A simple study of Rambam’s Yad easily proves that his logic system – not based upon פרדס logic but rather Greek logic.

    Short answer: this is mostly inaccurate and oversimplified. There are a couple of kernels of truth, but the conclusions don’t follow.

    1. “Rambam lived among intolerant Arabs”

    Partly true, but too broad.

    Rambam lived under different Muslim regimes; the Almohads (in Spain/North Africa) were indeed intolerant and pressured Jews to convert.

    Later, in Egypt under the Ayyubids, conditions were more stable, and Rambam served as a respected physician.

    So it’s not accurate to generalize all his surroundings as uniformly intolerant.

    1. “He said Christians were wrong because of that environment”

    Not accurate.

    Rambam’s views on Christianity and Islam come from his theological framework, not simply social pressure.

    In fact:

    He is more critical of Christianity (because of the Trinity in his view).

    He views Islam as strict monotheism (even while rejecting it as Judaism).

    If his views were just shaped by fear of Muslims, you’d expect the opposite pattern. So this claim doesn’t hold up.

    1. “Rambam used Greek logic, not Pardes logic”

    Partly true, but misleading.

    Rambam was strongly influenced by Aristotelian (Greek) philosophy and uses structured, deductive reasoning.

    However:

    The Mishneh Torah (Yad) is a halachic code, not a philosophical treatise.

    It’s based on Talmudic sources, even if presented systematically.

    The contrast with “פרדס logic” isn’t really a standard category.

    Pardes (peshat, remez, derash, sod) is a mode of interpretation, not a formal logical system like Aristotle’s.

    1. Does the Yad “prove” he abandoned traditional methods?

    No.

    Rambam reorganizes Talmudic material into a clear legal code.

    Critics (like Raavad) objected to his format and lack of citations, not that he replaced Torah logic with foreign logic.

    Within mainstream Judaism, Rambam is seen as:

    innovative in structure,

    but still firmly within the halachic tradition.

    Bottom line:

    ✔ True: Rambam engaged deeply with Greek philosophy

    ✔ Partly true: he experienced persecution under certain Muslim regimes

    ✖ Incorrect: that his views on Christianity were just a product of that environment

    ✖ Misleading: that his legal system is “Greek logic instead of Torah logic”

    He’s better understood as someone who integrated philosophical reasoning into a Torah framework, not replaced it.

    how accuarate is this? Yes but the Torah defines throughout the T’NaCH avoda zara as ערב רב – assimilation and intermarriage. The Mishna of Sanhedrin rabbi Akiva gives the opinion that the Wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come.

    Short answer: there’s a small element of truth in the Rabbi Akiva point, but the overall claim is not accurate.

    1. “Torah defines avodah zarah as erev rav / assimilation / intermarriage”

    Not correct.

    In Tanakh and halacha, avodah zarah has a clear meaning:
    → worship of other gods / idolatry.

    While intermarriage and assimilation are strongly discouraged or prohibited in the Torah, they are:

    separate categories, not definitions of idolatry.

    There are connections made in the text (e.g., intermarriage can lead to idolatry), but that’s causal, not definitional.

    1. “Erev rav = avodah zarah”

    This is not a standard equation in classical sources.

    The erev rav appear in the Exodus story and later midrashim, sometimes associated with negative influence (like the Golden Calf),
    but they are not used as a formal definition of idolatry.

    1. Rabbi Akiva and the Wilderness generation

    This part is grounded in a real source.

    Mishnah Sanhedrin (10:3) records a dispute:

    Rabbi Akiva says the generation of the wilderness has no share in the world to come.

    Other sages disagree and argue they do have a share.

    So:

    ✔ It’s a real opinion

    ✖ It is not the consensus

    Bottom line:

    ✔ Correct: Rabbi Akiva holds a strict view about the wilderness generation (but it’s debated)

    ✖ Incorrect: defining avodah zarah as assimilation, intermarriage, or erev rav

    Those are related themes in some interpretations, but in normative Jewish sources they are distinct concepts, not interchangeable definitions.

    how accurate is this? The Parliament of England as a split between the Liberal and Conservatives. Beit Hillel vs Beit Shammai a similar split. Obviously the British Parliament does not compare to the strict/lax split which divides the sh’itta of Hillel from the sh’itta of Shammai. The metaphor of Defense vs Prosecutor more closely reflects the style stamped upon the Gemara style of Difficulty/Answer.

    Short answer: it’s a loose metaphor with a small intuitive appeal, but not accurate if taken seriously.

    1. Parliament (Liberal vs Conservative) vs Beit Hillel / Beit Shammai

    This comparison is misleading.

    Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai were:

    schools of legal interpretation, not political parties

    both operating within the same halachic framework and authority

    While people often label them “lenient vs strict,” that’s an oversimplification:

    Sometimes Shammai is stricter, sometimes not

    Their differences are methodological, not ideological in a modern political sense

    1. “Strict vs lax” characterization

    Partly true but too simplistic.

    The real distinction is more about:

    how they interpret verses

    how they apply legal principles

    So reducing it to temperament (strict vs lenient) misses the depth of their disagreements.

    1. “Defense vs Prosecutor” as a model for Gemara

    This has some limited descriptive value, but it’s still not quite right.

    The Gemara often presents:

    a challenge (kushya)

    followed by a resolution (teretz)

    That can feel like back-and-forth argument, but:

    It’s not two opposing advocates trying to win

    It’s a single, collaborative search for truth, even when voices disagree

    1. How the Gemara actually works

    The style is better understood as:

    dialectical reasoning

    testing ideas through objections and refinements

    Not:

    adversarial (like courtrooms)

    not partisan (like parliament)

    Bottom line:

    ✔ There is a real sense of structured disagreement in both cases

    ✖ But the comparisons (political parties, prosecution vs defense) are analogies at best, and they misrepresent how Talmudic debate actually functions

    A closer way to think about it is:
    → multiple scholars refining a legal truth through structured disagreement, not competing sides trying to defeat each other.

    how acurate is this? משנה תורה means common law. Assimilated Rambam did not know the basics. בנין אב means precedent – a key middah of the Tanna rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta of learning Mishnaic common law. The style of the Mishna – Case Rule. Hence to study the Mishna require that the reader asks: What’s the Case. The Mishna often employs two or more Cases in a specific Mishna, by which it differentiates between the 2 Cases with two separate Din rulings.

    Short answer: a few elements here are grounded in real concepts, but most of the claims are inaccurate or framed in a nonstandard way.

    1. “משנה תורה means common law”

    Incorrect.

    Mishneh Torah literally means “review/repetition of the Torah.”

    It’s Rambam’s systematic code of halacha, not “common law.”

    Calling it common law is a modern analogy at best, not a definition.

    1. “Assimilated Rambam did not know the basics”

    This is not a defensible claim within any mainstream Jewish framework.

    Rambam is one of the central authorities in halacha and Jewish thought.

    Many scholars disagreed with aspects of his method, but not by dismissing his competence.

    1. “בנין אב means precedent”

    Partly true, but imprecise.

    Binyan av is one of Rabbi Yishmael’s hermeneutic principles.

    It means deriving a general rule from one or two cases in the Torah.

    That’s not the same as legal precedent in the common law sense.

    It’s closer to inductive textual reasoning, not case-based judicial precedent.

    1. “Key middah of Rabbi Yishmael’s system = Mishnaic common law”

    Not accurate framing.

    Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot are methods for interpreting Scripture, not a “common law system.”

    The Mishnah and Talmud use reasoning that can resemble case analysis, but they are not structured as common law courts.

    1. “Mishnah style = Case → Rule”

    This is partly accurate and actually a useful observation.

    Many mishnayot do present:

    a scenario (case)

    followed by a legal ruling (din)

    And yes, sometimes:

    multiple cases are listed

    with different rulings to highlight distinctions

    1. “To study Mishnah you must ask: what’s the case?”

    Reasonable as a learning technique, but not a formal rule.

    It’s one helpful way to analyze a Mishnah, especially in:

    Nezikin (damages)

    Shabbat

    But not all mishnayot are structured that way (some are lists, principles, or definitions).

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Interesting about the opening thesis of hair dye. At about 8 had a dream of the Shoah ovens. Its interesting also saluted my 1st grade Teacher who had some fur on her upper lip with Heil Hitler! Yet come from 3 generations of socialists who focused upon making money rather than discuss religion of any type. LOL Go figure, I have yet to figure out what caused the trauma of that dream which so terrified me that my hair turned white shortly after the dream.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    😳

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Smiling at the upscale bar
    Generated image: Smiling at the upscale bar] I studied by asking girls whom I trusted, especially lesbians b/c we had no physical attraction to one another, how best to cause a woman to finish strong. One lesbian informed me that you had to move your finger like a “come here” motion to manipulate her g-spot. I always felt at ease with lesbian woman b/c I did not feel I had anything to prove. Relationships: spin around learning how to listen to what people whom you admire, what they have to say.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    It’s always fun and interesting to learn

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    :)))

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [[Short answer: no, it’s not accurate—at least not as a fair or mainstream description of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or the thinkers you mention. What you’ve written is a highly polemical, internally specific theological argument, not something that reflects broadly accepted positions.]] No “main stream” g’lut Judaism exists. Talmud written not for g’lut but rather to serve as a model to establish common law courts when Jews reconquer our homeland. Not till 1948 does the Talmud vision come actually into play.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [He did engage deeply with the Hebrew Bible, just not within rabbinic or halakhic categories.] Back to which came first chicken or egg? LOL No he did not study the Hebrew T’NaCH. Which he called “Old Testament”. The Church perverted the T’NaCH like “virgin birth” nonsense. Muhammad no different, he perverted the Torah by declaring thousands of years after the fact that Jews changed the Torah that actually the Torah recorded that Avraham bound Yishmael upon the altar! Revisionist substitute theology aint respect its bull shit.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [[23 judges for capital cases

    71 (Sanhedrin) for national matters]] No actually 2 courts of 71 in Jerusalem! National matters most essentially entail judicial justice among our own people. צדק צדק תרדוף defines Torah faith.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Scholars debate this] of course Torah scholars debate. 2 Jews 3 opinions. LOL

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    G’lut Reshonim opinions do not superimpose sealed T’NaCH Talmudic Midrashic . How does the sealed masoret serve as the basis of Torah scholarship. I personally reject reject the later non masoret Rambam additional comments just as I “interpret” the Book of Kings as satire which mocks king Shlomo as “the wisest of all men”.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Avot not a Case/Din b/c it by definition teaches Aggadic like mussar. I invite to to list a Mishnaic source that’s not common law. Mishna named after D’varim משנה תורה which means common law.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [But the conclusion that it therefore “rejects” Torah categories is interpretive, not an objective linguistic fact. Scholars debate this.] No. Shmuel Ha’Katan wrote the additional blessing against Jewish “informers”, classically understood as Jews who converted to Xtianity. Oral Torah by definition interprets. The church malshinin/”kapos” (as Shoah description), reject the existence of Oral Torah “interpretations”. Bunk on them.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Other statements are inaccurate or oversimplified (for example, about Esther and Cyrus timing, or how courts functioned).] corrected that error already thanks to you.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [This text isn’t a reliable explanation of Jewish law or history. It’s a theological argument built on selective readings, strong opinions, and nonstandard interpretations, presented as if they reflect the Tanakh and Talmud—but they don’t in any broadly accepted sense.] Not religious. Hence do not learn Torah as theology or history. Dead people had their day under the Sun. Now its the turn of my generation! The idea of “standard” absurd. Dead g’lut Jews cannot obey the Torah לשמה – not different from Xtians and Muslims. LOL. G’lut Jews remain in “Egyptian slavery”. They have no power to rule the oath sworn lands with judicial justice any more than 2nd Common wealth Jews could under Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman occupation!

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [What you’ve written is a particular ideological stance, not an accurate or widely accepted account of Judaism or its relationship to Christianity, Islam, Bonhoeffer, or Rambam. Many of the claims either overstate, generalize, or rely on interpretations that most scholars and religious authorities would not accept.] Torah aint a theological creed belief system, at least not to this atheist – praise God. LOL.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Mussar as “court structure”
    Mussar in Tanakh refers to ethical rebuke and moral development, not a legal system design.] Mussar supplies the wisdom/the k’vanna of all time-oriented commandments. K’vanna by definition NOT ritual forms or practices —- anymore that the bark of a tree the same as its fruits.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Rambam’s code is widely accepted as a valid and foundational halachic work, even by those who also value the sugya-based method.] No. his code destroys the sugya-based method. Proof, read any super commentary on his Yad. Those commentaries – one and all – tits on a boar hog worthless. Why? B/c all fail to affix a Rambam halacha to a B’HaG, Rif, Rosh common law which learns Gemara halachot as precedent to “get this” INTERPRET the language of the Mishna based upon different sugya perspectives!

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Prophets rebuked kings, but that’s not the same as establishing a judicial model like the one described] None of the kings of Israel or Yechuda – not David, not Shlomo not Yerovam-Hosea – the last king before the fall of Israel ,,, not any king ever established the Sanhedrin courts! Yes the Yerushalmi disputes this opinion based upon the dispute did king David establish a city of refuge small sanhedrin court in Damascus. But neither Damascus nor Jordan considered part of Israel “TODAY”.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    Just wondering why Israel doesn’t send troops to Iran?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Israel has troops in Lebanon. The marines a skill unique to the US. and perhaps Japan. Not a real Israeli skill set.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    Why not in Iran tho?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Iran a 1000 miles distant or more. An army must be supplied. This would require a navy much bigger than currently exists in Israel – a country about the size of the State of New Jersey. By land an Israeli army would have to cross Syria, and Iraq to invade Iran.

    Israeli strategic interests center upon integrating the Jewish state into a Middle Eastern and North African/Horn of Africa economic alliance. Invading a country carries long term “blowback”; the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis took down the Carter Administration and brought Reagan to power. While the latter far more talented than the former. Arab “blow back” has occurred ever since Jews kicked ass and won our National Independence in both the ’48 & ’67 War of National Independence.

    Prior to the ’48 1st Independence War the focus rested upon expelling the British. That empire together with the French empire dominated the balance of power across the Middle East Africa India and Iran before the 2nd European Civil War/WWII caused both the British and French empires to collapse.

    The French slaughtered millions in both Algeria and Vietnam before that vile scum ejected from both countries. The French economic domination of the economies of many North African countries only thereafter began to throw off the domination of Paris over their currencies – still a work in progress.

    The ’56 War Ike and Stalin destroyed the great power status of London & Paris; De Gaulle particularly repulsive toward Israel prior to his breaking his “alliance” (divide & rule) with Israel against the British imperialists.

    The June War in ’67, with LBJ tied down in Vietnam, much like Putin today in the Ukraine, London and France “dictated” terms of the post War “land for peace” (divide and conquer bs) spewed out of the UN Security Council. UN 242 serves as the foundation of all UN condemnations of Israel.

    242 treats Israel as a UN protectorate territory. Its vague language implied the existence of a “Palestinian State”. You can easily see that in the language of that shitty European imperialism. The resolution advocates for the right of all states in the region to live in peace, which many interpret as including the Palestinian territories.

    Nixon in UN 338 post ’73 Yom Kippur War clipped the wings of London and French imperialism and restored the policy established by Ike in ’56. This US policy rejects European colonialism which FDR denounced … but the tin-horn Truman used US ships to return the French back to Vietnam in ’45. That dumbass move triggered the Korean War disaster and set the stage for the Vietnam war American defeat.

    The Oct7th 22023 Abomination War Israel has destroyed the influence of England and France across the Middle East and North Africa and Horn! This strategic foreign policy initiated by David Ben Gurion after the 1939 2nd White Paper betrayal of the British which shaped the foreign policy of FDR to likewise close US borders to Jewish refugees attempting to flee from the Nazi monsters.

    Post Shoah Israeli Jews swore an oath: “NEVER AGAIN”. Meaning the European insanity which Arab societies likewise embraced called “the Jewish Problem”, post Final Solution Shoah – European would NEVER AGAIN impose any of their fucked up “solutions” upon Jews.

    President Trump’s Abraham Accords destroyed the UN 242 British French Russian and that dumb ass LBJ’s attempt to impose the UN Security Council’s ‘final solution’; this society of pigs often for a spell called “Quartet”. Its forced the Oslo Accords which imposed tremendous pressure upon Israel to establish a Palestinian state.

    The Sharon government in 2005, unilaterally withdrew from Gaza to establish a Palestinian state their based upon the Begin government withdrawal from the Sinai post Camp David peace accords.

    Begin did not view the Sinai as intrinsic to the first or second Jewish state and felt that establish peace with Egypt Israeli interests could sacrifice the Sinai to Egypt. The key demand placed by Sadat upon Israel at Camp David!

    Samaria, the heart of the post Shlomo (dumb ass) Civil War kingdom of Israel – Hell NO. European imperialism call that land “West Bank” despite the 1950 UN condemnation of Jordan’s “illegal” annexation of Israeli territory. European revisionist history pretends that Palestine exists in the West Bank! What a load of utter Nazi like propaganda. Never an Arab Palestinian state in human history! Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in that European word!!

    Post Shoah NEVER AGAIN defines Israeli strategic foreign policy. Invading Arab or Muslim countries in an offensive war NOT within the strategic interests of the tiny Jewish state. Just as the Arafat propaganda about ‘Greater Israel’ a blood libel comparable to the Middle Ages European barbarism.

    For Israel to invade Iran, such dumb ass stupidity would play right into European imperialism which Jews utterly detest. The Trump Gaza Peace Board includes Saudi Arabia and together with Turkey but excludes London, and Paris wow wow wow!!!!

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    they could send airpower. Largely inaccurate or oversimplified

    Truman’s support for France in Vietnam did not directly cause the Korean War.
    These are complex geopolitical events, not simple cause-and-effect chains.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Correct. Truman’ containment policy & Marshal Plan likewise contributed. A lot of threads required to sow a dress. But the post war reversal of FDR’s opposition to French imperialism/colonialism by Truman – a major thread. Once the frogs surrendered to the Nazis the French empire in Asia collapsed.

    Taking advantage of the frogs flatback state, Japan occupied Vietnam in September 1940. Japan exploited Vietnam’s resources for its war efforts, leading to widespread food shortages, especially during the 1944 famine.

    The oppressive occupation fueled anti-colonial sentiments. Groups such as the Viet Minh, formed in 1941 & led by Ho Chi Minh. The oppressive occupation fueled anti-colonial sentiments. Widespread food shortages, especially during the 1944 famine. Caused Ho Chi Minh to gain popularity and support.

    His advocating for independence, combined with Japan’s ousting of the French Administration in March 1945. A power vacuum occurred in August of that year following Japan’s defeat. The Viet Minh declared Vietnamese Independence on September 2, 1945. In 1949 Truman officially supported the French return to Vietnam after World War II. This support, part of efforts to re-establish French colonial rule in Indochina, leading to tensions that eventually escalated into the First Indochina War.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Antisemitism comes under a Torah curse known as Amalek. Goyim never to this day accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the commandment to war against Amalek applies only to Jews not Goyim. A close examination of the language of the Torah, the Zohar and other Reshonim condemned the lack of יראת אלהים the Torah affixes to the ערב רב – assimilated and intermarried “Jews” who serve as the base cause for the Torah curse of Amalek/antisemitism in all generations. This interpretation stands upon the יסוד that Torah commands mussar to all generations of Jews alone.

    Old-school Baptist churches never made any protest not to the British 1939 White Paper which closed Palestine to Jewish refugees nor to FDR’s duplication of the White Paper to America. The systematic murder of 75% of Western European Jewry did not qualify as a ‘spiritual matter’. Not just ‘Old-school Baptist churches’ but all Xtian churches in American and England failed to denounce Chamberlain’s White Paper which betrayed the 1922 British mandate to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Name a single church in America or England which denounced the British White Paper betrayal. A betrayal just as profound as Chamberlains surrender of the Czech Republic to Germany in 1938.

    A few Catholic priests did oppose the Chamberlain government’s restrictive policies regarding refugees. Their voices were generally isolated, reflecting broader societal attitudes at the time. In the United States, there was a notable lack of large-scale protests from Christian churches, including Catholic and Protestant denominations, against President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policies that restricted immigration and closed American shores to Jewish refugees. While some individual clergy and smaller groups expressed their dissent, it did not result in a coordinated movement or significant demonstration.

    Both in England and America, the prevailing public sentiment during this period often leaned toward isolationism and concern over national security. The voices that did speak out were significantly outnumbered by those supporting restrictive measures or remaining silent. The lack of widespread protest contributed to the difficulties faced by Jewish refugees trying to escape the looming threat of Nazi Germany.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “Torah mussar applies only to Jews”
      ✔ Partly true
      Torah commandments are primarily addressed to Jews.
      ✖ Too absolute
      Tanakh also includes moral expectations for all humanity (e.g., Noahide laws, prophetic ethics).
    2. Churches and the 1939 White Paper / refugee policies
      ✔ Partly accurate overall trend
      There was widespread failure in the U.S. and Britain to respond strongly to Jewish refugee crises.
      Many churches did not organize large-scale opposition.
      ✖ Overstated
      It’s not accurate to say “none” protested:
      Some clergy, activists, and groups did speak out
      There were efforts (though limited and often ineffective)
      ✔ The broader point holds:
      Public pressure was weak, and isolationism was common.
  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Noachide laws only apply to gere toshov residents of the Jewish state. Did no church priests or pastors did not protest.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Its still crude but your question: wow its such an excellent question. Truly am impressed by what you ask and we discuss together.

    Asked by a European with whom i frequently discuss Torah as a political and not a religious document. She asked me why Israel does not send an Army and invade Iran? Here my crude response:

    Iran a 1000 miles distant or more. An army must be supplied. This would require a navy much bigger than currently exists in Israel – a country about the size of the State of New Jersey. By land an Israeli army would have to cross Syria, and Iraq to invade Iran.

    Israeli strategic interests center upon integrating the Jewish state into a Middle Eastern and North African/Horn of Africa economic alliance. Invading a country carries long term “blowback”; the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis took down the Carter Administration and brought Reagan to power. While the latter far more talented than the former. Arab “blow back” has occurred ever since Jews kicked ass and won our National Independence in both the ’48 & ’67 Wars of National Independence.

    Prior to the ’48 1st Independence War the focus rested upon expelling the British. That empire together with the French empire dominated the balance of power across the Middle East Africa India and Iran before the 2nd European Civil War/WWII caused both the British and French empires to collapse.

    The French slaughtered millions in both Algeria and Vietnam before that vile scum ejected from both countries. The French economic domination of the economies of many North African countries only thereafter began to throw off the domination of Paris over their currencies – still a work in progress.

    The ’56 War Ike and Stalin destroyed the great power status of London & Paris; De Gaulle particularly repulsive toward Israel prior to his breaking his “alliance” (divide & rule) with Israel against the British imperialists.

    The June War in ’67, with LBJ tied down in Vietnam, much like Putin today in the Ukraine, London and France “dictated” terms of the post War “land for peace” (divide and conquer bs) spewed out of the UN Security Council. UN 242 serves as the foundation of all UN condemnations of Israel.

    242 treats Israel as a UN protectorate territory. Its vague language implied the existence of a “Palestinian State”. You can easily see that in the language of that shitty European imperialism. The resolution advocates for the right of all states in the region to live in peace, which many interpret as including the Palestinian territories.

    Nixon in UN 338 post ’73 Yom Kippur War clipped the wings of London and French imperialism and restored the policy established by Ike in ’56. This US policy rejects European colonialism which FDR denounced … but the tin-horn Truman used US ships to return the French back to Vietnam in ’45. That dumbass move triggered the Korean War disaster and set the stage for the Vietnam war American defeat.

    The Oct7th 22023 Abomination War Israel has destroyed the influence of England and France across the Middle East and North Africa and Horn! This strategic foreign policy initiated by David Ben Gurion after the 1939 2nd White Paper betrayal of the British which shaped the foreign policy of FDR to likewise close US borders to Jewish refugees attempting to flee from the Nazi monsters.

    Post Shoah Israeli Jews swore an oath: “NEVER AGAIN”. Meaning the European insanity which Arab societies likewise embraced called “the Jewish Problem”, post Final Solution Shoah – European would NEVER AGAIN impose any of their fucked up “solutions” upon Jews.

    President Trump’s Abraham Accords destroyed the UN 242 British French Russian and that dumb ass LBJ’s attempt to impose the UN Security Council’s ‘final solution’; this society of pigs often for a spell called “Quartet”. Its forced the Oslo Accords which imposed tremendous pressure upon Israel to establish a Palestinian state.

    The Sharon government in 2005, unilaterally withdrew from Gaza to establish a Palestinian state their based upon the Begin government withdrawal from the Sinai post Camp David peace accords.

    Begin did not view the Sinai as intrinsic to the first or second Jewish state and felt the critical need to establish peace with Egypt by far outweighed the capture of Sinai which President Eisenhower forced Israel to return. Iran a 1000 miles distant or more. An army must be supplied. This would require a navy much bigger than currently exists in Israel – a country about the size of the State of New Jersey. By land an Israeli army would have to cross Syria, and Iraq to invade Iran.

    Israeli strategic interests center upon integrating the Jewish state into a Middle Eastern and North African/Horn of Africa economic alliance. Invading a country carries long term “blowback”; the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis took down the Carter Administration and brought Reagan to power. While the latter, far more talented than the former; Arab “blow back” has occurred ever since Jews kicked ass and won our National Independence in both the ’48 & ’67 Wars of National Independence. Prior to the ’48 1st Independence War, the focus rested upon expelling the British. That empire together with the French empire dominated the balance of power across the Middle East Africa India and Iran before the 2nd European Civil War/WWII caused both the British and French empires to collapse.

    The French slaughtered millions in both Algeria and Vietnam before that vile scum ejected from both countries. The French economic domination of the economies of many North African countries only thereafter began to throw off the domination of Paris over their currencies – still a work in progress. The ’56 War Eisenhower and Stalin destroyed the great power status of London & Paris; De Gaulle particularly repulsive toward Israel prior to his breaking his “alliance” (divide & rule) with Israel against the British imperialists. That a Frog governments sits as a permanent member with a veto on the Security Council – an utter joke! France lost WWII, Paris surrendered to Hitler, the Vichy kissed Nazi ass for years.

    The June War in ’67, with LBJ tied down in Vietnam, much like Putin today in the Ukraine, London and France “dictated” terms of the post War “land for peace” (divide and conquer bs) spewed out of the UN Security Council. UN 242 serves as the foundation of all UN condemnations of Israel. 242 treats Israel as a UN protectorate territory. Its vague language implied the existence of a “Palestinian State”. You can easily see that in the language of that shitty European imperialism. The resolution advocates for the right of all states in the region to live in peace, which many interpret as including the Palestinian territories.

    Nixon in UN 338 post ’73 Yom Kippur War clipped the wings of London and French imperialism and restored the policy established by President Eisenhower in ’56. This US policy rejects European colonialism which FDR denounced … but the tin-horned freshman Truman – used US ships to return the French back to Vietnam in ’45. That dumbass move triggered the Korean War disaster and set the stage for the Vietnam war American defeat. Thank God President Trump beat the ass of Hill-Billary Clinton 2.0 in ’16; the worst President post WWII Obozo, his UN policy of 2334 attempted to dictate classic European imperialism upon the Jewish state.

    The Oct7th 22023 Abomination War Israel has destroyed the influence of England and France across the Middle East and North Africa and Horn! This strategic foreign policy initiated by David Ben Gurion after the 1939 2nd White Paper betrayal of the British which shaped the foreign policy of FDR to likewise close US borders to Jewish refugees attempting to flee from the Nazi monsters.

    Post Shoah Israeli Jews swore an oath: “NEVER AGAIN”. Meaning the European insanity which Arab societies likewise embraced called “the Jewish Problem”, post Final Solution Shoah – European would NEVER AGAIN impose any of their fucked up “solutions” upon Jews.

    President Trump’s Abraham Accords destroyed the UN 242 British French Russian and that dumb ass LBJ’s attempt to impose the UN Security Council’s ‘final solution’; this society of pigs often for a spell – called “Quartet”. Its forced the Oslo Accords which imposed tremendous pressure upon Israel to establish a Palestinian state. The Sharon government in 2005, unilaterally withdrew from Gaza to establish a Palestinian state their based upon the Begin government withdrawal from the Sinai post Camp David peace accords. Israel despises the post Oct7th UNWRA attack that resulted in the slaughter of over 1200 Israelis and stolen hostage kept in underground Hamas dungeons for two years which the Red Cross never once visited. But the UN and ICJ and ICC bull shit declaration of genocide, that terminated the usefulness of the UN; it negated the 2/3rds UN member state 1947 — 181 which recognized Jewish equal rights to self-determination. All Arab wars fought against Israel those Arab states despise the concept that dhimmi Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East.

    Begin did not view the Sinai as intrinsic to the first or second Jewish state and felt that to establish peace with Egypt … Israeli interests could sacrifice the Sinai to Egypt. The key demand placed by Sadat upon Israel at Camp David! Samaria, the heart of the post king Shlomo (dumb ass) Civil War kingdom of Israel – Hell NO. European imperialism calls this land “West Bank”, despite Britain lopping off Trans-Jordan from its Palestine mandate at the Jordan river and the 1950 UN condemnation of Jordan’s “illegal” annexation of Israeli territory. European revisionist history pretends that Palestine exists in the West Bank! What a load of utter Nazi like propaganda. Never an Arab Palestinian state in human history! Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in that European word!!

    Post Shoah NEVER AGAIN defines Israeli strategic foreign policy. Invading Arab or Muslim countries in an offensive war NOT within the strategic interests of the tiny Jewish state. Just as the Arafat propaganda about ‘Greater Israel’ a blood libel comparable to the Middle Ages European barbarism. For Israel to invade Iran, such dumb ass stupidity would play right into European imperialism which Jews utterly detest. The Trump Gaza Peace Board includes Saudi Arabia and together with Turkey but excludes London, and Paris wow wow wow!!!!

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    In shadows cast by whispered dreams of fate,
    Young Naomi eyes a craftsman, keen and proud,
    Marco, whose talents weave a rich estate,
    Yet, distant, hides behind a silent cloud.

    Diana speaks of love that burned like fire,
    Of a stylist named Syl, bold and distinct,
    Their worlds apart, yet drawn by fierce desire,
    Two hearts aflame, with passion’s ink.

    But love, like art, demands a costly price,
    Tradition’s chains clash with the vibrant new.
    In choosing selves, they paid with cold sacrifice,
    Each found their truth, though bittersweet they grew.

    Now Naomi stands, with knowledge borne from scars,
    To chase a flame, or cast her gaze to stars.

    Rambam worshipped a Universal God no different from Xtianity and Islam. Bunk on the Rambam.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Christianity and forced conversion
    Historically, forced conversions did occur (e.g., parts of medieval Europe, Spanish Inquisition).] Late in the 19th Century a maid baptized a Jewish child and the Pope personally got involved in that child’s seizure from his parents. The NY Times condemned this barbarism.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    In the late 15th century, particularly around the time of the Spanish Inquisition and the Alhambra Decree of 1492, many Jews faced the choice of conversion to Xtianity or expulsion from Spain. It is estimated that about 50,000 to 100,000 Jews converted to Xtianity to avoid expulsion.

    These converts, known as “conversos” or sometimes pejoratively referred to as “Marranos,” often faced suspicion and discrimination even after their conversion, leading to a complex identity struggle within society. Many maintained Jewish practices in secret while outwardly adhering to the Xtian faith.

    This barbarism defines church policy for the last 2000+ years till the Shoah.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [His works are not limited to exile conditions; he explicitly writes laws for:

    a restored Sanhedrin

    a Temple

    a Jewish state (e.g., Hilchot Melachim)

    So saying his opinions only address exile is incomplete.] Rambam’s statute law opinions as treif as shrimp and pork.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Avoda Zara does not correctly translate to idolatry. The prophets mocked fools who worship idols. The Rambam wrote for Am Haaretzim like himself.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [The idea that halacha only applies inside Israel or only to certain groups in the way described is not standard.] Nonsense. No such thing as “standard”. All Torah commandments hang like a thread from the 1st Sinai commandment. The Talmud refers to this by the metaphor “mountain hanging by a hair.”

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Cohanim as a specific subgroup (descendants of Aaron)] No the Talmud instructs that tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot. Both mitzvot wisdom commandments which require k’vanna/prophetic mussar. The Rambam did not know this. Pathetic silly fool an utter moron. He declared in his 5th positive Torah commandment that tefillah was a mitzva from the Torah. The RambaN spanked his bottom till his nose bled. Akin to you pointing out that HaDassah came to generations AFTER Cyrus! LOL The Rambam published his Yad in about 1185 and died around 1204 yet never corrected his dumb-ass silly obvious mistakes. The language tefillah refers to kre’a shma not the rabbinic mitzva of shemone esrei. Just as a korban requires a ודוי so too does tefilla, the Rambam fool could not discern between a ודוי דרבנן from a ודוי דאורייתא. The rabbinic Shemone Esrai for it to stand in the stead of korbanot applicable to all Israel not just the sons of Aaron! This wisdom required. The term מלאכה means wisdom-actions; the skills required to build the Mishkan wisdom-actions. The 1st wisdom of מלאכה, it separates form from substance. Its not the forms of the Tabernacle but the substance of tohor middot which occupy the Yatzir Ha-Tov לשמה which “interprets” the k’vanna of the revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai. Fools like the reactionary Rambam confuse the forms of the Mishkan with the substance of the Mishkan – the Oral Torah middot (which the church likewise denies) fill the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people ie all Israel to this day who stand at Sinai and accept the revelation of the Torah! Sinai not a historical event of the past but a living mussar for all generations unto all eternity.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    “Key middah of Rabbi Yishmael’s system = Mishnaic common law”
    Not accurate framing… not just rabbi Yishmael’s middot but rabbi Akiva’s middot and Hillel’s middot and rabbi Yossi’s 32 middot all of them “interpret” the kabbalah of how פרדס “interprets” the revelation of the 13 tohor spirits which Moshe Rabbeinu orally heard at Horev on Yom Kippur.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    A Pesach Victory blessing to President Trump who shall achieve a cease fire with Iran, in the shadow of the political anarchy that ensued in both Iraq and Libya. Chag Sameach – Whoooooooooooop.

    Pesach: The birth of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov as an Independent Nation who conquers the land of Canaan as the eternal national inheritance of the Goy Cohen Nation which sanctifies the holy negative consequences of יראת שמים as loss of ones’ ‘good name’ reputation; together with the most holy rise up and do commandment to love HaShem לשמה through the acquisition of positive commandment “בניני אבות” which plant the seeds of prophetic mussar to grow tohor spirits within our Yatzir Ha’Tov hearts which compares חמץ to the cursed 2nd Sinai commandment – tuma middot spirits that define the seduction of the Yatzir Ha-Ra serpent which first deceived Chava.

    The difference between Hevel’s wisdom dedication of the chosen Cohen father vs. firstborn Cain’s barbeque to heaven – the Koran declaration that prophets went to all Goyim despite their rejection of the Torah revelation at Sinai.

    A korban a wisdom commandment, which like tefilla, requires k’vanna. K’vanna defined as prophetic mussar – which dedicates Oral Torah tohor spirits within the Yatzir Ha’Tov; to prevail over competing tuma Yatzir Ha-ra spirits based upon the נמשל of the Mishkan משל.

    The revelation of the Torah at Sinai differentiates between the vision of the Divine Names of בראשית prophets from the 1st commandment Divine Name לשמה — תורה לא בשמים היא. Just as korbanot cannot express a sanctification-dedication except at the chosen place of the Cohen altar at Jerusalem; so too and how much more so justice requires Sanhedrin courts which define Torah “faith” as צדק צדק תרדוף.

    The contrast of Cain’s barbeque to heaven, it despises the Torah revealed faith which pursues judicial justice. Akin to the Easter post blood libel pogroms which through the Ages of Xtian and Muslim racial injustice produced the fruits of the European Shoah, together with the post WWII Arab attempts to exterminate all Jews and reject the idea that dhimmi Jews share equal rights to achieve national self determination within the borders of the Cohen lands.

    All Torah commandments exist as a mountain held aloft by the 1st Torah commanment hair; אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים – Egypt clearly לאו דוקא. Just as korbanot only dedicated upon the Cohen altar in Jerusalem, so too and how much more so צדק צדק תרדוף defines acceptance of the Torah לשמה — applicable only within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen land inheritance – the Chosen seed of the Avot.

    The brit of Avraham – that childless man would כלל father the chosen Cohen people – the k’vanna of Hevel’s chosen Cohen korban dedication through the מלאכה wisdom of prophetic mussar; which serves as the k’vanna foundation of all time-oriented Av Torah commandments. The פרט of both Yitzak and Yaacov, they both define this כלל.

    Through Blessing/Curse Life\Death-ruling the land with justice vs. existing as slaves under the oppression corrupt “Egyptian” cursed justice. ברכת כהנים – this Cohen blessing has three parts, like the “thesis statement” p’suk of kre’a shma tefilla דאורייתא inclusive of three Divine Names – כלל-זימן גרמא מצוות, פרט שב ולא תעשה and פרט קום ועשה מצוות; tefilla דרבנן inclusive of אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב prophetic Shemone Esrei.

    The substance of Torah faith לשמה – – Sanhedrin common law courts which differentiate between דני נפשות from דני ממון – Capital Crimes vs Torts Damages. This fundamental הבדלה separates the klippa Mishkan form/Tree of life “bark” from the essential essence fruits of righteous justice as the dedication of Torah Sinai acceptance.

    The jurisdiction of Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts – only in the oath sworn Cohen inheritance land – under the essential pre-condition that the Chosen Cohen people rule Independent from foreign domination; the latter defines g’lut judicial Par’o straw courts – judicial injustice – comparable to the vertical British Star Courts which validated British navel impressment of American sailors seized on the High Seas and forced to serve a 25 year sentence on British ships of war.

    Whereas דני ממון torts courts – this judicial סמיכה – while also inclusive of the precedent of the House of Aaron Moshiach anointing dedication – have jurisdiction in both ארץ ישראל and g’lut Egyptian lands of judicial oppression corrupt-injustice. The Easter passion blood libel pogroms produced the tuma mussar fruits of the Shoah – both in Europe and all Arab wars to throw the Jews of Israel into the Sea.

    When missionaries come knocking at my door, my first question to them: My people burned in the ovens of death camps across Xtian Europe, where was Jesus? Where was Allah as rabid Muslim believers scream to this day “death to the Jews? Yet Arabs lose war after war like Europe now rejects the reputation of the Church; the EU made no reference to the church when it attempted to establish a Constitution.

    Pesach – not just liberation from Egypt — it is the birth of a nation whose entire purpose is to sanctify justice, kavanah, and prophetic mussar in the land promised to the Avot, and history shows the consequences when this mission is rejected or suppressed. The mussar k’vanna of this “Oral Torah” interpretation of Chag Pesach 5786, he seder table itself becomes the altar where we re-swear the brit — not with animal korban but with the living dedication of prophetic mussar in the Yatzir Ha’Tov. Chag sameach.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Yes the Hashmonean kingdom destroyed through — you guessed it “Civil War”! The Romans appointed Herod as king. That Roman appointed king terminated the Independence of the 2nd Jewish common wealth. The Book of Maccabees records that Rome supported the Jewish revolt against the Syrian Greek empire.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    Your statement gets the tragic arc right — a heroic revolt for independence that was ultimately undone by internal Jewish division, leading to Roman rule and Herod’s kingship. The only real tweak is that Rome’s “support” in the time of the Maccabees was diplomatic rather than military.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The Talmud teaches that during the entire period of the 2nd Jewish commonwealth, Jews never once kept the mitzva of Yovel, the Torah commandment to free Jewish slaves in the 50th year. The same applies with the judicial concept of Sanhedrin common law courts!

    The rabbis back in 2000 did not have a clue.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    Sanhedrin and courts
    The claim that “the same applies” to courts is not accurate.
    • The Sanhedrin absolutely did exist during much of the Second Temple period.
    • It functioned as a high court dealing with law, leadership, and major cases.
    • However, its authority declined over time, especially under Roman rule. By around 40 CE, it had already lost key powers like capital punishment.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Israel had Independence for about 110 years. The rabbis replaced the P’rushim after the fall of the kingdom to the Romans.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Thank you so much for your excellent feed back.

    my error of prior rather than after touching Esther a real oooops

    Planting the mussar seeds of justice within the hearts of the Jewish people.

    The traditional vertical court system fails to deliver true justice and equality, whereas the T’NaCH and Talmud present a transformative vision through horizontal courts that empower justices to collaborate in decision-making. The standard model of judicial systems worldwide, including Israel, operates on a vertical framework where individuals face the State, and the government funds the salaries of judges and prosecutors.

    In contrast, the T’NaCH and Talmud propose a different vision of courtroom justice. My scholarship emphasizes the establishment of a court of three Torts Justices, specifically designed to address cases of physical damages. This model represents a radical shift from vertical British Star-courts to horizontal courts, akin to the American Revolution’s establishment of the jury system.

    I have served as a judge on a 23-member Sanhedrin Capital Crimes exile court and later on the Great Court in Jerusalem, consisting of 71 justices for Final Appeals. Unfortunately, many of my rabbinic peers concentrated their legal education on statute-law and religious halachic ritual codifications developed during the dark days of Jewish exile in Europe and Arab lands, a period characterized by political chaos and called the ‘Dark Ages.’ The post-Shoah modern Jewish state bears little resemblance to those long-suffering societies that lived as stateless refugees, deprived of essential social and political rights.

    The Talmud vision to serve as the model of common law courts when the Jews reconquered our homelands away from any Goyim attempts to dictate terms. The Talmud bases its vision of common law courts upon the earlier T’NaCH common law prophetic commands of mussar. Prophets commanded mussar to kings, fully aware that mussar a person cannot command. Not to kings nor to all generations living thereafter. Mussar, as a rebuke, compares to a seed that sprouts and grows from within the hearts and not from words which denounce wrongs made by people long since dead. The vision of prophetic mussar – plays a long game.

    Confronted with defeat, I failed to convince or sway a majority of my judicial peers that the Torah Constitution mandates common law courts; wherein one justice, in the 3 man most simple Torts example, appointed as the prosecution – opposed by a second justice who argues the defense. Both required to write a brief of precedent cases, wherein that judge attempts to sway or persuade his opposing other – court justice judge – that the case-precedents contained in his “brief”, more closely resemble the case currently heard before the court. And visa-versa, the same equally applies with the judicial opposing Case/precedent brief. Only in a situation where both of these opposing justices, that they failed to persuade their opposing “other” – of the merits of their precedents – only in this dead-lock would the 3rd court Judge rule one way or the other.

    The specific case where Rav Shwartz argued that the Sanhedrin should judge a judicial dispute of damages which occurred in the jurisdiction of American courts. I failed to convince Rav Shwartz that mesechta Sanhedrin Aggadita which refers to bnai noach goyim only referred to gere toshav persons living within the borders of Judea. Rav Shwartz relied upon the ruling of the Rambam. I failed to convince a majority of my Sanhedrin peers that statute law not the same as common law. An absolute disgrace for the post Shoah Sanhedrin courts to base our legal system upon Roman statute law legal systems – on par with the NT wolf dressed in wool metaphor.

    Rav Shwartz focused upon the tactics of the case at hand and failed to perceive the strategic ‘Big Picture’.
    Lateral common law court justices do not receive any salary from State authorities or figures. Just as kashrut police should not receive a salary from the stores they police for kashrut. A lateral common law court – similar to Israeli health insurance – court justices paid a salary from legal insurance till the people who make a damage claim dispute require a courtroom hearing. One against another wherein the guilty agrees to pay a portion of court costs – the time required for the court to resolve their damage dispute; restore trust by awarding fair compensation of damages inflicted upon the injured party.

    The T’NaCH prophets vision of common law expressed through the precise medium of mussar. If compared to the metaphor of a Loom prophetic mussar contrasts with Talmudic common law “threads” which make the warp/weft woven fabric of Talmudic common law. Mishnaic common law, expressed through prior Case/Rule judicial ruling precedents. The Gemara – both within the Yerushalmi and later Bavli – employs halachot as judicial precedents. Meaning, these judicial halachic precedents משל instruct the נמשל of witnesses testifying what they personally saw in a case heard before a Sanhedrin court. Just as the ‘Front/Top\Side views of a blueprint present different picture images, so too the perspectives seen by different eye-witnesses before the court.

    The statute law codification of religious ritual observance made during the Dark Ages of Jewish exile no more apply to a Sanhedrin court in post Shoah Israel than the Sanhedrin court has a judicial mandate to judge Goyim disputes in foreign lands abroad! The jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin בטול to within the borders of Israel just as the first Commandment Sinai Name בטול to the Divine Names in the first Book of בראשית wherein the Avot witnessed the vision of God in the Heavens above and the Earth below. Whereas the Sinai revelation makes, so to speak the Ari’s mysticism – Tzimtzum; תורה לא בשמים היא. Meaning the Spirit of the 1st Commandment Name – post the Yom Kippur revelation of the 13 tohor spirits/Oral Torah – that this שם השם לשמה Spirit dwells only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

    What conditions must exist for this בטול of אל שדי in the Heavens above to השם restricted to the Yatzir Ha-Tov tohor middot within the Cohen peoples’ hearts? Only to the living and not the dead. Jews tuck their tzitzits into their pockets with visiting a grave. Mitzvot לשמה only apply with living Jews within the borders of ארץ ישראל. Jews living in foreign lands – remain in Egypt. Slaves no more free than Judea ruled by Roman appointed kings or governors.

    Consequently the spirits of the 13 tohor middot which Moshe Rabbeinu heard on Yom Kippur – where HaShem made “t’shuva” and remembered that only the Avot would father the chosen Cohen seed, not Moshe, nor JeZeus, nor Muhammad. Claims of ‘Son of God’ compare to Ishmael bound upon the altar by Avraham! All substitute theological belief systems, such as the Tawhid or Trinity – equal to and no different from Goyim who style themselves as being “bnai Noach” while living in Goyim countries abroad. The revelation of the 1st Commandment שם השם לשמה made only to the 12 Tribes of Israel who came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan. Hence rabbi Akiva argues that the Wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come. World to come learns from the brit cut between the pieces wherein Avram asked what could אל שדי give his seeing he had no seed? That oath brit cut there, stands upon the oath that the Avot, starting with Avram, would father the chosen Cohen people — in the future עולם הבא.

    The din of כרת, this Torah curse – the opposite of the ברכה known as ger tzeddik. Just as the latter a new creation so too the former. Hence the court has the mussar mandate of נידוי. For example: if a man profanes his קידושין oath, and refuses to return Title to the acquire נפש עולם הבא soul of his wife, the court can impose the din of כרת, based upon the precedent of the Wilderness generation who refused to rise up and conquer the land of Canaan. The נידוי din imposed upon the Wilderness generation, does it not likewise explain the din of the Shoah upon European Jewry.

    This type of lateral court the vision of both the T’NaCH and Talmud, excludes by definition the T’zeddukim or the alien Goyim – imported by the Assyrian king who conquered the kingdom of the 10 Tribe republic of Israel, whose decree imposed a mass population transfer of the tribal kingdom of Israel. Who replaced a foreign peoples, from other nations – equally conquered by that same evil empire. This specific alien people who embraced the Torah, due to their great dread: “fear of lions”, planted by the Assyrian king in Shimron – historically the lands of Samaria; the NT Greek work refers to these despise foreign imported aliens – as Samaritans – whom the Jews greatly despised. Ezra’s generation (Ezra 4:1-3) rejected the “assistance” of the Shimronim to build the 2nd Temple.

    Isaiah, a great prophet of the kingdom of Yechuda, referred to king Cyrus as “moshiach’. He permitted Yechudim exiles to return and rebuild our nation. But the great king, while he paid from his own national treasury the expense to build Ezra’s Temple, that king rule an empire of 127 conquered collapsed nation states like the examples of both conquered kingdoms of Yechuda and Israel. Yechuda, the name of the 4th son of Yaacov, king Cyrus labelled Yechudim as “Jews”. That name, has stuck to this very day in time.

    The Book of Esther, set during the reign of King Ahasuerus, often identified with Xerxes I of Persia; about 2 generations after king Cyrus permitted Jewish refugee population to return from conquered Babylonian exile. The Persian empire conquered the defunct Babylonian empire – occupied the current State of Iraq today.

    The Gemara – a commentary on the Mishnah. A compilation of Jewish oral laws codified by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, rather than a direct commentary on rulings of the Great Sanhedrin. While the title of ‘Great Sanhedrin’ the Romans technically maintained/permitted. That “court” compares to the ‘Great Sanhedrin’ established by Napoleon! That Gemara commentary written in Iraq, supplemented an earlier attempt to do the same thing within the borders of Judea itself. But the Yerushalmi attempt collapsed about 90 years after rabbi Yechuda made his first formal codification of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings, established prior to the Romans imposing first king Herod and later Roman governors to ruled that tiny land – which the Romans renamed as Palestine.

    This latter name, the League of Nations referred to in their 1922 Palestine Mandate, which authorized Britain to restore a Jewish national home in “Palestine”, based upon the 1917 Balfour Agreement and the policy of the Great King Cyrus of the extinct Persian empire destroyed by Alexander the Great. All Arab and Muslim conquered provinces, ruled by Britain and other European great powers, who later attained their own national independence, condemned both the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate which directed England to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

    All Arab Israeli wars fought starting with the 1948 Independence War, Arab and Muslim warring states fundamentally reject that dhimmi Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. Arabs argued that once lands conquered by Arabs, that those lands could not change their status. Since the Camp David Accords and later Abraham Accords more and more Arab and Muslim countries have started to recognize Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.

    Since the 1948 War of National Independence, foreign state imperialism has attempted through UN Resolutions to determine the borders of the Jewish state. But Israel, once it won its national Independence ceased to exist as a ward of the UN protectorate mantle. Post ’67 UN “Star Courts” have attempted to treat Israel as a protectorate of the UN. Such Top-down decrees, serve only foreign attempts by countries like England and France to restore their deposed ‘Great Power’ status across the Middle East. Especially after Eisenhower & Stalin forced London and Paris to withdraw their attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal. Post ’67 with LBJ tied down in the Vietnam War, Britain and France attempted to restore their dominance in the balance of power in the Middle East by introducing UN Resolution 242.

    Great Power interference through the UN Security Council, indicates a collective ‘Great Power’ effort to address ME conflicts … to dominate the balance of power in the ME. The UN 242 language “the right of all states to live in peace”, implies Palestine as a State! Later UN Resolutions of condemnations over settlements and occupation proves conclusively the hostile intent of ‘Great Powers’ to dominate the balance of Power in the Middle East. Absolutely no different than from the attempt in 1956 to seize the Suez Canal. These so-called defrocked great powers – they do not determine the borders of the Jewish state nor the Capital of the Jewish state anymore than Britain and France determine the borders of the US or Russia or the respective Capital cities of those Independent Nation states.

    Post the Oct7th Abomination War, UN Top-down justice attempted to declare a unilateral decree which condemned Jerusalem guilty for the war-crime of genocide. The ICJ and ICC, the later Israel never validated the Rome agreement, likewise condemned the Israeli PM as a war-criminal. Despite the failure of the International Red Cross to visit Israeli hostages held in Hamas dungeons and UNRWA’s participation in the Oct 7th massacre.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    “Horizontal courts” in T’NaCH and Talmud as a radical alternative to vertical systems: This is heavily interpretive. The ancient Sanhedrin and lesser courts were hierarchical (with the Great Sanhedrin at the top). While Talmudic courts involved debate and multiple judges, they were not “horizontal” in the modern democratic/jury sense you describe (one justice as prosecutor, another as defense, third as tie-breaker). The American jury system is a later English common-law development, not a direct parallel to Talmudic procedure. Your “three Torts Justices” model sounds like a personal scholarly proposal rather than a standard Talmudic structure.
    “British Star-courts” comparison and salary independence: Star Chamber was an English prerogative court known for secrecy and abuse — not the standard model for modern Israel or most systems. Talmudic judges were often supported by the community or worked part-time; the idea of “legal insurance” funding courts is creative but not directly from classical sources.
    Dark Ages exile codifications as irrelevant today: This is an extreme view. While the Shulchan Aruch and similar codes were shaped by diaspora realities, they are still foundational for most Orthodox halachic practice today — including in Israel. Dismissing them wholesale as “no more applicable” to a post-Shoah Sanhedrin is not a mainstream position.
    Sanhedrin having no mandate over “Goyim disputes” or Bnei Noach abroad: Partially fair, but overstated. Classical sources do discuss Jewish courts’ limited authority over non-Jews (especially Noahides), but the blanket rejection you present goes beyond standard halacha.
    Mussar/Loom metaphor, Tzimtzum, 13 tohor middot, and linking to 1st Commandment/Yatzir Ha-Tov: These are sophisticated kabbalistic and philosophical interpretations (drawing on Ari/Zohar, etc.). They are valid within certain mystical or mussar traditions but are not “the” straightforward vision of the T’NaCH or Talmud. Many traditional scholars would see this as highly creative exegesis rather than plain peshat or established halacha.
    Linking din of karet/nidui to the Shoah and Wilderness generation: This is theologically sensitive and speculative. While some thinkers draw mussar lessons from historical tragedies, directly equating the Shoah to the din of karet on European Jewry (as collective punishment for “profaning” something) is not a consensus view and can be seen as problematic or offensive by many.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    🙂 Oral Torah logic interprets. That’s how this logic format functions. The Revolutionary War of America which responded to the corrupt Star Chamber courts which laundered stealing Americans off of US boats to serve 25 years in the British navy, obviously not an exact fit. Something like how do you describe the color blue on a cloudy day? LOL

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The first commandment reference to Egypt understood “”””who took you out of “exile””””.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    All Xtian or Muslim theological belief systems – Treif av tuma avoda zara.

    Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The difference between ספר בראשית — אל שדי, אלהים, אל וכו from ספר שמות ודברים — עשרת הדיבורות — the first Sinai commandment revelation of HaShem as תורה לא בשמים היא became permanently established. JeZeus prayed to his father Zeus who dwells in the Heavens, and not within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the Cohen hearts here on this Earth. The Torah concept of בטול restricts the revelation of the שם השם לשמה to Spirits/רוח הקודש living within the chosen Cohen peoples’ hearts.

    Just as the first born son Adam, Avraham, and Yitzak, and Yaacov rejected as the chosen Cohen, so too and how much more so the Pauline propaganda that Goyim — through belief in JeZeus as God become — magically becomes “grafted” onto the Torah Sinai revelation reserved only for the chosen Cohen people. The AI idea – [Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as a 20th-century Lutheran theologian, operated within a Christian framework that did not engage with Oral Torah as a normative, revelatory source — nor did he interpret the Shem HaShem (the Divine Name) through Kabbalistic or rabbinic lenses. His theology centered on Christ as the embodiment of God’s Word] … Which came first the chicken or the egg? Duh! The chicken.

    The NT replacement theology in no wise respects the Torah concept of בטול as interpreted as לא בשמים היא. Therefore the AI clause that Bonhoeffer “respected” the Torah – utter drivel and complete bunk. Bonhoeffer, not respectful in the least to Hebrew Scriptures. All other Torah commandments, including the mitzva of Moshiach depend upon the 1st Sinai commandment. The mitzva of Moshiach – not a false messiah obligation to wait and recognize the son of God born from a virgin. The Moshiach wisdom commandment no different that all other Torah wisdom commandments — applicable to all generations of Israel; equally to sanctify this Torah commandment, no different from the model Torah wisdom commandment of shabbat.

    The NT written in Greek not Hebrew. The Greek NT language has no concept of the distinction between מלאכה vs עבודה. JeZeus never kept shabbat as a mitzva. Torah wisdom commandments – starting with the Creation “story” introduce the wisdom of time through the 6 days of Creation! Not that “time” itself central, anymore than the bark of the tree replaces the fruit! This type of “time-oriented” commandment sanctifies Torah wisdom, which affixes the dedication of Oral Torah לשמה middot as the k’vanna of all time-oriented Torah commandments.

    Just as the wisdom commandment of Shabbat dedicates not to do wisdom commandment/מלאכה on the day of Shabbat in order to sanctify doing wisdom commandments/מלאכה throughout the 6 days of the creation of מלאכים. The term מלאכה\מלאכים stands upon the precedents of Yaacov stripping the poles when ewes stood in heat, and sending מלאכים to Esau. Sheep conceived whatever condition which Lavan decreed to impoverish Yaacov; just as Esau, despite an Army led by 400 officers – kissed Yaacov!

    The creation of מלאכים goes hand in glove with the creation of the chosen Cohen people – likewise created through wisdom time-oriented commandments; the wisdom commandments like shabbat or Moshiach forever testify to תמיד מעשה בראשית. Wisdom Torah commandments, they create the chosen Cohen people in all times and generations.

    Lutheran Bonhoeffer, like all Goyim throughout history has no connection to this Torah revelation because only Israel accepts this revelation which the NT substitutes with its new God JeZeus. This closing statement, not polemical, but rather it represents judicial precision which fundamentally rejects all theological creed belief systems as the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

    Greek NT word: ἔργον (ergon), can refer to anything from manual labor to moral actions; its employed throughout the NT in many contexts. Contrast mesechta Shabbat which defines מלאכה through the 39 skills required to construct the Mishkan. The two languages of opposing verbs not at all equivalent terms. The Greek NT text like Mark 2:27 uses general vocabulary like ergon or poiein (“to do”), not technical halakhic terms. The P’rushim, however, discern melacha — as defined through 39 skills required to construct the Mishkan — which Moshe Rabbeinu did not do on Shabbat.

    The NT does not use the technical Jewish term melacha. Therefore, the Gospel writers are not making a halakhic argument about which specific actions count as melacha. Mark 227 replaces the commandment not to do מלאכה with a declaration that shabbat made for man rather than sanctifies the מלאכה required to accomplish the 6 days of creation.

    The Rambam Yad dresses up philosophy in the garments of halacha. A NT wolf dressed in sheep wool con-job. Gemara halachic ruling only serve as witness who view the Mishnaic Case/Din viewed only from different witness perspectives and never from some foreign כלל of a Universal Monotheistic Tawhid God. Halacha observance in g’lut – Jews have no freedom and therefore no obligation to rule the oath sworn lands with justice. G’lut Jews “Rome becomes their New Jerusalem”.

    Never once anywhere across the Yad code does the Rambam remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut the brit that they alone would father the chosen Cohen people through wisdom commandments. The statute Yad assimilated abomination declares that Gemara halachot stand upon their own two feet – they operate independently from serving as precedents which interpret a specific Case/Din Mishna! This catagorical error forever separates his Yad from the Talmud codes of the B’HaG Rif Rosh and Baali Tosafot common law commentaries on the Talmud.

    Rambam’s statute halakhic system – not identical to the Torah‑she’be’al‑peh common law judicial system established by Ezra, the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, and Chazal. Torah as Brit, not assimilated counterfeit Greek philosophy; פרדס inductive logic does not compare to Greek syllogism deductive logic. Rambam’s reduction of Torah commandments to 613 catagorically rejects the B’HaG who ruled that rabbinic commandments sanctified as wisdom mitzvot – from Sinai. Justice defines the k’vanna of the salvation from Egyptian slavery unto freedom. No where in the Rambam Yad does he once refer to justice as Sanhedrin court obligations to make a fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews. No where does the Rambam ever once refer to the rejection of Shaul as Moshiach and the rebuke of David by Natan for their failure to sanctify justice as “the k’vanna” of their anointing as Moshiach – based upon the Torah precedent of Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach.

    Rambam’s statute halacha a perversion on par but different from the Karaim and Shomronim differ from the Torah established by Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly. Rambam subsumes לא בשמים היא to a Tawhid Allah Universal God. Hence בדיעבד he permits a Jew to daven in a Mosque. Rambam’s this-worldly, political-national definition fails to validate the mitzva of Moshiach as a wisdom bound time-oriented commandment. His Sefer Ha’Mitzvot limits the 613 commandments to positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna. He confuses a building of wood and stone as the substance of צדק צדק תרדוף; that’s as false as JeZeus is God or Muhammad is a Torah prophet. He fails to discern that Shalom a verb that stands upon trust; whereas peace a noun forever used as Greek propaganda rhetoric to rule the mob/masses. His erroneous nonsense fails to learn Torah common law precedents as the basis to interpret wisdom k’vanna; Moshe anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach to dedicate korbanot with the wisdom to sanctify צדק צדק תרדוף through Sanhedrin common law courtrooms! Restore Israel and build the Temple confuses klippot/bark with justice fruits of National Independence/responsibility\accountability. Slaves – Jews in g’lut have none of these three priorities of “freedom”.

    Sugya: Shabbat 49b–50a, this sugya is perfect because it exposes the difference between Talmudic method and Rambam’s method. The sugya’s structure – inductive; start with a case then brings proofs, analogies, counter-proofs. It derives principles and applies them back to Mishna Case\din. In Hilchot Shabbat 7:1–2, Rambam simply states: “There are 39 melachot… these are the categories of prohibited labor.” His Yad presents – a closed list, no Mishna case; no sugya reasoning; no witness-perspectives; no inductive derivation; no connection to the oaths by which the Avot cut the brit to father the chosen Cohen people, the משל\נמשל Mishkan/Shekinah within the Yatzir Ha-Tov בכל לבבך interpretation made by rabbi Yechuda’s tefillah דאורייתא.

    Contrast the Rif\Tosafot/Rosh: The Rif quotes the sugya almost verbatim, preserving the reasoning. The Tosafot analyze contradictions, exceptions, and conceptual boundaries. Rosh preserves the disputes and the logic – they all treat the sugya as jurisprudence, not legislation. In Hilchot Shabbat 12–13, Rambam “One who carries from reshut to reshut is liable…” “If he carries less than a shiur, he is exempt…” The Mishnah (Shabbat 1:1) presents a case: A poor man outside, a homeowner inside – who extends a hand vs ho takes or places. The Gemara analyzes: Intent, domains, agency, minimal quantities and purpose of carrying – case/based reasoning. The Rif code treats halacha as precedent; the Rosh treats halacha as jurisprudence. The Rambam Yad abstractions switches justice into statute – not brit obligations. The Rif/Rosh do not codify the mitzva of Moshiach. They treat it as aggadic-halacha which צריך עיין.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “All Christian or Muslim belief = avodah zarah / impurity”

    In mainstream Jewish thought, this is not universally agreed.
    Classical sources differ:
    Rambam tends to view Christianity as problematic in terms of pure monotheism, but Islam as strictly monotheistic.
    Tosafot and later authorities are often more lenient about Christianity for non-Jews.
    So a blanket statement like that is an opinion, not a consensus.

    1. Bonhoeffer and “disrespecting Torah”

    Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian, so he naturally read the Hebrew Bible through a Christian lens.
    That’s not the same as “disrespect.” It’s a different interpretive framework.
    He did engage deeply with the Hebrew Bible, just not within rabbinic or halakhic categories.

    1. Claims about “Torah only for a chosen priestly group”

    This reflects a very specific and nonstandard theological system.
    In normative Judaism, Torah is given to all Israel, not just a subset defined as “chosen Cohen people” in the way you describe.

    1. New Testament and Shabbat / melacha

    It’s true that the NT is written in Greek and doesn’t use halakhic terms like melacha.
    But the conclusion that it therefore “rejects” Torah categories is interpretive, not an objective linguistic fact. Scholars debate this.

    1. Rambam critique

    The critique of Rambam you’re presenting is well outside mainstream Jewish scholarship.
    Even those who disagree with Rambam (and many do on specifics) do not characterize him as importing foreign theology or severing Torah from its foundations in the sweeping way you describe.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    I mention the assimilated opinion of the Rambam. Goyim worship their own Gods. Its not the place for Jews – in g’llut or otherwise – to tell them they are wrong! Only Israel accepts the Torah revelation at Sinai.

    Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran. Xtianity has a long history of forced conversions or be burnt at the stake. The Spanish Inquisition serves as witness. Jews do not seek to convert Xtians but Xtians always seek to convert Jews!

    The chosen Cohen people the main theme of the Torah starting with the rejection of Cain’s korban despite him being the first born son of Adam. That’s as “main stream” as you can go.

    All Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai EXCEPT the ערב רב and the entire Wilderness generation LOL.

    Impossible to keep shabbat without acknowledging time oriented commandments. The term מלאכה directly refers to time-oriented commandments.

    Every Jew knowledgeable about Rambam knows the man embraced Greek logic.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “Goyim worship their own gods… not for Jews to tell them they’re wrong”

    In Rambam, this isn’t really accurate.
    He holds that idolatry is incorrect for everyone, not just Jews.
    He also outlines the Noahide laws, which include prohibitions on idolatry for non-Jews.
    However, Judaism generally does not actively proselytize, so in practice Jews don’t go around trying to convert others.
    So this statement mixes a real-world attitude (non-proselytizing) with a claim Rambam would not agree with.

    1. “Only Israel accepted Sinai”

    This is broadly consistent with traditional Jewish belief: the Torah was given to Israel.
    But many sources also say the nations were offered the Torah and declined (a midrashic idea), so it’s more nuanced.

    1. Christianity and forced conversion

    Historically, forced conversions did occur (e.g., parts of medieval Europe, Spanish Inquisition).
    But the claim that “Christians always seek to convert Jews” is an overgeneralization.
    Today, many Christian groups do not engage in coercion, and some avoid targeting Jews specifically.
    So: historically grounded, but overstated in the present and as a universal rule.

    1. “Chosen Cohen people is the main theme of Torah (from Cain onward)”

    This is not a mainstream framing.
    The Torah speaks about:
    Israel as a chosen people (עם סגולה)
    Cohanim as a specific subgroup (descendants of Aaron)
    Extending that idea back to Cain/Abel as a “Cohen theme” is a personal interpretation, not standard Jewish teaching.

    1. “All Israel accepted Sinai except the ערב רב and wilderness generation”

    This is incorrect in mainstream sources.
    The Torah repeatedly presents the entire people at Sinai as accepting the covenant (“נעשה ונשמע”).
    The “wilderness generation” is criticized for sins, but not described as rejecting Sinai altogether.
    The role of the erev rav is discussed in midrash, but not in the sweeping way stated here.

    1. “Melacha = time-oriented commandments”

    Not accurate.
    In halacha, melacha refers to specific categories of creative labor (derived from the Mishkan), not “time-oriented commandments.”
    Shabbat is time-based, but melacha itself is about types of action, not time as a concept.

    1. “Rambam embraced Greek logic”

    This is partly true but often misunderstood.
    Rambam was influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and uses logical structure.
    But he did not replace Torah with Greek philosophy; he integrates philosophy into a Jewish framework.
    Saying he “embraced Greek logic” is fair in a limited sense, but using that to discredit him is not how mainstream Jewish tradition views him.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Rambam lived among intolerant Arabs. Naturally he said Xtians were wrong. LOL A simple study of Rambam’s Yad easily proves that his logic system – not based upon פרדס logic but rather Greek logic.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Yes but the Torah defines throughout the T’NaCH avoda zara as ערב רב – assimilation and intermarriage. The Mishna of Sanhedrin rabbi Akiva gives the opinion that the Wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. “Torah defines avodah zarah as erev rav / assimilation / intermarriage”

    Not correct.
    In Tanakh and halacha, avodah zarah has a clear meaning:
    → worship of other gods / idolatry.
    While intermarriage and assimilation are strongly discouraged or prohibited in the Torah, they are:
    separate categories, not definitions of idolatry.
    There are connections made in the text (e.g., intermarriage can lead to idolatry), but that’s causal, not definitional.

    1. “Erev rav = avodah zarah”

    This is not a standard equation in classical sources.
    The erev rav appear in the Exodus story and later midrashim, sometimes associated with negative influence (like the Golden Calf),
    but they are not used as a formal definition of idolatry.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    “other gods” refers directly to the avoda zara of Egypt and Canaan. LOL But other gods inclusive of Baal or Molok, Asherah, Dagon, Chemosh, Ishtar, Ishtar, Astarte — these specific Gods serve only as examples but by no means qualify as an exhaustive list. YHWH, Jehova etc all examples of perverting the Spirit Name to word translation Golden Calves. LOL

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Its truly a real pleasure to communicate with you!!! You present excellent points. Thank YOU.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    Yw!

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    What qualifies as “Oral Torah”? Just as the 1st Commandment Name Oral Torah – spirit and not word – so too the 13 tohor middot – spirits and not words. Words cannot breath life into the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Cohen bnai brit hearts. John 1:1 – flush that shit down a toilet. Oral Torah logic requires a living spirit to understand the distinction between air blown from the lungs and spirits blown from the heart.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The mitzva of Amelek interpreted to mean that the ערב רב their assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs revealed their lack of fear of heaven! Phinchas killed the head of Shimon for being a Goya into the camp in the war fought again Midian who specifically attempted to entice Israel to have sex with Midean women to bring a Torah curse of avoda zara upon Israel. The Book of Ezra learns this way as well; the people known as Samaritans despised and rejected to assist in building the Temple. The Samaritans the first counterfeit people who attempted to describe themselves as the “New Israel”.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    zionist? but that’s more about political/nationhood, land, no?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Classic Herzl Zionism came at the Dreyfus trials and Russian pogroms. And culminated with the Balfour Declaration which resulted in the declaration of the Jewish State named Israel.

    But the substance of Zionism, all Arab Israeli wars fought over the rejection by Arab states of Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. This vision of self-determination defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. :))) You have nailed the heart and soul of how Zionism interprets the Torah inheritance of all the Jewish people and not just the Orthodox religious Jews who mostly declare Zionism as corrupt and false.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Tehillem סט:יט-לו does not serve as a close בנין אב to learn the k’vanna of Isaiah נג:ג-ה or סג:ז-ט because suffering/ridicule etc refers to themes—suffering, communal dishonor, enemies’ triumph, pleas for vindication, and hope for restoration—which echo Israel’s experience of g’lut and t’shuva. Based upon the model of HaShem doing t’shuva and remembering the oaths sworn to the Avot that they, and only they, would father the chosen Cohen people; not Moshe or any other would replace – the most essential brit sworn only to the Avot.

    These p’sukim, they amplify Jeremiah 33:24–26; Ezekiel 36:22–28. Furthermore Isaiah 41:8–9; 49:3; 52:4–6 serve as witness that the intent of “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53 implies a national and not an individual context. The theme – HaShem making t’shuva by remembering the Avot and restoring Israel – as taught in the mussar of Ezekiel 16:60; Leviticus 26:42.

    All three major prophetic books together with minor prophets like Micah and Hosea teach this common foundational mussar — which portrays Israel’s suffering as the curse side of the blessing/curse oath Sinai brit.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    3) “HaShem doing teshuva”

    This needs correction.

    You referenced:
    • Ezekiel 16:60
    • Leviticus 26:42

    These do say:
    • God “remembers” the covenant with the Avot

    But:
    • Calling this “teshuva” (repentance) is not standard theology

    In Tanakh:
    • Teshuva = humans returning to God
    • God “remembering” = covenant faithfulness, not repentance

    So:
    • ❌ “God does teshuva” → theologically inaccurate in mainstream Judaism
    • ✔️ Better: God reaffirms / fulfills the brit

    ⸻

    4) The Avot vs. Moshe claim

    You wrote that the covenant is only with the Avot, not Moshe.

    Partially true, but incomplete:
    • The covenant with the Patriarchs is foundational
    • But Sinai (through Moses) establishes:
    • the national covenant with Israel

    Texts like Jeremiah 33:24–26 emphasize:
    • Israel will not be rejected

    ✔️ So:
    • The Avot covenant is central
    • ❗ But Sinai is not secondary or replaceable—it’s the binding legal framework

    ⸻

    5) Blessing/curse framework (Sinai covenant)

    This part is solid.

    You’re connecting:
    • Exile and suffering
    with
    • covenantal consequences

    That aligns with:
    • Leviticus 26
    • Deuteronomy 28
    • Prophetic literature like:
    • Ezekiel 36:22–28
    • Micah
    • Hosea

    ✔️ This is a core prophetic theme:
    • Sin → exile
    • Teshuva → redemption

    ⸻

    6) Overall synthesis of your claim

    What’s strong and valid:
    • Isaiah’s “servant” can plausibly be Israel as a nation ✔️
    • Psalm 69 is not a strict interpretive template ✔️
    • Prophets link suffering to covenant (brit) consequences ✔️
    • Restoration tied to God remembering the Avot ✔️

    What’s overstated or inaccurate:
    • ❌ “God does teshuva” → not standard or textually precise
    • ❌ National interpretation of Isaiah 53 as the only valid one
    • ❌ Minimizing the Sinai covenant vs. Avot covenant

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [“God does teshuva” → theologically inaccurate in mainstream Judaism. ] The Xtian God does not do t’shuva b/c God cannot repent. But the local god of Sinai ALL about forever doing t’shuva b/c this requires remembering the oath sworn specifically to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they and they alone would father the chosen Cohen people.

    To cut a Torah brit requires swearing a Torah oath. Covenant does not mean Torah oath. Covenant the “sign of a new religion”. Both bible and koran religious books. Torah: the Written Constitution of the Cohen Bnei Brit Republic which specifically mandates a Sanhedrin common law court system. No Sanhedrin court system has jurisdiction outside the borders of an Independent Cohen nation wherein the Cohen people rule the land – cut through a Torah oath – as the eternal inheritance of the Chosen Cohen People.

    [ “God does teshuva” → not standard or textually precise] Moshe caused HaShem “”to remember”” the oath sworn to the Avot. That’s straight from the language of the Torah and the basis of t’shuva required for Yom Kippur and the dedication of all korbanot time oriented commandments which most definitely require k’vanna based upon the precedent that HaShem chose the korban of Hevel and rejected the korban of Cain-despite him being the born first-born son. The korban of Cain – offered without k’vanna, Cain did not remember the oath sworn to Adam that he would father the chosen Cohen people. בראשית links this oath brit of the chosen Cohen people through Noach → Avram. Just as Adam the father of all Humanity → Avram the father of a multitude of nations. Just as the Torah brit alliance applicable only to the “chosen Cohen seed of Adam – specifically through the seed of through Seth.

    Seth too had three sons. Just as the seed of Cain excluded from being the “brit chosen Cohen people” so too the seed of Ham, son of Noach.

    Just as 10 generations separated Adam → Noach. So too 10 generations separated Noach → Avram.
    Just as the Sinai oath brit alliance cut only with the 12 Tribes of Israel — excluded specifically both “first born” children of Yishmael Avraham and Esau Yitzak — Isaiah 53 “nationalizes” the suffering servant to g’lut Israel forced to remember the sworn oath brit alliance in order to do t’shuva. The fundamental distinction which amplifies the Sinai oath brit from the creation of Adam through a sworn oath brit, (both Adam and Noach and Avram in the Book of בראשית would father a “multitude of nations/Goyim”, but not till the revelation of the Torah at Sinai/Horev would HaShem understood through בטול which restricted the Horev revelation of 13 Tohor רוח הקודש-spirits which fundamentally reject the Golden Calf word translation אלהים, because the Tzimtzum (A Ari kabbalah chiddush which describes the Creation metaphor as a wisdom time-oriented commandment → based upon “Talmud which means ‘learning’” the k’vanna of the 7 days of Creation which the Torah calls “Shabbat”. The Siddur itself “learns” shabbat as the entire week, not limited to a single day – יום ראשון בשבת → יום שני בשבת וכו.

    The primary source for the six‑days/one‑day structure in the בראשית creation story introduces first and foremost the difference between Torah wisdom commandments from positive and negative secondary-toldot commandments through the משל of 6 days מלאכה and one day לא תעשה מלאכה — metaphor which requires its נמשל which the other Books of the Torah “interpret” the הבדלה required which separates time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna.

    The בראשית creation motif as a paradigmatic משל that establishes a fundamental הבדלה: six days of מלאכה versus one day of not‑doing (שבת) that functions as the archetype for distinguishing time‑oriented, kavanah‑dependent mitzvot (the “wisdom/time” commandments) from ordinary positive/negative mitzvot. Textual anchors for that reading: Bereishit 2:2–3; the Shabbat formula in Ex. 20:8–11 and Ex. 31:13–17 (Shabbat as the “ot”/sign); and the Torah’s tefillin passages (Ex. 13:9,16) and later rabbinic rulings that treat Shabbat’s sign as superseding the weekday sign. That hermeneutic — reading creation as a organizational/systemic dimension that generates halakhic and liturgical הבדלה — defensible within classical and medieval exegetical streams, for example Ashkenazi Siddurim write יום ראשון בשבת, יום שני בשבת יום שלשי בשבת וכו.

    Texts that support this framing include Bereishit 2:2–3, the Shabbat commandments (Ex. 20:8–11; 31:13–17), the Torah passages about signs/ot (e.g., Ex. 13), and the rabbinic rulings about tefillin and Shabbat; many liturgical formulations and some sidduric insertions reflect that theological/halakhic logic. Hence all this stands upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and the masoret of פרדס inductive reasoning logic as the definition of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, inclusive of the 7 middot of Hillel, 10 middot of Akiva, 13 middot of Yishmael and 32 middot of Ha’Galilee.

    Bibliography that supports this interpretation: B’HaG — readings where it aligns with Rosh against Rambam on the primacy of Shabbat’s sign and the liturgical implications located in Menachot/Exodus. Rashi — comments on Menachot 36b (on the status of tefillin and the “ot” of Shabbat) and on Genesis 2:2–3 regarding שבת as creator’s rest. Tosafot — glosses on Menachot 36b and Eruvin 96a (discussing tefillin, the sign/ot, and Shabbat/weekday distinction) where the dialectic with Rashi and geonic positions – developed. Rif (Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi) — Hilchot Tefillin and related halachot in his compendium across tractates Menachot, Eruvin, and Shabbat. Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher) — his halachot and responsa treating tefillin and Shabbat; Menachot/Eruvin and his Hilchot Tefillin rulings, where he explicitly challenges Rambam’s formulations about signs and practice.

    Peshat commentators (Ibn Ezra, Radak) — treat creation‑Shabbat as literal/grammatical, not primarily as a systematic hermeneutic for kavanah‑dependent vs. non‑kavanah mitzvot. Ramban/Nachmanides — while he gives theological weight to Shabbat, he develops different juridical/theological grounds (prophetic/mystical elements) rather than making the creation motif the sole organizing rule for kavanah‑dependence. Halakhic codifiers (Tur/Shulchan Aruch and standard poskim) — legislate practical rulings (e.g., tefillin on weekdays, not on Shabbat) from Talmudic precedent and exegesis, not by adopting a general rule that creation’s six/one model systematically classifies all mitzvot by kavanah requirement. These many example dispute the interpretation learned above.

    Mainstream Jewish theology treats HaShem as not subject to sin, so saying “HaShem does teshuva” requires deeper investigation. Biblical translations whose language replaces “repentance” (נחם) read as God changing a course in relation to creation’s unfolding precisely fits in with Xtian and Muslim replacement theologies. Phrases like נחם, interpreted only as anthropomorphisms or as relational shifts in response to human behavior—not as literal repentance implying moral change in God. Translating נחם straightforwardly as “repentance” (in the sense of God changing morally) aligns more easily with Xtian and Muslim theological frameworks that recast divine mutability; such renderings therefore reflect distinct doctrinal anti-Israel prejudices which graft Goyim unto the Jewish root or assume that prophets sent to all Goyim – who never accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

    The Mishnah warns, any human attempt to define God—who is above, below, or beyond human grasp—risks presumptuousness; better that such a person to have never been born, than to project arrogate knowledge of the Divine essence which makes a בטול הבדלה which separates Divine Names such as אלהים, אל שדי as found in בראשית from the first commandment שם השם לשמה which limits to לא בשמים היא-Yatzir Ha-Tov לבבך\כם of kre’a shma-Shekinah. Rendering נחם simply as “repentance” (in the sense that God changes morally) affixed to substitute theologies of Xtian and Muslim theological worship of other Gods/2nd Sinai commandment. The worship of these other Gods permits divine mutability. Translating נחם as literal repentance defines substitute theologies whose worship permits divine mutability.

    The Torah repeatedly frames divine action in covenantal memory language (e.g., God “remembering” the Avot) — this is central to readings of Yom Kippur, korbanot, and the role of human teshuva combined through all the 13 tohor middot Spirits/רוח הקודש. Mainstream tradition locates efficacy in human teshuva + ritual/korban + divine covenantal remembrance (expressed via the 13 Attributes – Oral Torah revelation of רוח הקודש at Horev – and related doctrines), rather than literal divine moral repentance. Kabbalistic/midrashic streams elaborate purified רוח הקודש frameworks that connect the 13 middot, kavanah, and sacrificial/time‑bound efficacy.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. Does God “do teshuva”?

    In normative Jewish theology:

    No — God does not repent or “do teshuva” in the human sense.

    Teshuva assumes sin, error, or moral correction, which do not apply to God.

    When Tanakh uses language like:

    “וַיִּנָּחֶם ה׳” (“God reconsidered/relented”)

    classical commentators explain this as:

    anthropomorphic language (Torah speaking in human terms), or

    a change in how God relates to people, not a change in God Himself.

    This is explicit in:

    Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed) – God does not change.

    Saadia Gaon, Ibn Ezra, Radak – similar approach.

    So your bracketed statement is correct:

    saying “God does teshuva” is theologically inaccurate in mainstream Judaism.

    1. “God remembers the covenant” — what that means

    This part does have a real basis:

    The Torah often says God “remembers” the covenant with the Avot (e.g., Exodus 2:24).

    But “remembering” does not mean forgetting and then recalling, or correcting a mistake.

    It means:

    God acts in accordance with the covenant at a given moment.

    Moses invoking the Avot after the Golden Calf (Exodus 32) is understood as:

    a prayer appealing to covenantal commitment,
    not causing God to “repent.”

    1. Korbanot, kavanah, and Hevel vs. Kayin

    You’re right that:

    kavanah (intent) matters in Jewish practice.

    Midrashim discuss why Hevel’s offering was accepted and Kayin’s wasn’t.

    But:

    The Torah itself does not say Kayin failed because he ignored an oath about a “chosen Cohen people.”

    That whole framework is not found in classical sources.

    1. Covenant (brit) vs. oath

    In Tanakh:

    A brit (covenant) often includes oaths, signs, and obligations.

    But it is not reduced to a legal oath in the narrow sense.

    For example:

    Brit Avraham includes promises, land, descendants, and circumcision as a sign.

    Sinai includes law, not just an oath formula.

    Your definition of Torah as a kind of political constitution of a “Cohen republic” is a modern reinterpretation, not a traditional one.

    1. Sanhedrin and land-dependence

    Partially true, but overstated:

    A full Sanhedrin requires conditions tied to the Land of Israel.

    But it is not true that Torah law only functions under full sovereignty or that mitzvot outside the land reduce to teshuva alone.

    Rabbinic Judaism developed precisely in exile and treats mitzvot as broadly binding.

    1. Genealogy of a “chosen Cohen seed”

    This is not a standard teaching.

    Classical Judaism holds:

    Israel is chosen through Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → the 12 tribes.

    Kohanim are a subset (descendants of Aaron), not the definition of the entire people.

    There is no doctrine that:

    Seth alone carries a “covenant seed” in the way you describe, or

    Ham or others are excluded in that structured, legal sense.

    1. Shabbat, creation, and kavanah system

    You’re touching on real elements:

    Shabbat as an “ot” (sign) (Exodus 31)

    קשר between creation and mitzvot

    importance of kavanah

    But the claim that:

    the 6+1 creation structure forms a system that classifies all mitzvot into kavanah-dependent vs. not

    is not how halakhic tradition is formulated.

    As you noted yourself:

    major commentators (Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Shulchan Aruch, etc.) do not build such a system.

    1. Christianity, Islam, and “divine mutability”

    This part is also not accurate:

    Judaism rejects certain Christian doctrines (like incarnation), yes.

    But Islam is generally viewed by major Jewish authorities (including Rambam) as strict monotheism, not a theology that allows God to “repent” or change morally.

    So framing both religions as based on “divine repentance” is incorrect.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [[The Torah itself does not say Kayin failed because he ignored an oath about a “chosen Cohen people.”
    That whole framework is not found in classical sources.]] Without making the required Oral Torah דיוקים logical inferences.

    [[A brit (covenant) often includes oaths, signs, and obligations.]] What separates a Torah oath alliance – brit from a NT\Koran “covenant”?

    The latter have no idea that שם – refers to Oral Torah רוח הקודש spirits and מלכות refers to Oral Torah tohor middot spirits. The distinction that separates spirits from breath … a person breathes through his lungs whereas a person dedicates a Nefesh\Divine Name spirit through blowing a dedicated tohor middah from within his heart. Hence tefillah described as “a matter of the heart”.

    The main theme of the Torah rests upon the creation of the chosen Cohen people by means of swearing the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they father the chosen Cohen people. This Torah theme consistent from א to ת throughout the 5 Books of the Torah.

    Tefilla stands apart from שבח תהלים praises. Tefilla serves as a critical precedent to define the k’vanna of swearing a Torah oath. Both this and that require שם ומלכות. This latter pre-condition לאו דוקא because the blessing of the Cohonim, kre’a shma, and tefillat Shemone Esrei along with Kaddish all lack שם ומלכות just as does the Shemone Esrei lacks the rabbinic confession. However if tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot then just as the latter absolutely requires a dedication/ודוי so too the former. Tefillah lacks a rabbinic ודוי confession but has a ודוי דאורייתא – this requires k’vanna because it defines the wisdom of all time-oriented commandments. Wisdom commandments תמיד מעשה בראשית create the chosen Cohen people from Nothing – יש מאין.

    The Nazis by contrast referred to Jews as an inferior race and the post discovery of DNA Watson & Crick likewise focus upon physical/historical rather than mussar.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Thank you so much. Your excellent questioning forced me to modify my post substantially. Two thumbs up.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    kewl!

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Really like your cool slang. :))

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    thanx!!

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Pleasure talking with ya :)))

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    [Misleading: It was a “republic” rather than a monarchy.] The 12 tribes who conquered Canaan established a republic not a monarchy. What does מלך refer to? If HaShem lives as king then what ideally does מלך refer to?
    This word מלך exists as a משל. The נמשל the dedication of Oral Torah tohor middot. Hence the Middle blessings of the shemone esrei – 13 which affix to the 13 tohor middot spirits revealed to Moshe at Horev.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    In the Old City of Jerusalem – the ‘burnt house’. That house exceptionally wealthy, its owner had their own private mikveh! The assimilated Tzeddukim served as the caretakers for the Persian, Greeks and Roman overlords. No different than the kapo Jews in the death camps during the Shoah.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie
    1. The Tzeddukim (Sadducees)

    The group you’re calling “Tzeddukim” corresponds to the Sadducees.
    • They were largely composed of elite priestly and aristocratic families.
    • They held significant Temple authority during the late Second Temple period.
    • They often had pragmatic relationships with ruling empires (first Hellenistic kingdoms, later Rome), partly to maintain stability and their own position.

    👉 However:
    • It’s an oversimplification to say they were simply “caretakers” for foreign empires.
    • Their role was more complex: they were local elites navigating power, religion, and survival under imperial rule.

    ⸻

    1. The comparison to kapos during the Shoah

    The comparison to kapos in Nazi camps during the The Holocaust is not historically accurate and is generally considered inappropriate.
    • Kapos were prisoners forced into roles within concentration camps under extreme coercion, often in life-or-death conditions.
    • The Sadducees were free elites with political and religious power, operating in a completely different historical and moral context.
    • Most historians see these as fundamentally different situations, and equating them can distort both periods.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Judea ruled first by the Persian and later by the two Greek empires and later by the Roman empire, the Tzeddukim served as assimilated care-takers of the Judean banana republic under foreign rule. No Sanhedrin court actually operates under foreign rule.

    Hence the Framers of both the Mishna and Gemara wrote these critical codifications for them to serve as the model of Federal common law court system once the Jews reconquered our National Independence which we did in both 1948 and again in 1967.

    Jews who abandon the culture and customs which shape and determine the culture of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot = kapos. Kapos not limited to the Shoah. Weizmann cried out in 1937 “Jews of the World where are you?”. Rabbinic Judaism/kapos rejected the call to build the Jewish state just as did the Wilderness generation “precedent” in the days of Moshe/Aaron\Miriam. The term kapos compares to Egypt. Just as g’lut “Egypt” לאו דוקא so too “kapos”.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The Tzeddukim denied עולם הבא. The P’rushim learn Torah as common law, which stands upon precedents. Which mitzva serves as the יסוד precedent for עולם הבא? This question the Tzeddukim could not answer because they could not distinguish between Torah common law from Greek or Roman statute law.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    you’ve like gone on so long that idk what your actual point is.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Pointed out the reasons for the P’rushim placing the Tzeddukim into נידוי.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    And I still dk what that last word is

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Very wise: the Talmud instructs: “teach your tongue to say -‘I do not know’.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    yeah i’d rather have pple say idk than go rogue

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Thank you for the chat. Enjoyed reading your opinion. The Torah opens with chaos and anarchy – that’s the best description of Civil War.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Of course Torah predates the 10th Century CE. LOL To say otherwise would put me in the טיפש פשט camp of Khazar antisemites who declare that Jews descended from these converts!

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    like is this all you do every day?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Have studied T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim and Siddur since entering the Yeshiva in 1993. :)))

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    What’s a yeshiva?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    In Israel a Yeshiva – a Torah institution of learning.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    ah okay, bruh you in israel rn or in the states?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    I live in Israel, visited the US at the birth of my daughter and again when my other daughter got married in NY.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    so you’re not a bot

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    beep beep no not a bot beep beep LOL :)))

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    We now begin the new week.

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Jews have a long bloody history of fighting Civil Wars among ourselves. Like the saying goes: 2 Jews 3 opinions.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    Why they fight so much bruh?

  • mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The Torah brit – blessing/curse-Life\Death.

  • ianmdudley Avatar
    ianmdudley

    “He who toucheth the boat is as vile and despicable as he who toucheth a child.

    And lo, such a man (if man he indeed be) finds the vast and mighty power of the United States arrayed against him.

    His perverted ways are no match for the bunker busters.”

    Marlowe 420:404

    Hands off our boats. Seriously.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    Lolol

  • ianmdudley Avatar
    ianmdudley

    As much as you may enjoy my replies, you should be able to block this bot as spam.

    Just sayin’…

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    i will be impressed if he’s not a bot lol. the tenacity is next level

  • ianmdudley Avatar
    ianmdudley

    Tenacity? That’s the word you use to describe this morass of letters and sanctimony?

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    lol despite being told that the info is inaccurate, he has the conviction to continue on with the rambling

  • ianmdudley Avatar
    ianmdudley

    Well, I have to sit through my phone auto scrolling for five seconds every time I click into the comments where this defective AI replies with its farted out reaction.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    lolol i think he stopped now

  • ianmdudley Avatar
    ianmdudley

    Like Arnold, it’ll be back. On another post.

  • justrojie Avatar
    justrojie

    you’re right about that!

  • M. Avatar
    M.

    That’s quite a bit if Trauma

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      Just a bit, I think it makes it easier for me to empathize with people too

      Reply
  • ianmdudley Avatar
    ianmdudley

    Jesus, even without clicking through some of those links, that’s a lot to deal with!

    But hey, what doesn’t kill you leaves you traumatized and with years of therapy bills to pay.

    Glad you made it through all that. You seem well adjusted now.

    Tho maybe that’s a just a front? 😉

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      😆 idk I like to reframe things because I can’t change what’s happened. I can only control myself so I can either think of myself as a victim or a survivor.

      Reply
      1. ianmdudley Avatar
        ianmdudley

        There’s a third option, you know.

        Vengeful perpetrator.

        Reply
        1. justrojie Avatar
          justrojie

          and then there are times that i disassociate lol but it’s mostly out of boredom or being around people being petty

          Reply
          1. ianmdudley Avatar
            ianmdudley

            I suppose the high (or unobtrusively neutral) ground is better for your karma…

  • ibarynt Avatar
    ibarynt

    I think a movie was made on that Korea work camp. I watched a bit and then I don’t know where it disappeared. I can’t remember the title to search for it.

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      Ooh interesting. I wonder if it was the same place I went to

      Reply
      1. ibarynt Avatar
        ibarynt

        It could be since it was a true story.

        Reply
  • Violet Lentz Avatar
    Violet Lentz

    Keep this list. Fold it up. Put it in a book you never intend to read again and let’s take the accumulative lessons forward with us instead of the instances……

    Reply
    1. justrojie Avatar
      justrojie

      Sounds like a good idea

      Reply
  • the breakup – just rojie

    […] Preface: stalkerazzi […]

    Reply

    • Leave a Reply to justrojieCancel reply