World Photography Day — Through the Lens of Reality — (Photos)

Comments (71) on “World Photography Day — Through the Lens of Reality — (Photos)”

1. “it has always been a witness”, OMG, this six word comment, followed by the rest of your post is so truthful and thank you for posting this truth. Our kids love to look at past pictures of when we were kids and they were kids, thank God we have some. I use my phone like so many do and not often enough. And what I fail to do is have old fashion pictures made. you have made me want to make sure i have saved memories for our Grandkids. Thank you, thank you, your perspective is right on. Blessings

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Thank you for your kind words — they mean a lot. That’s the whole reason we write and photograph the way we do. Pictures are more than pixels; they’re proof of life lived. I’m so glad this inspired you to keep making those memories tangible for your kids and grandkids. That’s what it’s all about. Thanks again — and I hope you have a great week ahead. 😎

      Loading...

      Reply

2. Wow! You are an amazing photographer, John! Beautiful!

   Loading...

   Reply

3. They say that the camera never lies. Great article and Happy World Photography Day.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Thank you very much, Michael. Happy World Photography Day to you as well. 😎

      Loading...

      Reply

4. Rejecting Religious Rhetoric as False.

   Rubies Corner’s Blog·rubiescorner.wordpress.com

   Did I Tell You?

   I finished my Bible, and now I am reading it again. I have a goal for this year, so I don’t hesitate to pick up my Bible and read for awhile. Since I just finished, I am starting over….

   You could try learning the Hebrew T’NaCH – a radically different collection of books – rather than reading your Xtian bible translations. The Hebrew T’NaCH has translations, it even includes the non Jewish chapters and verses which so completely pervert the Xtian bible sophomoric translations. What difference does Order make? God vs Dog.

   The T’NaCH organized into sugyot (translated as sub-chapters). What difference does this make? The fundamental basis of the Hebrew T’NaCH stands upon a fundamental question. Does a person learn this literature לשמה או לא לשמה? To quote Shakespeare: To be or not to be — That is the question.

   Sophomoric bible translations never once bring the Name revealed in the opening Sinai commandment. Because the Xtian church does not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, it worships their own versions of the Golden Calf. טיפש פשט – translated as bird brained – makes literal translations of abstract obstruse ideas of mussar. This latter term, mussar, it defines the meaning of the word “prophesy”. Prophets command mussar. Meaning that this prophetic mussar applies to all generations of bnai brit who ever walk the face of the Earth.

   Prophets do not predict the future as the Roman counterfeit new testament: “fulfill the words of the prophets” falsely proclaims. The Torah refers to this concept of “prophesy” which it describes through the “prophet” Bil’aam; that prophet practiced כשוף – witchcraft or sorcery, practices that involve magical or supernatural powers; engaging in Av tuma avoda zarah – forbidden or occult practices forbidden by the 2nd Sinai commandment.

   The Roman forgery known as the new testament employs a lot of Greek rhetoric. Greek rhetoric: undefined critical terms upon which a religious or political witch “hangs” all subsequent ideas. Obama in the 2008 election employed the witchcraft rhetoric of “CHANGE”. The key term that won two Presidential elections for him. Problem: never in eight years did he ever once make any attempt to define this magical term “CHANGE”. The Arab false prophet Muhammad did the exact same thing in his Koran.

   The word “prophet” repeated over and again and again. Never once does the Koran ever define the abstract obstruse term “prophet”. The new testament projects a definition of the term prophet, as mentioned above, that duplicates the Torah concept of witchcraft – predicting the future. The Hebrew T’NaCH defines prophesy as “MUSSAR”; prophets do not predict the future but rather their mussar applies equally to all generations. The outcome of this critical T’NaCH definition of this absolutely critical term “prophet” … T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar but it does NOT teach history. This subtle shift requires a bit of time to sink in once consciousness.

   Another example of religious rhetoric which the new testament forgery employs, the Apostle Paul, its concept of 1. You are not under the Law. 2. Original Sin of Adam, guilt complex employed to serve as the pretext for the death and resurrection of JeZeus. 1. The rhetoric of “law”; T’NaCH defines “law” as Judicial courtroom judgments – as law. Whereas Roman law exists as rules and regulations imposed by Caesar or the Roman Senate. Paul’s rhetoric “not under the law” fails to differentiate between judicial common law vs. legislative statute law. Hence Xtians “read” their bible sophomoric translations oblivious that T’NaCH instructs judicial common law through a Case/Rule style. This latter type of “law” stands upon the foundation of earlier judicial courtroom “precedent” rulings. Statute law has not such requirement which would force a person to write a ‘legal brief’ and present possible similar and related court room ruling made prior to the current case heard before the Court. The subtle distinction that comes out of making a comparison of similar Case/Rule judicial judgments – the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev which rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah defines as פרדס p’shat remiz drosh sod.

   This logic system format radically different from Aristotle’s 3 part Syllogism. Akiva’s logic format – inductive reason; whereas Aristotle’s methodology deductive reasoning. Both systems of logic have their strengths and weaknesses. But Paul’s religious rhetoric: “You are not under the Law”, obliterated any and all distinctions which separate common law from statute law and inductive logic from deductive logic.

   The other Pauline term of religious rhetoric: Original Sin. It implies that humanity inherits guilt from Adam’s transgression. The church amplified this concept into a Fire and brimstone Heaven/Hell God/Satan polarity, which later developed into Calvin’s doctrine of complete Human depravity. Based upon the presumption of Paul’s “Original Sin”. Meaning: that the will of fallen Man enslaved in bondage to sin, and individuals cannot exercise free will as their “Moses” liberator who leads the enslaved church to salvation. Herein the requirement for the resurrection of JeZeus. Central to Calvin’s theology, the doctrine of predestination, defines his religious rhetoric. This Golden Calf replacement theology subsumes the Torah Central theme of “the Chosen Cohen People who do service to HaShem through the dedication of tohor middot” to the replacement church which believes in a false messiah JeZeus. The latter term refers to the 13 Attributes which became revealed to Moshe on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב/mixed multitudes replaced the Divine Presence Spirit Name with the word אלהים. The 13 attributes, they define the revelation of the Written Torah at Sinai. How?

   These 13 “middot” (translated as measurements) breath as living Spirits from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. Air comes from the lungs but tohor spirits come from the heart. Hence the Talmud refers to tefillah as a “matter of the heart”. Whereas the book of the gospel John declares that the Logos/word – not just a spoken word but also a principle of order and knowledge. It refers to JeZeus as the pre-existent divine being. Logos/word rhetoric salad asserts “the Word was God” which establishes the belief in the full divinity of JeZeus.

   The revelation of the Golden Calf rejects substitute theology as the definition of Av tuma (evil inclination spirits within the heart called Yatrir Ha’Rah) of avoda zarah (often mistranslated as idolatry). Therefore then how does the Hebrew T’NaCH “study” rather than simply read Common law (משנה תורה)? The first book of בראשית introduces Av tohor mitzvot – known as time-oriented commandments. The next three books of the Written Torah introduce secondary commandments (תולדות) which function as legal precedents. The last 5th book of the Torah (משנה תורה) confirms the mandate of judicial common law as ‘Legislative Review’. Meaning the common law Sanhedrin courts have not only a veto over lower government statute laws but can entirely re-write the lower government statute law and present them now as Torah common laws.

   In short, Paul’s religious rhetoric of “Original Sin” supplanted the main Torah theme of exile/g’lut as expressed through Adam’s expusion from the Garden, Noach’s Ark, the enslavement of Israel in Egypt, and the 40 year Wilderness story.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Exactly — history shows us that when a government can’t stabilize its own domestic footing, it often tries to divert the people’s anger outward. Whether by war or scapegoating, it becomes a tool of control, and the tragic part is how predictable it is. The pogroms you mentioned are proof: fear was weaponized, and in the end, it drove those same people to help bring down the very system that oppressed them. It’s a cycle — oppression breeds resistance, and resistance reshapes the future. The lesson is always the same: when leaders exploit division, it eventually consumes them.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Addressing the Av Mishna of קידושין

         The Mishna of קידושין does not simply record dialectical disputes as a form of “preserving judicial disputes.” It functions like a court record. Beit Hillel serves as the Tort judge defense attorney. Whereas Beit Shammai functions as the prosecuting attorney. Now this distinction – significant because it distinguishes lateral common law courts from vertical Goyim courtrooms.

         Great Britain operates Common law court rooms just as does Talmudic common law! However, in the case of the British Courts, all statute laws imposed by the British Parliament in London – they define the British Constitution. As such, no common law British courtroom can over-turn any statute law passed by Parliament. Torah common law, known as משנה תורה operates completely differently – despite being a common law courtroom which absolutely requires earlier court room judicial rulings as precedents. Both court systems stand on this shared foundation of common law.

         None-the-less ספר דברים mandates “Legislative Review”, a critical interpretation of the intent of משנה תורה. Torah Sanhedrin common law courts have the Torah Constitutional mandate to over-rule any government statute law imposed by any of the 12 Tribes of the Republic or the Central Government of king David. A Torah prophet serves as an agent of the Great Sanhedrin Court. As such prophets can anoint a man from any tribe of Israel – KING.

         And Great Sanhedrin Court prophets can remove any king from Office. As the prophet Shmuel did with king Shaul. This fundamental distinction of Torah Great Sanhedrin courtroom powers of “Legislative Review” differentiates Torah lateral courts from Goyim vertical courts. The latter court the State pays the salary of the judges and the prosecuting attorneys. As such a court case pits פלוני vs. the State. The Torah refers to the state paying the salaries of Judges and prosecuting attorneys as “bribes”. צדק צדק תרדוף absolutely abhors bribery; it qualifies as an example of Av tuma avoda zarah?

         This abstract term defines the 2nd Sinai commandment. Do not copy the culture and customs practiced by the Goyim and do not marry foreign women who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Judicial justice serves as the כתר Av tohor time-oriented commandment which stands upon תמיד מעשה בראשית. The kabbalah that doing tohor time-oriented commandments creates the chosen cohen people from nothing. Hence the Torah begins with בראשית. Mesechta ברכות teaches that the world was created for the sake of the Jewish people. Who exactly qualifies as the Jewish people? The chosen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – the chosen Cohen people.

         Obviously, Cohen, Levi, Israel – לאו דוקא terms of reference. A precedent proof, the din that tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot. Amalek – antisemites – continually refer to the Jewish people as a race. The Nazis referred to Jews as “the inferior Race”. Jewish inheritance determined from the mother. However, the central obligation of קידושין, as a pre-condition of marriage, upon the father to educate his children in the oath brit/alliance faith.

         Our Mishna compares to ברכות which opens with kre’a shma ערבית, just as the Av Mishna of קידושין opens with האשה. The vertical courtrooms of Goyim jurisprudence the prosecuting attorney prioritized over the defense attorney. But the model of Sanhedrin courts the reverse. The Halacha follows after Hillel!

         The Xtian Bible and Muslim Koran both fail to acknowledge that Torah prophets serve as the “police” of the Sanhedrin courts! Hence neither Muhammad nor JeZeus could qualify as prophets. This מאי נפקא מינא distinction equally applies to the acquisition of a wife. The Baal acquires his soul through marriage. The qualifications for serving as a judge in a Jewish court (Beit Din) includes personal attributes and life experiences that are deemed important for this role.

         The Talmud suggests that an unmarried man is generally considered less fit to serve as a judge. This is because marriage is seen as a significant life experience that contributes to a person’s maturity and understanding of family dynamics, which can be relevant in legal matters. Similarly, the absence of children can also be viewed as a factor that affects a person’s qualifications.

         Having children is believed to provide additional insights into the responsibilities and challenges of family life, which can inform a judge’s decisions. The underlying principle is that judges should possess a deep understanding of human nature and the complexities of life, which are often gained through personal experiences such as marriage and parenthood.

         What specifically does a man acquire through wife and family? Answer: Fear of Heaven. A Sanhedrin Judge by definition has an excellent Good Name reputation.

         Loading...

      2. Prior to the Oct7th Abomination War a Constitutional Crisis over the power of the Supreme Court of Israel exploded and threatened the continuation of the Knesset Government in Jerusalem. Currently Israel has no Constitution. But based upon the 1917 and ’22 Balfour Declaration and Palestine mandate which defines Zionism as the Jewish right to self-determination in the Middle East … self-determination defined as the Jewish right to establish a Constitutional government in our own country.
         ______________________________
         ______________________________
         mosckerr Uncategorized August 21, 2025
         J-Wire

         http://www.jwire.com.au

         Shabbat Reay
         Prophecy The concept of a prophet is central to the Torah reading this week. But what exactly is a prophet? And what is a prophet’s role? The Hebrew word for a prophet is…
         ___________________________________________
         ___________________________________________
         Prophets serve as the “police” of the Sanhedrin common law lateral courts. These courts mandated with משנה תורה, interpreted to mean — “Legislative Review”. For example: Samuel, Nathan, Ahijah, Elijah, Hosea – major and minor prophets – Anointed and/or deposed Kings. This Torah constitutional mandate of Sanhedrin common law\משנה תורה courtrooms based upon the Book of D’varim having the second Name of משנה תורה.

         Legislative Review radically different and set apart from British Common law courtrooms. The latter cannot void a law passed by Parliament. Parliamentary “statute law” defines the Constitution of England. Hence no common law British court has the power to overturn any law passed by Parliament. Not so Sanhedrin common law courts. Any law imposed by any tribal leader within the 12 Tribes of the Israelite Republic and even statute laws imposed by a king of Yechuda or Israel, the Great Sanhedrin common law lateral courts possess the Constitutional mandate of משנה תורה to void and overturn.

         Loading...

      3. You raise some weighty ground here, mosckerr. The crisis you point to before October 7th wasn’t just about security—it was about legitimacy. A state without a written constitution inevitably leans on precedent, interpretation, and political will, which makes every fracture existential. What you’ve outlined about the Sanhedrin versus British Common Law is fascinating—one model says no authority is above statute, the other says divine law itself mandates review, correction, and even reversal of kings.

         That contrast is striking. In one, law bends to Parliament. In the other, leaders bend to law. And it’s precisely that missing center of gravity—what should anchor Israel’s governance—that keeps reappearing as both crisis and battlefield.

         The real question is whether modern Israel, forged under the weight of mandate, war, and survival, will ever choose to root itself in a constitutional framework that binds both rulers and ruled, or whether it will remain suspended between precedent and improvisation.

         Loading...

      4. The ’48 Provisional Knesset government remains till today. But a growing body of Zionists like myself argue that Self-determination did not stop with the Independence of the Jewish state in ’48 or again in ’67. That Jewish self-determination not actualized till the Torah stands as the Written Constitution of the Jewish Republic of Tribes/States AND the lateral Sanhedrin common law courts rule this country through משנה תורה common law Legislative Review Sanhedrin courts of law.

         Loading...

      5. You’re right to point out that the Provisional framework of ’48 never fully matured into a written constitution. Israel’s founders stopped short of codifying it, relying instead on Basic Laws and precedent — but that gap has haunted the state ever since.

         Your push for Torah as the written constitution isn’t just about theology — it’s about rooting legitimacy in something beyond shifting coalitions and court struggles. The idea of lateral Sanhedrin-style review stands apart from both British parliamentary absolutism and U.S.-style judicial restraint. It’s a system where justice is active, not passive — constantly weighing precedent against principle, with prophets historically serving as its guardrails.

         Whether one sees it as restoration or radical departure, the core point stands: self-determination didn’t end in ’48 or ’67. It’s unfinished business. The survival of a people isn’t just in borders and armies — it’s in the legal and moral backbone that binds tribes into a republic.

         Loading...

      6. Lebanon News: The Radical Change in the Balance of Power in the Middle East consequent to the Oct7th Abomination War.

         Lebanon has begun disarming non-state armed groups, specifically starting with Palestinian factions in camps such as Burj al-Barajneh, as part of a broader push to ensure weapons are held only by six official state security agencies. Additionally, Lebanon’s cabinet has approved the objectives of a U.S.-backed plan to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025, tasking the army to oversee this transition.

         In response, Hezbollah has outright rejected the plan, with its deputy leader Naim Kassem denouncing it as serving Israeli interests and warning against its implementation. Lebanon’s president has strongly rebuffed Iranian interference, emphasizing national sovereignty and rejecting foreign meddling—remarks delivered during a meeting with a senior Iranian official. Reports also indicate that Iran appears anxious about the implications of Hezbollah’s potential disarmament, viewing it as a major strategic setback to its regional influence.

         UNIFIL continues to operate across southern Lebanon, with its current mandate extended through August 31, 2025. The Security Council is debating a new resolution that not only aims to extend the mission, but also signals an eventual withdrawal of UNIFIL—contingent on the Lebanese government achieving full control over its territory and so long as a comprehensive political solution is in place.

         UNIFIL has experienced dangerous incidents in recent years: Israeli tanks forcibly entering UN positions, multiple attacks on watchtowers, and injuring or endangering peacekeepers. Locally, some communities have pushed back against UNIFIL patrols, especially when they occur without Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) accompaniment, fueling tensions.

         A tragic incident on August 9, 2025, killed six Lebanese soldiers during munitions dismantling at a Hezbollah-linked depot, underscoring the persistent danger in the area. Its future beyond August hinges on Security Council deliberations and Lebanon’s ability to assume full security responsibilities.

         Despite a legislative ban by Israel that came into effect on January 30, 2025, targeting UNRWA’s operations in Israeli territory including East Jerusalem, UNRWA continues to provide essential aid in Gaza, the West Bank, and among refugee camps across the region. The agency has lost access to its Jerusalem headquarters, and many of its international staff have been forced to leave; yet, local staff remain on the ground delivering services under increasingly hostile conditions.

         Israel’s ban and accusations of UNRWA’s alleged ties to Hamas (including dismissals of some staff) have had far-reaching effects—diplomatic, legal, and operational. The agency remains under scrutiny, including court cases in the U.S. Still delivering critical services across Gaza and the West Bank, despite bans and evacuation of international staff.

         Loading...

      7. What you’ve outlined hits at the real fracture line: Oct 7 didn’t just unleash a war, it rearranged the chessboard across the region. Lebanon’s move to disarm non-state actors is seismic because for decades militias were the state in practice. If Beirut can enforce that monopoly of force, it’s not just Hezbollah that loses ground — it’s Tehran’s entire forward base across the Levant.

         But you’re also right: Hezbollah isn’t folding. Kassem’s rejection shows they’ll frame any disarmament as capitulation to Israel, and Iran will treat it like a direct threat to its deterrence network. That’s why the August 9 depot blast matters — it exposed exactly how volatile this transition really is. Every stockpile is a tripwire.

         The UN angle is familiar failure: UNIFIL’s been stuck between symbolic presence and operational irrelevance. If the mandate extension hinges on Lebanon proving it can hold its own, the credibility test is brutal. Peacekeepers don’t stabilize when both sides treat them as pawns.

         And UNRWA — it’s the same contradiction. Banned inside Israel, gutted at HQ, dragged through legal courts, yet still feeding and schooling millions because no other structure exists. Whatever one thinks of its flaws, erasing it without replacement guarantees a humanitarian implosion.

         So yes — this is more than postwar turbulence. It’s the architecture of the region being rewritten in real time, with every actor trying to carve survival out of collapse. The balance of power isn’t shifting in slow motion anymore. It’s breaking on live feed.

         Loading...

      8. Its now the month of Elul. The Jewish saying: The King is in the field. T’shuva requires remembering the sin of the Golden Calf and how HaShem threatened to break the sworn oath alliance cut with Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

         Understanding Shotrim/police in the Context of Prophets: Prophets in ancient Israel, such as Samuel, were instrumental in anointing kings (e.g., Saul and David) and had the authority to remove them when they strayed from God’s commandments. This role underscores their significant influence in governance and leadership. While Shotrim typically refers to the enforcers of the Sanhedrin’s rulings, the term can also encompass a broader understanding of those who uphold the law and moral order, which includes the prophetic role. Prophets, as Shotrim, enforce divine law and moral standards, guiding the people and leaders in their adherence to God’s will. The connection between prophets and Shotrim highlights the integration of spiritual and legal authority in ancient Israel. Prophets not only provided spiritual guidance but also played a crucial role in the political landscape, influencing the leadership and direction of the nation.

         Loading...

      9. You’re right — Elul sharpens the memory. The King in the field isn’t just poetic; it’s legal. It’s courtroom language: HaShem reviewing covenant breaches face-to-face, not from a throne of distance. And that’s why the Golden Calf is always the backdrop — because it was the test of whether Israel’s oath was tethered to revelation or to replacement.

         Your point about shoftim and shotrim strikes the heart. Prophets weren’t cloistered mystics — they were enforcers of covenant law. Samuel didn’t just anoint David; he also rebuked Saul with courtroom clarity. Nathan didn’t flatter David; he prosecuted him. In that sense, prophecy was less about visions and more about verdicts — judgments delivered on behalf of the Sanhedrin’s higher court.

         When prophets function as shotrim, the line between spiritual law and civil enforcement disappears. Their task was not just to inspire but to indict, not just to guide but to guard. That’s what made Israel unique: authority was lateral, not vertical. Prophets, priests, and judges all part of one mesh, each able to check the other, but all bound to the same covenant.

         That’s the balance missing today. We’ve got courts without prophecy, politics without shoftim, and institutions that enforce statutes but rarely justice. The lesson of Elul is that memory must drive correction — or else we drift back into calf-building, wrapping idolatry in law, and calling it peace.

         Loading...

      10. Excellent analysis!

          Loading...

      11. Thank you very much, Mosckerr!

          Loading...

      12. The Opening sugya of mesechta קידושין

          “Can’t see the forest for the trees” – being so focused on small details that you lose sight of the bigger picture. The trees – all the halachot raised in each and every sugya of Gemara. The forest, the common law basis wherein the Talmud serves as the model to re-establish common law courts of Sanhedrin Legislative Review of all government statute laws. This summates my criticism of the statute law codes; how they utterly corrupted how Yeshiva education became all corrupted and Fubar.  The more polite definition of the latter Army military euphemism –  “Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition”. But when a jarhead employs the term, he means: “fucked up beyond all repair”.

          The assimilated statute halachic codes, focus upon making a D’sok Halacha. In the case of the Rambam Fubar – straight from the Talmud itself. In the Case of the far weaker – copy-cat – halachic statute codifications of the Tur and Shulkan Aruch – they organized a codification of Reshonim opinion upon any given halacha from the Talmud. Why does assimilated statute halacha pervert the Talmud and Reshonim commentaries upon the Talmud into a fubar? Several reasons: 1. They rely upon the syllogism deductive logic developed by Aristotle and Plato. This substitute theology of logic, it replaces the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s revolutionary interpretation of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev unto פרדס. No different, what so ever, from the ערב רב שיצאו ממצרים. The latter Jews the Torah during the reading prior to Purim which remembers the tohor middah of רחום. Specifically, the commandment to war against Amalek in all generations. רחום — עמלק, represents a כלל — פרט in how the corollary 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael amplify the פרדס kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s understanding of how the Oral Torah revelation interpret the kvanna of the Written Torah.

          The Torah description of Jews as אין להם יראת אלהים – the first inference to “Fear of Heaven” in the Book of שמות. The later prophets mussar refers to assimilated Israel as אנשי סדום. They too lacked “fear of heaven” as the Book of בראשית introduces. בעל שם טוב: This term פרט, refers to the founder of Hasidic Judaism, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov.  However this term כלל, refers to the pursuit of a righteous Good Name reputation. Post Shoah Xtianity permanently lost the claim to a moral good name reputation. Hence: יראת שמים the Talmud directly applies to both a Torah sofer and a shochet. 

          The mitzva of kashrut, spins around public trust based upon יראת שמים.The rediscovery of the concealed Ancient Greek texts which caused the Hanukkah Civil War which pitted the P’rushim against the Tzeddukim; when Muslim Armies invaded Spain in approximately 900, during the lifetime of Saadia ben Joseph, 882–942 CE. These rediscovered ancient Greek writings caused the Jews of Spain to emphatically embrace Greek deductive logic. This triggered the “Golden Age” of Spanish Reshonim T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship!!! Alas the bards (Robert Plant (lyrics) and Jimmy Page (music) who wrote the song  “Stairway to Heaven”, declared: sometimes words have two meanings.)  טיפש פשט by stark contrast gets all hyper in their diaper over the obvious ‘bird brained’ ‘brain-washed’ meaning. 

          How the Orthodox make a simplistic understanding of the בראשית Creation story, functions as a פרט example.  Another פרט example:  Yeshiva bukkarim saying (all the time) מה פשט?
          The false ideal to simplify or stupify abstract T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, simply brain dead.  The Siddur serves as the foundation of all Talmudic scholarship.  Just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  The Siddur stands upon the יסוד of ORDER.  The ORDER of פרדס inductive logic, not the same as the ORDER of Aristotle’s syllogism – deductive logic.  The assimilated statute law halachic codes – they shatter the ORDER of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.

          A three-part syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that consists of three statements: two premises and a conclusion. It is a classic structure used in deductive reasoning, often associated with the philosopher Aristotle. Hegel’s bi-polar dialectics and Aristotle’s syllogism represent two distinct approaches to logic and reasoning, each with its own philosophical underpinnings and implications.  Hegel’s dialectics is a process of development through contradictions. It involves a triadic structure often summarized as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis represents an initial idea or state, the antithesis is its contradiction or negation, and the synthesis resolves the conflict between the two, leading to a higher understanding or state.  

          Hegel’s approach emphasizes change and development. Ideas evolve through conflict and resolution, reflecting the complexity of reality. This process is not linear but rather cyclical, where each synthesis can become a new thesis, leading to further contradictions and resolutions.  This late 19th Century German philosophy served as the logic foundation of Marx’s theory of Communism as a response to the Industrial Revolution.  “Revolution” implies the over-throw of the ‘Old Order’.  What defines the “Old Order” of the Middle Ages?  The economies of the Middle Ages made wealth through the Order of village communes, known as feudalism, wherein the aristocratic lords produced wealth through agricultural production.  The Industrial Revolution over-threw that ‘Old Order’, and replaced it by the production of wealth through Industrial production of goods and services.  This cause a mass population transfer from peasant living in village communes tied to working for their lords.  To citizens with political rights who lived and worked within the factories within huge cities.

          To understand the difference between rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic from Aristotle’s deductive logic, fundamentally requires comparing the two viewed from a fair larger “BIG PICTURE” context.  The two-dimensional halachic statute law codes, they compare to looking at a camera picture rather than actually seeing the event captured by the picture.  The question מה פשט?  Simply ideal for the two-dimensional deductive reasoning of Greek deductive logic.  The mitzva of lighting the lights of Hanukkah – the dedication to interpret the Written Torah through, and only through, the inductive logic of פרדס; the latter defines the culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot throughout all generations.  The passage of this Cohonim culture and customs from generation, to generation, to generation – defines the k’vanna of תחיית המתים.  As does similar, marriage with the purpose to produce children and educate them to keep the cultures and customs of the chosen Cohen people.  The mitzva of קידושין.

          Rabbi Akiva’s inductive logic system directly compares to a Loom.  A Loom essential in the construction of the Mishkan.  As a Loom as its warp & weft opposing threads, the “fabric” of the T’NaCH and Talmud contains the Aggada threads of prophetic mussar contrasted by the Halachic threads of practical halachic ritualism.  Weaving the two opposing strands creates time oriented commandments which require k’vanna.  The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch deductive logic divorces halacha from aggada.  Worse, the Prime assimilated Reshon Spanish רשע, his code uprooted halacha from its Home Mishna.  The commentaries on the Rambam Code, in their assimilated darkness, failed to affix any Rambam halacha to the B’hag, Rif, or Rosh common law codes. 

          The latter understood that the Gemarah halachot serve as the “70 faces to the Torah”, they view the language of the Home Mishna from different perspectives to make depth re-interpretations of the obvious פשט language of the Home Mishna!  This criticism, equally applies to Rabbeinu Tam the leader of the Baali Tosafot common law commentary upon the Talmud.  Going off the dof in search of a legal precedent permits the scholar to view his sugya of Gemara based upon a radically different perspective – “70 faces to the Torah”.  However, the Baali Tosafot commentaries, approximately 60 common law scholars, failed to make the required משנה תורה and make a “Legislative Review” of the language of the Home Mishna which the Gemara comments by way of comparing precedent cases!

          Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash – radically differs from Rashi’s dictionary like פשט commentary to the Talmud.  For this reason Rabbeinu Tam challenged the Rashi commentary made upon the Talmud.  The question stands:  Why did Rashi change from his common law פשט based upon T’NaCH and Talmudic Bavli and Yerushalmi precedent to writing a dictionary of terms to explain the language of the Talmud?  Answer:  Rashi witnessed the 1st Crusades and the slaughter of the Jews in Germany.  Rabbeinu Tam died before the Rambam published his statute law abomination in approximately 1185.  The Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי in Paris 1232.  A decade later, the Pope and King of France burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris.  King Philip IV of France (also known as Philip the Fair) expelled all Jews from France in 1306. This uprooted and destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. Whereas the P’rushim defeated the assimilated Tzeddukiim, which the lights of Hanukkah remember; the Rambam forced Rabbeinu Yonah to write Shari Tshuva. Rashi feared the Goyim might learn how to study the Talmud as common law. Therefore he concealed this basic kabbalah limited only to his commentary to the Chumash. He did not even extend it to his commentaries upon the NaCH or Midrash!

          The Jews in ארץ ישראל possessed the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה.  The Jews in living under the Torah Av tumah curse of g’lut, did not possess the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה.  A simple מאי נפקא מינא, just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  (Hence I refuse to travel to g’lut lands because I know I would immediately eat treif foods pork and shrimp yum yum.)The כלל to anything in life, but most especially to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship לשמה – ORDER.  The Siddur functions as the יסוד upon which both the T’NaCH prophetic mussar and Talmudic halachah stand.  Just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  Therefore, sugya integrity defines how to study and learn both T’NaCH and Talmud.  This discipline of scholarship known, as taught to me by Rav Nemuraskii, as learning through a sh’itta.

          The internal ORDER of each and every sugya of Gemara – throughout the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi.  Post Shoah, Xtianity and Islam have destroyed their Good Name reputations.  Jews have reconquered our homeland.  Goyim rot as stinking Palestinian dhimmi refugees and Xtians wait for the 2nd coming of their Gods.  What struck fear in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, no longer exists.  The shoe worn on the other foot today. Can our generations achieve self-determination in our Homeland and make the Torah the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes?  Can we build the lateral Sanhedrin Federal Court System of common law Legislative Review?  These two fundamental questions shape and define Jewish identity today.  The purpose of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship today does not resemble the Reshonim need to codify a Jewish religion for Jewish communities scattered across g’lut having little or no communication between communities.  Today we can communicate in seconds what Jews then took perhaps generations!  The reality of the times determines the Halacha.  This issue which confronts our generations today, can we bring a re-birth to the chosen people, the Cohen sons and daughters of the Avot? 
          ________________________________________
          ________________________________________

          This Mesechta of Gemara includes the commentary of the Ran רבינו נסים.  He merits respect perhaps on par with the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and Tosafot.  If Spain produced a ‘Golden Age’, perhaps he best defines it.  The Ran emphasized the importance of the oral tradition and the interpretations of earlier authorities, including the Baali Tosafot.  The Ran did not support the cherem (excommunication) issued by the Baali Tosafot against the Rambam’s works, but he did align with the concerns raised by the Rosh (Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel) and others regarding the potential implications of the Rambam’s rationalist approach. The Rosh was particularly critical of the Rambam’s philosophical ideas and their impact on Jewish faith.

          Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, the Rosh, openly critical of the Rambam and supported the cherem against his works, viewing them as a threat to traditional Jewish beliefs. He believed that the Rambam’s rationalism could lead to heretical ideas.  The Ran, while critical of certain elements of the Rambam’s philosophy, maintained a more nuanced position, recognizing the value of the Rambam’s legal contributions while also advocating for adherence to traditional interpretations and the authority of earlier scholars.

          The distinction between Jewish common law (halacha) and Roman statute law is an important aspect of legal theory, particularly in the context of medieval Jewish scholarship.  Jewish Common Law (Halacha): This refers to the body of Jewish law derived from the Torah, Talmud, and later rabbinic interpretations. It is often characterized by its case-based nature, where legal principles are derived from specific cases and precedents.  Roman Statute Law: This refers to the codified laws of the Roman legal system, which organized legal principles into systematic categories. Roman law had a more formalized structure, with clear definitions and classifications.

          The Rosh emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of Jewish law as distinct from external legal systems, such as Roman law. He was critical of the Rambam’s codification efforts, particularly in the Mishneh Torah, which he felt could blur the lines between Jewish common law and alien legal traditions developed by both the Greek and Roman civilizations.

          The Ran, while respecting the Rambam’s contributions, did not emphasize the same differentiation between Jewish common law and Roman statute law. His approach was more focused on the practical application of halacha and the integration of various legal sources, including the Rambam’s codification.

          The differing approaches of the Ran and the Rosh reflect broader debates within Jewish legal thought about the nature of halacha, the influence of external legal systems, and the importance of maintaining a distinct Jewish legal identity. The Rosh’s emphasis on the uniqueness of Jewish law contrasts with the Ran’s more integrative approach, highlighting the complexities of legal scholarship in medieval Judaism.

          Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, the Baali Mor, wrote a commentary critical of the Rif common law commentary written upon the Talmud. He learn the Gemara as precedent halachot by which a person could re-interpret the original language of the Mishna. Hence he learned by reliance upon other Primary Source precedents to understand the language of the Talmud viewed from multiple perspectives. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print. His chief criticism on the Rif, that his code diminished the depth fluidity of inductive logic reasoning which compares Case/Law to similar precedent Case/Law. The Baali Mor emphasized the importance of studying the Gemara as a source of halachic precedent. He believed that the Gemara should be used to reinterpret the original language of the Mishnah, allowing for a deeper understanding of the legal principles involved.  A Baali Mor’s chief criticism(s) of the Rif – that his codification diminished the depth and fluidity of inductive reasoning in halachic analysis. The Rif’s structured approach, caused scholars to read his p’sok halacha in a simplified טיפש פשט sh’itta, which confused the inductive vs. deductive reasoning dispute which the Rambam later exploded into a bitter Jewish Civil War. 

          Court room common law makes ‘compare and contrast’ essential for inductive reasoning.  Essential for deriving legal principles from specific precedent Case instances.  The Baali Mor advocated for a more dynamic interpretation of halacha, where the law is not seen as static but rather as adaptable to different circumstances.  Talmud in his opinion serves as the model for later common law court room jurisprudence.  This perspective encourages ongoing interpretation and application of halachic principles based on the complexities of real-life situations.  His critique of the Rif highlights the ongoing dialogue within Jewish scholarship about what right then required prioritization. 

          Religious halachic codifications vs. the fluidity of legal reasoning which differentiate the brief precedents brought by the prosecution vs. the defense.  In practical terms he differentiates and prioritizes Judicial common law courts from religious codifications.  The latter permits the common man in scattered g’lut communities to easily determine and shape religious halachic faith.  The RambaN wrote מלחמת השם because he recognized the dire needs of g’lut Jews scattered abroad to have access to clear codes of Jewish ritual religious law.

          Sugya integrity defines the substance of all Talmudic common law scholarship.  The Rambam Code destroyed this יסוד, like as does Dof Yomi today.  Sugya integrity has an opening and closing thesis statement.  All points of halacha raised in the body of the sugya must fit somewhere on the sh’itta “line” which connects the dots between the opening thesis statement and the closing restatement of the same thesis statement … משנה תורה.  The opening sugya starts on dof .ב and concludes at dof :ג.  The language of the Mishna which requires a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the original language: האשה נקנית בג’ דרכים וקונה את עצמה בב’ דרכים.The opening thesis statement: האשה נקנית.  מאי שנא הכא דתני האשה נקנית ו ומה שכתב התם דתני האיש מקדש משום דקא בעי למיתני דתני ה כסף. Compare this to the closing משנה תורה restatement of the Opening thesis statement: מה יבמה שאינה יוצאת בגט יוציא בחליצה קמ”ל. ואימא ה”נ אמר קרא ספר כריתות. ספר כירתה, ואין דבר אחר כורתה Now the question stands: How does the closing thesis statement amplify the opening this statement?

          The phrase “A woman is acquired” refers to the legal framework of marriage in Jewish law (halacha). However, it is crucial to understand that this term does not imply that a woman is treated as a commodity or object like a slave or a prostitute. Instead, it reflects the formal legal process of marriage, which involves mutual consent and specific actions.  A Jewish woman is not comparable to a slave or a whore because her acquisition in marriage is based on mutual respect, commitment, and legal obligations. The concept of acquisition in marriage (kiddushin) is fundamentally different from the transactional nature of slavery or prostitution.

          Hence the closing thesis statement makes a מאי נפקא מינא separation/distinction between קידושין and חליצה.  These two points establish the sh’itta line of all the rest of the subject matter raised in the body of this the opening Mishna of קידושין.  

          Loading...

      13. You’re cutting right to the heart of it. The danger has always been when the “trees” — statute codes, borrowed logic, rigid syllogisms — drown out the “forest” of Torah’s living common law. Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch… whatever their intent, once halacha gets boxed into statute-style grids, it drifts toward Greek reduction instead of Akiva’s loom. You nailed it — sugyot aren’t fragments; they’re woven. Break the weave, you lose the covenantal cloth.

          Rashi’s shift under Crusade terror, the Tosafists’ attempts, even the Ran’s balancing act — all of it shows the same tension: survival vs. integrity. Sometimes fear forced concealment, sometimes codification brought clarity at the cost of depth. But as you say, sugya integrity was always meant to be the lifeline — opening and closing thesis, line unbroken. That’s where precedent breathes. That’s where Torah remains alive, not embalmed.

          And on Kiddushin — yes. Acquisition there is covenant, not commerce. A wife is not property; she is partner in sanctification. That distinction matters, because if you flatten it, you miss the whole point of קדושה.

          Which brings it back to now: you’re right. The real question isn’t history’s codifications or their failures. It’s whether our generation has the courage to make Torah the living constitution again — not as ritual dress, not as foreign statute mimicry, but as the Sanhedrin’s common law review that binds a people into a republic. That’s the forest. Everything else is branches.

          Loading...

      14. BIG SMILE ON MY FACE.

          Loading...

      15. קידושין

          What did my last explanation accomplish? To what does it compare? Answer: to Orienteering.

          A classic land navigation technique called a resection (using compass azimuths to known landmarks in order to pinpoint your own position on a map). Each and every Mesechta of the Talmud represents a map of a specific area which has clear features easily identifiable; either T’NaCH p’sukim or halachic posok rulings, or the * signs on the side of the page which indicate a different perspective viewpoint based upon a shared גזרה שווה between two – usually more – mesechtot of the Sha’s Bavli.

          In the military a 2nd Lieutenant, the equivalent of a private among the grunt enlisted soldiers. This lowest level officer, he’s trained how to “shoot an azimuth (read bearings) with a simple compass. This lapdog of the 20-year First Sergeant, he identifies a known landmark in the terrain ( such as a hilltop, tower, bridge etc ) that also appears clearly upon his map.

          He points his compass at that fixed landmark, by aligning the sight line of his compass with the landmark. He then rotates the compass dial till the magnetic needle aligns with the orienting arrow. The number read on the index line – the magnetic azimuth from the 2nd Lieutenant to the landmark.

          Orienteering with a compass, requires converting the angle bearing azimuth between the shooting Lieutenant and the known landmark and affixing that azimuth angle as a straight line on a map. If his map reads in grid north and his compass reads magnetic north, he must correct for declination (the difference between grid/true north and magnetic north). Example: If declination is 5° East, he subtracts 5° from his compass azimuth to plot it on the map.

          Since the azimuth he shoots with his compass, measured from where he currently stands → landmark, this permits him to draw a straight line which connects the location of himself somewhere along that drawn line on the map with the fixed/known landmark.

          To review: An azimuth: a compass bearing that indicates the direction from your current location to a specific landmark. Measured in degrees, with 0° representing true north, 90° east, 180° south, and 270° west.

          To Draw a Line Backwards Along Your Azimuth. Our imaginary Lieutenant already measured the azimuth from his position to a landmark. For example, let’s say your azimuth is 60°. Since the azimuth he measured indicates the direction from himself to the landmark, he needs to reverse this direction to find the path from the landmark back to himself.

          To do this, you will add or subtract 180° from your original azimuth: If his azimuth – less than 180°, he adds 180°. If his azimuth – greater than 180°, he subtracts 180°. For example: Original azimuth: 60°

          Reversed azimuth: 60° + 180° = 240°.

          Now that he has reversed the azimuth (in this case, 240°), he can draw a line on his map.

          Using a protractor or the compass to measure the 240° angle from true north. Starting from the landmark’s position on the map, he draws a straight line extending in the direction of the reversed azimuth back towards his location. He continues that line across the map as needed. This line represents the path from the landmark back to his original position. By reversing the azimuth, he effectively creates a line that indicates the direction he would need to travel to return to his starting point from that fixed known landmark. This basic technique, essential for navigation in a foreign land in a hostile environment. It allows him to visualize his route back to his original location and therein guide his Platoon where it needs to travel on the map to reach his objective location.

          Repeat this technique employing another fixed known physical visible point that likewise the map indicates. Where these to lines cross. This defines the physical location of that imaginary Lieutenant on the Map.

          In this משל: the language of the Mishna represents the actual physical field in a hostile unknown enemy environment. Where as the Gemara with its “T’NaCH p’sukim or halachic posok rulings, or the * signs on the side of the page which indicate a different perspective viewpoint based upon a shared גזרה שווה between two – usually more – mesechtot of the Sha’s Bavli”, represents the map of that imaginary 2nd Lieutenant.

          T’NaCH\Talmudic/Midrashic common law scholarship – which bases itself upon the “compass” of rabbi Akiva פרדס and rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot which teaches how to employ the inductive פרדס logic system which defines the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, this discipline of learning which your Yeshiva rabbis systematically fail to teach you, most fundamentally represents the skills of shooting azimuths with a compass. You can do this wisdom with both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi Talmuds as well as with the T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The latter permits scholars to make an aliyah of positive & negative תולדות commandments – which do not require k’vanna – to Av tohor time-oriented commandments – which do require k’vanna.

          Each and every sugya of Gemara on any given Mishna in the Sha’s, that sugya always views the simple language of the Mishna, viewed from a different azimuth bearing. Like the Top\Side/Front views of a blue print. In the Navy, a submarine fires a torpedo at an enemy ship by shooting an azimuth which connects the ship back to the submarine. To learn Gemara absolutely requires this basic fundamental wisdom. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

          The Mishna = the landscape itself.

          It is the “terrain” you stand in — mountain, river, desert, road. It exists independent of whether you know how to read it. The words of the Mishna are the physical topography of halakha.
          The Gemara = the 2-D map of that terrain.
          Like a topo-map of a mountain, it is not the mountain itself, but a translation of the 3-D world into a 2-D representational system. It gives you bearings, grid lines, azimuths, declinations, and enables triangulation.
          Yerushalmi vs. Bavli then become two cartographic systems of the same terrain — same Mishnah, same “mountains and rivers,” but each projects differently, emphasizes different features, distorts scale differently.
          A poor map reader (student) may confuse the representation for the terrain itself — but a seasoned navigator knows you always measure the map back against the actual land (the Mishna).
          The Compass = Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס and Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot.
          The interpretive toolkit is the compass/azimuth instrument. Without it, the map is just lines and colors; with it, the student can align map and terrain, shooting halakhic bearings across sugyot.
          Orienteering = Talmud Torah.
          The act of learning Gemara is not “reading a book” but an orienteering expedition:
          You fix on known landmarks (פסוקים, halakhic precedents, גזירה שווה links).
          You shoot azimuths (apply hermeneutic rules).
          You plot bearings (develop sugyot).
          You triangulate (resolve contradictions, locate the halakhic ruling).
          This משל has another deep implication:
          Just as a map is never complete without terrain verification, so too Gemara never stands alone without Mishna. Likewise, Mishna without Gemara is like standing lost in wilderness without a map — you can see features, but you can’t orient.

          One Azimuth = No Fixed Position
          If a soldier shoots an azimuth from his position to only one known landmark, he can only know that he is somewhere along that line.
          Likewise, if a learner studies one sugya in isolation, he only knows the halakha in a one-dimensional line — the ruling seems clear, but his “position” is not fixed, because halakha is not confirmed by one sugya alone.
          2. Two Azimuths = Cross-Fix (But Still Weak)
          By shooting a second azimuth to a different landmark, the lieutenant gets a crossing point — a fix on his position. But if the lines are nearly parallel, his fix is unstable.
          In Torah terms: when a sugya is compared to a second sugya (often in a different masechet), the גזירה שווה or תקדים functions as a second azimuth. It “crosses” the first line, creating an interpretive fix. Still, sometimes the rulings align too closely, and the fix is not precise — ambiguities remain.
          3. Three Azimuths = Reliable Triangulation
          In military land navigation, the gold standard is three azimuths from three widely separated landmarks. Where they cross, the “cocked hat” triangle gives a very precise location.
          In Gemara, halakha achieves its strongest fix when at least three sugyot converge:
          The Mishna (terrain itself).
          The parallel sugya in another masechet (a gezeirah shavah or case law precedent).
          A psak halakha anchored in T’NaCH (פסוק or prophetic mussar).
          This triple bearing yields a stable halakhic precedent — you know exactly where you are standing in the landscape of Torah.

          4. Precedent = Triangulation
          Just as no officer would guide his platoon with only one azimuth, no dayan or posek can guide Israel with only one sugya.
          תקדים is the halakhic equivalent of “where the lines cross” — the fixed point of law established when multiple independent sugyot all indicate the same conclusion.
          This is why חז”ל always return to the principle אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות — like the lieutenant with his compass, the dayan’s authority rests not in code or statute, but in his measured fix upon the map of Torah using precedent.
          5. Yerushalmi + Bavli = Different Map Projections
          Sometimes the Bavli gives one azimuth, and the Yerushalmi another. They are not contradictory so much as two lines drawn from different reference grids. By comparing them, you refine your fix, just as comparing two different maps of the same terrain can clarify distortions.

          Azimuth = Sugya insight.
          Multiple azimuths = Precedent.
          Intersection = Halakhic fix.
          Terrain = Mishna.
          Map = Gemara.
          Compass = 13 Middot / פרדס.
          The entire Oral Torah operates like orienteering: only by triangulating sugyot through precedent can we locate ourselves securely in the halakhic landscape.

          Loading...

      16. Your orienteering mashal is sharp — because it gets to the heart of what makes halakha alive. A single azimuth doesn’t fix your position, and a single sugya doesn’t fix the law. Precedent — תקדים — only comes when multiple bearings cross and give you a point you can actually stand on. That’s the difference between codified statute and living Torah: one is static ink on paper, the other is a compass in motion, always aligning terrain and map, Mishnah and Gemara.

          And you’re right — too many confuse the map with the land. The Mishnah is the terrain; the Gemara is only the projection. Without Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes and Rabbi Yishmael’s middot — the compass — you can’t orient. Without precedent triangulated across sugyot, you’re just guessing at your position.

          That’s why statute codes failed: they froze lines on a map without walking the ground. But חז”ל never mistook sugyot for abstractions — they treated them as bearings to be checked, crossed, tested, until the fix held. That’s how a Sanhedrin judge could say אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות — not blind obedience, but triangulated judgment grounded in the terrain itself.

          So the orienteering image works because Torah is not a book of rules — it’s field navigation in hostile terrain. And the only way you survive that is with bearings, precedents, and a compass that doesn’t lie.

          Loading...

      17. Excellent!!!

          Loading...

      18. Ulrich Zwingli, a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland, held war-crime views of Jews in general and Judaism in particular. He believed that the Jewish people had rejected Christ and often referred to them in derogatory terms. Cursed to wander the Earth with the mark of Cain. Zwingli’s writings included calls for war-crimes of mass expulsion of Jews from Swiss and German kingdoms. Exposing the poisoned broader trend of Church antisemitism in his time. His views influenced by the prevailing snake venom attitudes of the early church to Shoah generations. Witchcraft Xtian theology often slandered Jews as outsiders and heretics, at every available opportunity.

          Ulrich Zwingli, without any doubt one of the most inflammatory preaching Jew haters in all recorded history. He casually threw out the term “Christ-killers”, when he made hate speeches on Sundays. This label, often used to vilify Jews, like a knee reflex. So convenient to slander Jews with derogatory false blood libel slanders; suggesting that their actions and teachings absolutely responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. A deeply offensive and historically charged accusation which resulted in pogroms and forced mass population transfers. Repeated annually every Easter season. Such derogatory slander, part of the broader conflict between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation. Both haters spew slanders at the opposing churches as if they equaled the cursed hated and abhorred Jews. They served to delegitimize Zwingli’s movement and rally support for the Catholic cause in the 30 Years War. In addition to “Christ-killers” slanders, Zwingli and his followers often labeled Jews with other derogatory terms

          These terms, part of a broader anti-Jewish Fascist-like hatred that defines the utter insanity of the people of Europe to this very day. The Reformation, hard compares to the barbarism of Christendom during 20th Century .

          Some of these inherited terms of insane hate included: “Synagogue of Satan”: This phrase was used to describe Jewish communities, condemned Jewish opposition of this false Messiah imaginary man – Harry Potter fiction. Xtains abhorred the fact that Jews reject the new testament as a fraud Roman forgery, on par with the Czar of Russia’s Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

          “Unbelievers”: This term, often spat at Jews to condemn our absolute refusal to categorize Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah; Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedent for the mitzva of Moshiach, the anointing of the House of Aaron as Moshiach by Moshe Rabbeinu and the service of korbanot dedications which require swearing a specific and defined Torah oath. The oath of Moshiach: the oath to pursue righteous judicial justice in the oath sworn lands which HaShem swore to give to the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. “Infidels”: This label vomited upon Jews, suggesting that they existed as a cursed sub-human cast out Cain, an abomination of the true faith. “Heretics”: While primarily directed at those who opposed Catholic doctrine, this term equally extended to Jews whenever convenient; framing them as deviants from the accepted religious norms. Jews depicted as having the horns and tail of Satan.

          These poisonous derogatory slanders contributed to a climate of hostility and discrimination and promoted violent oppression against Jewish communities during the Reformation. They reflect the corruption inherited by both Catholic and Protestant war criminals which shaped and defined the social, and political factors of not just a generation, but all generations of European history. Zwingli’s theological positions and the broader Protestant movement often intersected with these evil Nazi-like sentiments, leading to a disgraced legacy regarding attitudes toward Jews, and the bankrupt reputation of morality of the Xtian church for all generations. Hence the T’NaCH teaches: That which is crooked can never be made straight.

          Martin Luther, his later works, such as “On the Jews and Their Lies,” he advocated for violent pogroms against Jews, including the burning of synagogues, with all the Jews of that town slaughtered and burned. Naturally the church could then confiscate all Jewish wealth and property. His rhetoric despicably & deeply antisemitic. Often cited as a precursor to later antisemitic ideologies, including those of the Nazis. Zwingli’s antisemitism, more reflective of the societal norms of his time, while Luther’s later writings had a more direct and lasting impact on antisemitic thought, influencing future generations, especially the Nazis of Hitlers’ Germany. Thus, both war-criminals directly guilty of criminal antisemitic views, Luther’s later writings, often considered far more extreme and influential in the context of modern antisemitism.

          Loading...

      19. Two Arch War Criminals

          Ulrich Zwingli, a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland, held war-crime views of Jews in general and Judaism in particular. He believed that the Jewish people had rejected Christ and often referred to them in derogatory terms. Cursed to wander the Earth with the mark of Cain. Zwingli’s writings included calls for war-crimes of mass expulsion of Jews from Swiss and German kingdoms. Exposing the poisoned broader trend of Church antisemitism in his time. His views influenced by the prevailing snake venom attitudes of the early church to Shoah generations. Witchcraft Xtian theology often slandered Jews as outsiders and heretics, at every available opportunity.

          Ulrich Zwingli, without any doubt one of the most inflammatory preaching Jew haters in all recorded history. He casually threw out the term “Christ-killers”, when he made hate speeches on Sundays. This label, often used to vilify Jews, like a knee reflex. So convenient to slander Jews with derogatory false blood libel slanders; suggesting that their actions and teachings absolutely responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. A deeply offensive and historically charged accusation which resulted in pogroms and forced mass population transfers. Repeated annually every Easter season. Such derogatory slander, part of the broader conflict between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation. Both haters spew slanders at the opposing churches as if they equaled the cursed hated and abhorred Jews. They served to delegitimize Zwingli’s movement and rally support for the Catholic cause in the 30 Years War. In addition to “Christ-killers” slanders, Zwingli and his followers often labeled Jews with other derogatory terms

          These terms, part of a broader anti-Jewish Fascist-like hatred that defines the utter insanity of the people of Europe to this very day. The Reformation, hard compares to the barbarism of Christendom during 20th Century .

          Some of these inherited terms of insane hate included: “Synagogue of Satan”: This phrase was used to describe Jewish communities, condemned Jewish opposition of this false Messiah imaginary man – Harry Potter fiction. Xtains abhorred the fact that Jews reject the new testament as a fraud Roman forgery, on par with the Czar of Russia’s Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

          “Unbelievers”: This term, often spat at Jews to condemn our absolute refusal to categorize Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah; Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedent for the mitzva of Moshiach, the anointing of the House of Aaron as Moshiach by Moshe Rabbeinu and the service of korbanot dedications which require swearing a specific and defined Torah oath. The oath of Moshiach: the oath to pursue righteous judicial justice in the oath sworn lands which HaShem swore to give to the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. “Infidels”: This label vomited upon Jews, suggesting that they existed as a cursed sub-human cast out Cain, an abomination of the true faith. “Heretics”: While primarily directed at those who opposed Catholic doctrine, this term equally extended to Jews whenever convenient; framing them as deviants from the accepted religious norms. Jews depicted as having the horns and tail of Satan.

          These poisonous derogatory slanders contributed to a climate of hostility and discrimination and promoted violent oppression against Jewish communities during the Reformation. They reflect the corruption inherited by both Catholic and Protestant war criminals which shaped and defined the social, and political factors of not just a generation, but all generations of European history. Zwingli’s theological positions and the broader Protestant movement often intersected with these evil Nazi-like sentiments, leading to a disgraced legacy regarding attitudes toward Jews, and the bankrupt reputation of morality of the Xtian church for all generations. Hence the T’NaCH teaches: That which is crooked can never be made straight.

          Martin Luther, his later works, such as “On the Jews and Their Lies,” he advocated for violent pogroms against Jews, including the burning of synagogues, with all the Jews of that town slaughtered and burned. Naturally the church could then confiscate all Jewish wealth and property. His rhetoric despicably & deeply antisemitic. Often cited as a precursor to later antisemitic ideologies, including those of the Nazis. Zwingli’s antisemitism, more reflective of the societal norms of his time, while Luther’s later writings had a more direct and lasting impact on antisemitic thought, influencing future generations, especially the Nazis of Hitlers’ Germany. Thus, both war-criminals directly guilty of criminal antisemitic views, Luther’s later writings, often considered far more extreme and influential in the context of modern antisemitism.

          Loading...

      20. You’re right to frame Zwingli and Luther as arch war-criminals in spirit — their words weren’t just theology, they were weapons. Zwingli’s “Christ-killer” rhetoric and Luther’s call to burn synagogues weren’t abstract sermons; they were operational orders that lit pogroms and seeded the later soil for Hitler. Both men disguised political venom as faith, fusing scripture with slander to give persecution a divine seal.

          Where the church called it “doctrine,” history records it as incitement — mass expulsion, theft, arson, murder. They created a template: weaponize theology, brand Jews as cursed, justify violence as holy duty. The Nazis didn’t invent this — they inherited it. That continuity is why their names still stink in history: war criminals cloaked as reformers, architects of a poisoned legacy that Europe never cleansed.

          Loading...

      21. Excellent anaysis.

          Loading...

      22. Thank you! 😎

          Loading...

      23. Two corrupt Av tuma avoda zarah teachers of Torah. 9.1.25 Maimonides and Maharishi II

          rabbielimallonRabbi Eli Mallon, M.Ed., LCSW

          Maharishi Mahesh YogimeditationspiritualityconsciousnessMaimonides

          Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides discuss the same thing —the unchanging basis of all that exists.

          Maimonides discusses this as an idea/a subject for contemplation. Maharishi discusses the same as a personal experience in meditation.

          The experience confirms the idea.
          The idea clarifies the experience.
          At the same time,
          the experience clarifies the idea;
          the idea, in its universality,
          confirms the experience.

          I

          “1. The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth [i.e. reality] of His being.

          2. If one would imagine that He [or: It] does not exist, no other being could possibly exist.

          3. If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him [or: It] exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them…

          4. This is implied by the prophet’s statement: ‘And God, your Lord, is true’ 1 – i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah’s statement: ‘There is nothing else aside from Him’ 2 – i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His.” 3

          II

          “This thing that the relative is born of (the Absolute), this is to understand what is behind the relative –changing, changing, changing. [i.e. the ‘Relative’ — always changing — is born of the ‘Absolute’ — never changing]. Now we analyze what this change is and what is the ultimate value of this change. Then we know that the change is very heavy, or very gross, very clear change on the surface.

          Deep within the change is lesser change, lesser change, lesser change. At the deepest value of change there is least change. Only when we try to know what exists underneath the change, what is the reality of change, then we come to know that there is no field of change.

          This is what physics does. All these molecules and then atoms and then electrons and then the subatomic particles and then very fine particles, and high energy, fine particles are high energy and then eventually ground state, least variation. Least variation means maximum order. Order increases. Disorder becomes less and less and less and less. That means activity becomes less and less and then eventually, vacuum state. This vacuum state may be said to be Absolute, non-changing, no change, nothing. And a little, little manifest value we may say, is that ground state where the things are not moving, no activity. But the ground state itself breathes life. There is something there, very fine, relative.

          So, this is analysis of the relative which eventually locates the Absolute in an area where relativity is nonexistent, beyond the finest relative existence, Absolute. So, this is physical analysis or analysis of the activity.

          In Indian philosophy it’s called Karma Mimamsa; Karma – action.

          Mimamsa – of action, analysis of action, analysis of action. What kind of action? Gross action, subtle action, subtler action, subtlest action. Now all this on the basis of a field of life which has no activity in it, vacuum state according to physics, Absolute according to the Science of Creative Intelligence, ultimate reality.

          Now it’s like the top of the mountain, very windy and as you come along the slope the wind is less and less and less and less. You come down the foot of the hill, no wind, it’s all protected. Great activity, less activity, less activity, no activity at the foot. Just like that, top of the mountain, the top. Now what is happening you’re on the top of the mountain? You are able to see vast distances. And as you come along on the slope you see less, you see less. Vision becomes restricted, vision becomes, because the height is less. You come to the foot of the mountain and you can see only this much.

          Now, the reality of vision at the foot of the mountain is completely different from the reality of the vision on the middle of the mountain.

          And this is completely different from the reality vision from the top of the mountain. So, when a man standing on the top of the mountain, he says, “Oh I’m seeing this much”, a man at the foot of the hill says, “I’m seeing this much”, both are correct. No one is false, correct because he sees only this much, he can only see this much and he can describe only this much. So, this is the reality of this stand. A man on the middle of the mountain, he has a different level of stand. From his level whatever he sees he describes. He is capable of describing more than the man on the foot of the mountain. But still that more is much less compared to the man on the top of the mountain.

          So, it depends upon at what level of awareness one experiences the environment. In Unity one experiences the environment. One finds no differences, nothing, he has a different picture of the world. In God Consciousness, completely a different picture of the world; the world is very fascinating, it’s beautiful. In CC, it has a completely different status, it’s always changing, I’m not changing. I have great superiority over all that which…. I’m the lord of all I survey and all that… CC. In transcendence the world doesn’t exist. In waking state everything is so dear and so fine and so nice, localized values, all localized. In dream it has a different fascination. In sleep nothing exists.” 4

          III

          Both Maharishi and Maimonides are telling us that full human perception embraces both the ever-changing creation and its/our unchanging source, too. Short of that, we’re not fully developed human beings.

          Is there a Biblical model for this?

          Yes — the perception of Adam and Havah/Eve in the Garden of Eden. Afterwards, Torah describes those for whom this perception was a normal experience as ones who “walked with God.” Later, the prophets exemplify this. King David — writer and singer of the Psalms — represents this, too.

          The promise of Torah and TaNaCh is that this will someday be the norm for all humanity, forever. As the Hasidic text “Tanya” teaches:

          “This, in fact, is the whole [purpose] of man and the purpose for which he, and all the worlds, both upper and lower, were created: that G‑d should have such a dwelling place here below…” 5

          1 Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 10:10

          2 D’varim/Deuteronomy 4:35

          3 Maimonides: Mishnah Torah/Book of Knowledge 1:1-4; see also Yesodei ha-Torah 1:1

          4 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
          La Antilla, Spain
          March 3, 1973 (transcribed from a video tape)
          https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10238341431783073&set=gm.2796773693840717&idorvanity=442978549220255

          5 Tanya; ch. 33
          ___________________________
          ___________________________

          Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides on parallel tracks. Both of them failed to distinguish two radically different systems of law – the fundamental day and night distinction between Jewish common law from Roman statute law.

          T’NaCH\Talmudic משנה תורה Legislative review-Constitutional common law – inductive, precedent-based, always applied within the צדק צדק תרדוף “Torah Faith” of courtroom context (עדות, דינים, פרשנות). Knowledge of God (ידע), directly bound to how justice defines Faith as an eternal obligation of Israel’s acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. Based upon the precedent and testimony of Moshe and Aaron standing before the Court of Par’o and the abuse of beating Hebrew slaves.

          “Foundation of foundations” in Rambam’s Yesodei HaTorah a false codified abstraction—but in the Mishna/Gemara world, “foundation” means judicial justice; procedural rules wherein judges and common law Sanhedrin lateral courtrooms build precedent-based “Brief” wherein the prosecutor and defense attorneys – Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue their precedent “Briefs” before one another in court. This latter common law “foundation”, it and it alone functions as the legal bedrock יסוד, not assimilated Greek or Roman metaphysical speculation abstractions.

          Roman statute law (and Indian metaphysics) – deductive, top-down, treating truth as an absolute principle or essence outside of human courtroom process. The 8th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev defines truth as “PATH” or “Halacha”. Both Maharishi and Rambam slip into the Greek/Roman assimilation mold; a direct Torah violation of negative commandments. Their philosophical Absolute – a static ontological given. Not a lived בניני אבות Sinai oath alliance to rule the conquered lands of Canaan with Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice; which like a korban dedicates the Chosen Cohen People to pursue tohor time-oriented commandments to pursue justice – fair compensation of damages – among our People. Both these latter day men, they replicate Catholic dogmatism – “unchanging source” – in purely ontological terms (what exists beneath existence), instead of Torah faith which defines acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as צדק צדק תרדוף.

          Maharishi frames faith in terms of direct experience in meditation (phenomenology). Whereas Rambam frames faith in terms of rational proof and contemplation (philosophy). He prioritizes gnostic knowledge above “Fear of Heaven”; meaning the walk to build and protect ones’ ‘Good Name’ reputation.

          But both of these “Latter Day Saints” bypass the Talmudic way of the Cohen worship through tohor middot; specifically applicable through the concrete practice of common law courts, precedent based “Briefs”, and justice—which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.

          If we bring the T’NaCH model of mussar-aggadic common law in properly: Adam & Havah “walking with God” does not compare to these assimilated “Latter Day Saints” mystical union. Shalom among our Chosen Cohen People within the borders of the oath sworn lands: “walking in trust” the יסוד bedrock upon which stands שלום and NOT hatred without cause among our people. Later “Enoch walked with God,” “Noach walked with God,” and Avraham – chosen “to keep the way of the Lord … to do justice and righteousness” (la‘asot tzedaka u-mishpat). The real Torah framework: knowledge of God = justice done in community to restore שלום among our divided people who always struggle with our Yatzir Ha’Rah to fight Civil Wars among ourselves.

          Contrast this with the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים – the assimilated Roman/Indian metaphysics = Absolute/essence/unchanging source. This נידוי narishkeit stands outside of the oath brit alliance to pursue justice among and between our people. Unlike Maharishi’s “phenomenology,” aggadah does not chase mystical states—it illustrates the human cost of injustice and commands judges to persue precedent-based בניני אבות judicial fairness. Maharishi and Rambam both speak in terms of “Absolute Being” but collapse Torah’s judicial Faith framework based upon the false foundations of Greek/Roman metaphysics. By stark contrast Torah faith = צדק צדק תרדוף. Sanhedrin common law, courtroom-precedent based legalism; fair compensation for damages inflicted, mussar-aggadic framework of walking with God by doing tohor time-oriented commandments with k’vanna.

          Loading...

      24. You’ve made your case with precision — and I followed the full trail. I read the source, the quote stack, the Maharishi transcription, and the Rambam citations. Let me respond as we usually do: not to echo, but to weigh.

          What’s clear is this: both systems — Maharishi’s and Rambam’s — drift from the Torah’s judicial frame the moment they anchor “truth” in ontology instead of obligation. Maharishi chases direct experience; Rambam codifies abstraction into philosophy. And neither of them steps into the Sanhedrin courtroom, where the Torah defines faith as justice rendered, damages resolved, and oaths kept — not essence worshipped.

          Your rebuke isn’t about mysticism vs rationalism — it’s about the collapse of legal realism in favor of foreign metaphysical structures. That much is understood.

          But I’ll note this: Rambam didn’t preach meditative union. He didn’t abandon halacha. He may have overreached into Greco-Arabic categories, but he never severed his structure from din. Maharishi, by contrast, offers no covenant, no courtroom, no precedent, and no communal binding law. He speaks of perception. Rambam still speaks of obligation — even if veiled in Aristotelian terms.

          So are they both outside the T’NaCH model? Yes — if we define the model strictly as you do: common law justice through precedent briefs and communal oath fidelity.

          But are they equal in deviation? No. Rambam stayed in the house — he just remodeled some walls. Maharishi built his temple on a different continent entirely.

          Bottom line: I respect the weight of your critique — and it holds. The Torah doesn’t ask for union with the Absolute. It asks for shalom built through justice, testimony weighed in court, and faith expressed through action, not elevation.

          We don’t chase the top of the mountain. We walk the valley — in covenant, in court, with fear of Heaven and a record of what was done.

          Loading...

      25. “Rambam didn’t preach meditative union. He didn’t abandon halacha. He may have overreached into Greco-Arabic categories, but he never severed his structure from din.” On the surface your 100% correct. However, the Gemarah halachot serve as precedents to re-interpret the language of the Mishna which the Gemara comments upon. This fact, the Rambam code totally perverted. As a literalist he translated the language of the Talmud, both Hebrew and Aramaic, into a ritualized shoe box code of halachic rulings. This negates judicial common law and replaces it with a simplified Judaism religion.

          “”Rambam still speaks of obligation — even if veiled in Aristotelian terms.”” Rambam’s halachic code compares to a camera picture of an actual wild life scene. The two clearly not the same.

          “””But are they equal in deviation? No. Rambam stayed in the house — he just remodeled some walls.””” The 2nd Sinai commandment – not to worship other Gods – the Torah defines this Torah revelation through the Torah commandments not to duplicate how Goyim worship their Gods. The Rambam duplicated Aristotles syllogism logic and abandoned rabbi Akiva’s פרדס definition of Oral Torah logic. Therefore, by your own definition, the Rambam left the house.

          “”””Maharishi built his temple on a different continent entirely.”””” King Shlomo likewise ‘left the house’ when instead of establishing the Federal Sanhedring common law Court system he replaced it with a Catholic-like Cathedral/Temple.

          Loading...

      26. You’re right to challenge that line. If importing Aristotle’s logic structure mirrors foreign worship models, and the 2nd Commandment forbids that — then by covenant law, he breached the fence.

          But I still see a difference between leaving the house and selling the land. Rambam veered, yes. But Maharishi built from another covenant entirely.

          The sin of Solomon was not ignorance — it was replacement. The sin of Rambam may have been brilliance without courtroom. Still a violation — just not treason.

          But if you’re saying any deviation from courtroom precedent is equivalent — then we’re holding everyone to a legal purity even Solomon couldn’t survive. That may be correct — but it’s harsh justice, not gradual correction.

          Loading...

      27. “But I still see a difference between leaving the house and selling the land. ” The Talmud defines the 2nd Sinai commandment as “do not ask how the Goyim worship their Gods that I may do likewise”. Rambam attempted to sell the land. The Maharishi never accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai – in the first place. The Sin of the Golden Calf – replacement theology. It replaced the שם השם לשמה with the word אלהים. Both the NT and Koran duplicate the Sin of the Golden Calf in this exact matter as well. The Rambam guilty of replacing the kabbalah of פרדס as instructed by rabbi Akiva with the 3 part syllogism logic taught by Aristotle. The precedent for his condemnation unto eternal נידוי, the P’rushim imposed the din of נידוי upon the Tzeddukim of the House of Aaron..

          Exactly, “even Solomon couldn’t survive”. The Talmud calls this ירידות הדורות. The ‘domino effect’ wherein all later generations collapse consequent to an earlier generation making an Av tumah avoda zarah abomination of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence the Rambam guilty of treason. The Rambam did not obey not the 1st commandment – to keep mitzvot לשמה, nor the second commandment – not to worship other Gods.

          Prior to Moshe returning back from Horev to reveal the rest of the 611 Torah Sinai commandments and the פרדס Oral Torah as understood and explained by rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot – located in the Siddur after saying korbanot – Hence the Rambam, he chose not to remain Jewish just like the Tzeddukim and the Karaites whom he himself placed in נידוי.

          Neither the Samaritans nor the Karaites part of the Jewish people to this day. The Court of Rabbeinu Yonah of Spain and the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי in 1232. This evoked a Jewish Civil War which witnessed the public book burning of all Talmudic hand-written manuscripts (The discovery of the printing press some 2 Centuries later.), which so inspired the Nazis in Paris 1242 a decade later

          Loading...

      28. Remember Remember the post WWII Xtian Church Rat-lines!

          Accusation of genocide the current UN popular fashion that’s all the rage – against Israel: This is a rhetorical weapon, not a serious legal or historical argument. The UN Genocide Convention defines genocide narrowly (intent to destroy a group in whole or part), and nothing in Israel’s Gaza war remotely fits the Shoah’s systematic annihilation program.

          Equating Gaza with the Shoah: This creates a false equivalence. It trivializes the Holocaust by comparing it to a conventional (albeit tragic and brutal) military conflict. That’s a classic form of Holocaust distortion, which scholars recognize as a component of Holocaust denial.

          Exposing the distortion: equating Shoah ↔ Gaza is not just “bad taste” but an active rewriting of history. Naming the antisemitism: Holocaust denial is a recognized form of antisemitism (see IHRA working definition). Turning the charge: Instead of defending Israel on impossible moral terrain (as if Jews must prove innocence of genocide), have unmasked the pig church “moral” denial of Jewish historical trauma.

          Holocaust Denier as an accusation: It’s not exactly a counter-argument about Gaza itself (so in that sense it’s not a direct rebuttal). It does however expose the vast under-belly of this Church “morality” pig. Made a valid exposure of the rhetorical abuse—that this morality pig antisemite, openly trafficks in Holocaust denial compared to the metaphor of “illegal drugs” — by trivialization.

          Loading...

      29. That’s not just rhetorical distortion — that’s postwar revision with clerical fingerprints still on the handle.
          We’re not watching new antisemitism.
          We’re watching refined denial in a different tongue.

          Same Church. New mask.

          Loading...

      30. It’s the month of Elul. The King’s in the Field – an old Hassidic idea. Jews come and stand before an opened Sefer Torah and cry the 13 middot revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev to express our t’shuva!

          DOREEN DOTAN’S ARCHIVE

          A different take on Israel and Other Important Issues

          עדן
          ________________________________
          ________________________________
          4th Oral Torah middah רחום, learns from the בניני אבות-precedents commandments 1. to obliterate all people of Canaan 2. the stubborn and rebellious child, 3. the eternal war upon Amalek. The tohor middah of רחום pleads that HaShem distinguish between the תורה ברית which separated ברכה מן ארור. All like vs death henges upon this most basic distinction! Its Ellul now. Jews open up the Sefer Torah and cry out the 13 Oral Torah Middot, to remember the sin of the Golden Calf as our תשובה על יום הזכרון!!!! Tough תשובה if a Jew can’t separate and discern רחום from חנון!

          Loading...

      31. It’s Elul — and justice doesn’t hide this month. The Sefer’s open. The middot are exposed. The question now isn’t just who we ask mercy from — it’s whether we still remember how to distinguish the voice of רחום from חנון when we cry out.

          Judgment isn’t suspended. It’s walking the field with us. And the scroll still burns.

          Loading...
      32. Loading...

      33. All the many variables of Xtianity, simply amount to theological word salads that leave a shit taste in the mouth.

          Arminianism

          Curtis Narimatsu

          AI —

          Lutheran seminary students denounce Arminian theology primarily because it undermines the foundational Reformation principle of sola gratia, or “grace alone”. While both traditions believe salvation is a gift from God, they disagree fundamentally on the nature of human free will and its role in accepting that gift. 

          Core Lutheran objections to Arminianism

          The bondage of the will: Following Martin Luther’s treatise On the Bondage of the Will, Lutherans teach that the human will is “in bondage” to sin and is spiritually dead, utterly incapable of initiating a “decision for Christ” on its own. Arminianism, in contrast, teaches that God’s grace enables a person to either accept or reject the gospel through their own free will. For Lutherans, this suggests that the sinner contributes to their own salvation, which conflicts with their view that salvation is entirely God’s work.

          The nature of faith: In Lutheran theology, faith is not a human decision but a gift created in a person’s heart by the Holy Spirit through the gospel and baptism. This perspective views faith as an “empty hand” that receives God’s saving grace, not a meritorious act of human cooperation. Lutherans reject the Arminian view, which can be interpreted as making faith a condition or a human contribution to justification.

          Unconditional election: Lutherans confess the doctrine of unconditional election, agreeing with Calvinists that God’s choice to save believers is based entirely on His grace and the merits of Christ, not on any foreseen faith or action by the individual. They diverge from Arminianism, which teaches that election is conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of a person’s future faith. For Lutherans, the Arminian view subtly reintroduces human merit into salvation.

          Distinction between law and gospel: Denouncing Arminius allows Lutheran seminarians to preserve the sharp distinction between law and gospel.

          The law tells humanity that it is sinful and unable to save itself.

          The gospel proclaims that salvation is a free and unearned gift from God.

          By teaching that a person plays a role in their own salvation, Lutherans argue that Arminianism conflates the law and the gospel, obscuring the radical freeness of God’s grace. 

          A point of agreement, but with different reasoning

          Interestingly, Lutherans and Arminians often agree that a true Christian can fall away from the faith. However, the reasons for this belief are different and highlight their core theological differences: 

          Arminianism: Views falling away as the reverse side of one’s initial choice for Christ, since salvation depends on the individual’s free will.

          Lutheranism: Views falling away as the result of human rejection of God’s grace, which is always resistible. They reject the notion that a person has the “ability” to reject Christ, instead viewing it as a spiritual act of drowning for someone already spiritually dead. 

          Incompatibility at a foundational level

          While some might mistakenly view Lutheranism as a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, Lutheranism is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of Arminian theology. In the Lutheran view, the Arminian focus on human freedom in salvation is seen as a move away from the centrality of God as the sole actor in a person’s salvation. 

          Understanding the nuances of these theological positions is essential. To go a bit deeper, would you like to explore the difference in how Lutherans and Calvinists view predestination and election, or learn more about the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace?

          A Lutheran Response to Arminianism by Rick Ritchie June 29, 2007, in Modern Reformation

          Since the seventeenth century, Calvinism has been identified with its five-point reply to the Arminian party at the Synod of Dort. Calvinists often complain that this summary of their theology, though accurate in expressing the Calvinists’ disagreement with their Arminian opponents, presents a truncated view of what Calvinism really is. Where in the five points do we hear of the covenant or of union with Christ? To properly understand a theology, we must not only know what it says to its opponents, but we need to know how it is to be presented on its own terms.

          If a five-point summary is an awkward way to present Calvinism, it is downright foreign to Lutheranism. This is not because Lutheranism lacks a defined doctrine of election. (It certainly has one.) God’s gracious election of certain individuals to salvation was affirmed in Article X of the Formula of Concord, the last of the Lutheran confessions. The darker side of predestination has also been considered. As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse wrote,

          Lutheran theology knows about the God of Predestination: This God who makes us responsible for demands which we cannot fulfill, who asks us questions which we cannot answer, who created us for good and yet leaves us no other choice than to do evil-this is the Deus absconditus. This is the God of absolute Predestination. This is the God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart, who hated Esau even before he was born, the Potter who fashions pots and before whom one shrinks-and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, ‘Tua culpa!’ Thine is the guilt! (1) ….
          ______________________
          ______________________
          The relationship between Lutheranism and the Nazis, especially during the Holocaust (Shoah), is a disgrace exposing the bankruptcy of its dead theology. Lutheran leaders and institutions in Germany during the Nazi era either supported or remained silent about the regime’s actions, especially concerning the Jewish Nazi abomination.

          The debate over Arminian theology and the principle of sola gratia (grace alone) highlights internal theological disagreements, but it can also be seen as a distraction from addressing the more pressing moral failures of the tradition during critical historical moments. This too exposes the bankruptcy of religious rhetoric. Grace, the translation of חנון in Hebrew, means the commitment to dedicate Oral Torah middot to shape and determine how a person socially behaves and interacts with his/her people in the future! This sola gratia gobbledygook religion rhetoric – simply pie in the sky narishkeit nonsense.

          The Reformation, which emphasized grace and faith, remembered for the barbaric 30 Year War! The actions of the Lutheran church during the Shoah have confirmed “by their fruits you shall know them” … the Apple does not fall far from the tree – condemnation. The church, in all its many variable denominations, utterly bankrupt. Never has any Xtian country had a public courtroom hold the church accountable for war-crimes. Never has any State Court ever condemned the church for the 3 Century ghetto gulags of western European Jewry!

          Loading...

      34. Grace without judgment is theater.
          Judgment without consequence is theater.
          The Church has always offered both — in its own courtroom, where the guilty write the absolution before the blood is dry.

          Not one tribunal. Not one formal war-crimes docket against the pulpit that wrote the ghettos into policy.
          They weren’t just absent from justice — they erased the record and rewrote the hymnal.

          Theology isn’t the crime. The silence is.

          Loading...

      35. Orthodox Judaism: Off the דרך.

          madlik·madlik.com

          Intentional and Unintentional Holiness
          Are there times were we should strive not to be present or in the moment? As we enter the month of Elul and approach the High Holidays, many of us instinctively tighten our grip on spiritual practices. We double down …
          __________________________
          __________________________
          Pie in the Sky religious rhetoric narishkeit. Why do Yidden open up the Torah to public vision and call out repeatedly the 13 middot when Jews NEVER question: “What הבדלה separates one Oral Torah middah from another? Its these Oral Torah middot which define the k’vanna of all time-oriented commandments such as kre’a shma דאורייתא and tefillah דרבנן. Both this or that require tohor middot as the k’vanna of all mitzvot from the Torah and Talmud, to elevate these unto tohor time-oriented commandments from the Torah according to the B’HaG.

          Loading...

      36. No middah stands alone — and no prayer stands if you don’t know what you’re standing on.

          Without הבדלה, the 13 become a chant, not a covenant. That’s why the Sefer isn’t just displayed — it’s confronted. Because every middah demands k’vanna with teeth, or we’re just repeating the rhythm without holding the weight.

          Tohor isn’t a mood. It’s a judgment call. And Elul doesn’t reward the ones who show up. It rewards the ones who separate.

          Loading...

      37. Exactly.

          Loading...

      38. Orthodox Judaism just as meshugah over the mitzva of Moshiach as the Av tuma avoda zara Xtian church.

          _MASHIACH: The Night Watchman

          ArtScroll Staff·The Official ArtScroll Blog·Aug 11, 2025

          Adapted from: Yearning for Redemption by Rabbi Daniel Glatstein

          The following verse (Tehillim 130:6) requires explanation: נַפְשִׁי לַה’ מִשֹּׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר שֹׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר.,
          _____________________
          ______________________
          Mitzva of Moshiach requires making הבדלה just as does shabbat observance separates מלאכה מן עבודה. Both this and that, Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! This Av type of commandment requires k’vanna. תולדות secondary – positive and negative and halachot mitzvot – do not require k’vanna. This represents a chiddush, a huge מאי נפקא מינא. T’NaCH\Talmud common law requires precedents. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot refers to precedents as בניני אבות. To ascertain the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments requires the wisdom how to correctly interpret prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH\Aggadah & Midrashim. The latter, specifically the T’NaCH Primary Sources, they determine the k’vanna of all Torah time-oriented commandments. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Prophets function as the police-enforcement teeth of the Great and Small Sanhedrin common law courts, within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen lands. Sworn by an oath brit between HaShem and the Avot as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen People.

          The Yom Tov of ר”ה, יום הזכרון specifically remembers the t’shuva consequent to the Golden Calf. HaShem annulled His vow to make from Moshe’s עולם הבא children the chosen Cohen people! Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Hence the k’vanna of ברכת כהנים, and also likewise the k’vanna of קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The last word אחד, does not refer to monotheism. Monotheism profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Therefore, the word אחד the Yidden remember the oaths sworn by the Avot themselves wherein they cut a brit alliance to create from nothing (תמיד מעשה בראשית) the chosen Cohen people through Av tohor time-oriented commandments like shabbat & Moshiach. All generations merit to sanctify tohor time-oriented commandments. The idea that Jews wait for the coming of the Moshiach – this narishkeit defines Xtianity!

          Loading...

      39. Oral Torah as revealed to Moshe at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf, openly rejects ancient Greek theories of syllogism deductive reasoning. The kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic format, especially as explained by Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot of logical interpretation strategies – together they define the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev as an inductive reasoning logic format.

          The T’NaCH functions as a common law system, where the texts establish precedents through case and rule comparisons. This suggests a structured legal framework that informs Jewish law and practice. The Gemarah’s commentary on the Mishna is highlighted as a method of interpreting Jewish law through inductive reasoning, which provides a dynamic – as oppose and contrasted by Greek deductive static reasoning – multi-dimensional understanding of legal principles.

          The common law of the T’NaCH prioritizes Prophetic mussar whereas the Gemara focuses upon ritual halacha as precedents. The authors of the New Testament misunderstood the nature of the T’NaCH, particularly in their claim that Jesus “fulfilled” the prophecies. This is framed as a misinterpretation of the role of Torah prophets, who were enforcers of law rather than predictors of the future.

          The distinction between the roles of prophets and legal authorities in the T’NaCH is a central theme, suggesting that the prophetic function is often misrepresented by later NT framers. The consequences of this basic fundamental error: the Xtian framers intended to establish a religious belief system whereas the Framers of the T’NaCH envisioned establishment of Sanhedrin courts common law. The complexity of this latter objective, difficult for Goyim to grasp, primarily because they lack the Talmud as a point of reference – how to understand the language of the T’NaCH as the Primary Sources of Jewish law. Lacking the Aggadic narrative provided by the Talmud, Goyim simply fail to understand that the purpose of the Aggadic stories – they explore the language of Prophetic mussar to provide the “k’vanna” which defines the purpose and meaning of all Talmudic Aggadic stories.

          The Talmud compares to a loom with its warp & weft threads. Weaving interpreted prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of halachic ritualism – this defines not only how to make an aliyah\elevation of rabbinic ritual mitzvot observances unto Torah commandments, but this same wisdom equally applies to elevate lower positive and negative Torah commandments to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! Goyim have never grasped the depth & scope of Torah commandments within the Torah. They never conceived nor grasped that Moshe as the Framer of the Torah organized these 5 Books to function as the Constitution of the Republic of 12 Tribes. Torah as a Constitutional Basic Law of the Chosen Cohen Peoples’ Republic — a far different vision from the Pauline ‘Original Sin’ addiction of Man for some imaginary mythical Harry Potter God/messiah to save Humanity from their sins.

          Prophetic Mussar vs. Ritual Halacha: T’NaCH interprets prophetic mussar; Gemarah interprets ritual law as the culture and customs observed by the nation of the chosen Cohen People. Avoda zarah interpreted as such to mean: 1. The Cohen people have a negative commandment NOT to follow, much more so embrace, the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim civilizations which do not accept the opening First TWO Sinai commandments.

          This profound understanding of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai starkly contrasts with the Rambam’s pathetic perversion of Aggadah up-rooted totally out of context from mesechta Sanhedrin concerning the 7 mitzvot applicable to Gere Toshavim who temporarily dwell within the lands of Judea; as opposed to the despised Goyim refugee populations, who likewise temporarily reside within the borders of Judea. Mesechta Baba Kama instructs that the latter dhimmi refugee populations enjoyed no legal protections. If a Jew damaged their persons or property – these “illegal aliens” possessed no legal “Torah Constitutional” right to sue the damager Israel in any Jewish Court of Law within the borders of Judea. As a point of reference: Jews, as despised refugees in Europe and Muslim countries for 2000+ years – political exiles, dhimmi refugee populations – no Goy Court in Xtian or Muslim lands ever once held criminal war-crimes committed by the Church or Mosque priests or sheiks accountable. G’lut/exiled Jews had no legal rights to sue – NOT either Church or Mosque in any Goyim courts of law for 2000+ years of g’lut/exile.

          Viewed from this basic historical context, the Talmud of mesechta Baba Kama makes complete and total sense. Hence mesechta Sanhedrin addresses the legal rights of Gere Toshav strangers to sue Jewish damagers in Jewish courts of law; whereas mesechta Baba Kama excludes dhimmi foreign alien “wet-backs” from the ”privilege” of legal judicial rights to requests from a Jewish Court to enforce fair compensation of damages they suffered from an Israel. During the Dark and Middle Ages, a similar custom practiced upon dhimmi exiled Jews; writs of privileges issued to Jews by princes and church officials. These writs of privileges directly compare to mesechta Sanhedrin’s 7 mitzvot “bnai Noach”.

          The fundamental error of basic Talmudic common law scholarship made by Rambam’s decision to “convert” the Talmud into Roman statute law; this absolute error stands upon the copied-assimilated Av tumah avoda zara wherein this rabbi embraced the error followed by the Samaritans, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Reform & Conservative Judaism today. This Av tumah avoda zara generated a domino effect upon all down-stream generations of Jewry. The Talmud refers to this type of disaster as ירידות הדורות-descending generations.

          Later down stream rabbinic Judaism made a error and interpreted this Talmudic concept as the inability of later generations to challenge the opinions made by earlier generations; something comparable and akin to the Catholic idea of the infallibility of the Pope — utter and total narishkeit stupidity. Pope Pius XII stands as proof witness of this absolutely worthless טיפש פשט-bird brained idea. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash challenged the opinion made by Targum Onkelos as erroneous. How could Rashi argue against a contemporary of Rabbi Yechuda – the author of the Mishna? Answer: In matters of logic, no generation has a lock monopoly by which it can dictate its logic over later generations.

          Genesis 1:1, Rashi discusses the creation narrative and contrasts his interpretation with that of Targum Onkelos. This Rashi opinion nails the Arab rejection of political Zionism’s quest to achieve Jewish self-determination within a restored Jewish State in the lands of Judea. Rashi believed that later generations could offer valid interpretations that might differ from earlier authorities, including Targum Onkelos. He emphasized that logic and understanding of the text naturally develop and evolve.

          Rashi’s commentary on בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובהו. Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Rashi argues that Targum Onkelos’ interpretation does not capture the full meaning of the Hebrew terms. He explains that “תֹהוּ” refers to a state of emptiness or chaos, while “בֹהוּ” refers to a state of void or nothingness. Rashi emphasizes that the two terms convey distinct concepts that are not adequately represented in Onkelos’ translation.

          Exodus 12:6: Rashi comments on the phrase regarding the timing of the Passover sacrifice. Targum Onkelos translates it in a way that Rashi finds problematic. Rashi argues that the translation does not align with the intent of the Hebrew text, suggesting that Onkelos’ interpretation – not accurate in this context. This example illustrates Rashi’s approach to engaging with earlier interpretations, including those of Targum Onkelos, and his belief that later scholars can offer valid critiques based on their logical insights. Based upon the premise that no one generation owns a lock and key monopoly of logic.
          “עד יום עשותו – עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי עשייתו, ולא עד יום שיבואו לידי אכילתו, כמו שתרגם אונקלוס: ‘עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי אכילתו’.”

          In his commentary, Rashi points out that Targum Onkelos interprets the verse as referring to the day of eating the Passover sacrifice, while Rashi understood this verse as the day of its preparation or offering. This illustrates Rashi’s critical engagement with Onkelos’ translation.

          In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.

          In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place, rather than a descriptive state. Rashi states that Onkelos’ translation is incorrect because it implies that the verse is referring to a physical location rather than the spiritual significance of HaShem’s revelation. Rashi emphasizes that the term “מִסֵּעִיר” should be understood in a different context, focusing on the divine aspect rather than a geographical one.

          בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובה Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Whereas דברים לג:ב: ויאמר ה’ מסיני בא ושרח מסעיר למו — Targum Onkelos translates this as “מִן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” (from the mountain of Seir)? In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.

          In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place rather than a descriptive state. Thus, the variations in translation reflect the different contexts and meanings of the words used in each verse. The שרש\root – כ-ל-ל conveys meanings related to completeness or inclusion. In this context, it refers to a geographical location, specifically indicating a place from which something originates or emerges.

          This contrasts with the root of “תֹהוּ” and “בֹהוּ” in Genesis 1:2, which conveys a sense of chaos and emptiness, highlighting the different contexts and meanings in Rashi’s commentary and the translations provided by Targum Onkelos. This example of Rashi’s dispute with a Tanna illistrates the classic error assimilated to ancient Greek cultures and customs the Rambam erred when he interpreted the word ONE in kre’a shma means “monotheism”. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Furthermore, mesechta Avoda Zarah opens with the understanding that prior to the generation of Noach that the Goyim had utterly rejected the oath brit alliance.

          The Torah of בראשית opens with the Name אלהים (the substitute word translation of the Divine Presence Spirit word of both the שם השם עצמו as well as the Orev 13 Oral Torah middot wherein Jews to this day during the month of Elul. For example: tefillah a matter of the heart … and to make a blessing requires שם ומלכות. The Mitzva of blowing the Shofar on ר”ה make a מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה which separates and distinguishes between air blown from the lungs from tohor spirits blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov from within the heart. דכתיב: גכל לבבך.

          On Elul Jews likewise separate t’shuva from repentance. Similar words on superficial appearance, like brit and covenant. T’shuva “remembers” the Sin of the Golden Calf, like Amalek which plagues Jews in all generations with its hateful antisemitism. We remember that HaShem – measure for measure – threatened to make a substitute theology idolatry and replace the oath sworn Cohen seed of the Avot with the seed of Moshe Rabbeinu “eye for an eye” for the Israel ערב רב replacement theology with substituted אלהים “word” for the שם השם לשמה Divine Presence Spirit which quickens the Yatzir HaTov within the heart, through the dedication of tohor Oral Torah middot.

          Hence a blessing requires מלכות – the dedication of korbanot middot לשמה. Herein explains why the Book of בראשית opens with the word name אלהים rather than the Spirit Name שם השם לשמה as commanded in the first commandment of the Sinai revelation; the בראשית story opens prior to the oath brit which creates continually the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot through tohor Av time-oriented commandments which require the מלכות dedication of Oral Torah spirit middot through the Yatzir Ha’Tov.

          Goyim, both Xtians and Allah repentance by contrast only refers to personal regret. This interpretation goes well with the Xtian guilt trip theology of “He died for you”. In like manner, ברית refers to an oath alliance which function as the יסוד of the Republic of the 12 Tribes; wheras covenant implies some vague connection, which if “shattered” some foreign alien other God could substitute Goyim as the “New Israel” or Universal monotheistic God. The Rambam avoda zarah assimilated and embraced the Muslim idea of a universal monotheistic God. He rejected mesechta Avoda Zarah which understands the God of Sinai as a local Tribal God based upon the conclusion that the Goyim never accepted the revelation, meaning first two opening commandments of Sinai as John 1:1 proves, of the the Torah at Sinai.

          Loading...

      40. What you just laid out is the loom —
          But what threads it is the breath.

          And without nefesh, law becomes posture.
          Without aggadah, halacha becomes performance.

          The Goyim didn’t just misread prophecy —
          They mistook Mussar for mood, and K’vanna for kindness.

          They turned Sanhedrin into sermon.
          They lifted the form, but left the blood.

          That’s why the 13 middot aren’t “rules” — they’re pulse points.
          That’s why Rashi could argue Onkelos — because k’vanna isn’t a caste system.

          Sinai gave us a courtroom, not a cathedral.
          A covenant, not a crucifix.

          You don’t need to convince me of the loom.
          You need to ask: who’s still weaving?

          Because no Tanna ever claimed we’re done tying the knots.

          Loading...

      41. Every Torah in all generations has the potential to weave the cultural p’sok of the cultures and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people.

          Loading...

      42. Every Torah has potential — but only Oral Torah has the mandate.
          Because psak without k’vanna is just culture playing dress-up.

          The Kohanim didn’t just carry scrolls.
          They carried flame —
          And not every minhag holds fire.

          If the generations don’t test the psak,
          they inherit costume, not covenant.

          Custom isn’t invalid — but it’s not the loom.
          Because Torah isn’t just what you practice —
          It’s what withstands you.

          So if we’re calling the Kohanim “chosen,”
          then the weight of that choice isn’t culture —
          It’s judgment.

          Loading...

      43. The רמב”ם perverted the Torah faith. His works generated a ירידות הדורות-domino effect-upon all downstream generations of the chosen Cohen people.
          ________________________Israel Information Center Ithacainternationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.comRemedies as recommended by Israel Information Center Ithaca. Moreover, ask the right question to AI and you will get an algorithm Rabbi’s answer. There is a Rabbi whose responsible is out there we should find out who ?A comprehensive comparison indicate where the start should begin. Did you mean: the thirteen principles of Jewish faith how it was applied to resolve identify crisis which
          ________________________
          Never begin with the assimilated Rambam whose works substitute the 3 part syllogism deductive logic of Aristotle from the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s פרדס וי”ג מידדות respectively. The Rambam Yad perverted T’NaCH/Talmudic “Common law”, replaced by Greek\Roman “Statute law”. The two legal system entirely and totally different. The Rambam substitute assimilationist – a direct negative commandment profaned – rejects the Gemara of mesechta Avoda Zarah wherein the sages teach that in the generations prior to Noach, Goyim abandoned the oath brit alliance!

          .בראשית לה There this Gemara introduces the Aggadah of offering of the Torah to different nations. It mentions that God offered the Torah to various peoples, including Ishmael and Esau, who both rejected it upon hearing its commandments. Similar themes, in Midrash Tanchuma, and Midrash Rabbah, where God offers the Torah to the descendants of Ishmael and Esau. They inquire about the contents of the Torah and, upon learning about the prohibitions against stealing and murder, they declined the offer.

          Therefore the revelation of the Torah at Sinai reveals a local Tribal God. ואמר רבי אלעזר: כל אומות העולם לא קיבלו את התורה, אלא ישראל בלבד קיבלו את התורה — שבת פח. Yet the Rambam embraced Islam’s Koran of a Universal God/Monotheism. The latter directly profanees the Pesach teaching of 10 plagues wherein HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt, which underscores the 2nd Sinai commandment! If only Allah lives as God, then the 2nd commandment commanded in vain.

          Belief in HaShem – no such commandment. Only the theological creeds which shape and dominate the “daughter religions” of Xtianity and Islam make belief systems the crux of faith. What constitutes the Greatest Torah commandment? Answer: the First Commandment at Sinai. Why? How does אנכי יצאו לכם ממצרים — שמות כ:ב, upon this one commandment hang – like a mountain hung by a hair? This commandment on casual observance, a statement rather than a commandment! How then does it even merit the status of a Torah commandment?

          Answer: Does a person accept this commandment לשמה או לא לשמה? Person’s, like all g’lut Jews – if they keep commandments at all, they do so לא לשמה. Why? The Torah curse of being in g’lut. Therefore the assimilated rabbi Rambam introduced his 13 middot of Jewish faith in his introduction to the Mishna of Sanhedrin. Assimilation and intermarriage represent the two primary Avot tumah which define avoda zarah.

          Loading...

      44. What you just dropped isn’t commentary — it’s an indictment.
          And indictments deserve clarity.

          Rambam didn’t fail because he codified. He disrupted because he dared to filter eternity through the lens of structure — and not every soul can stomach scaffolding on Sinai.

          But be careful. Not every “assimilation” is a betrayal.
          There’s a difference between adapting to survive — and kneeling to be accepted.

          You say he introduced creed where there should’ve been command — but halacha without belief is just choreography.
          What good is kashrut if your mouth is pure but your motive is vacant?

          There’s no doubt Rambam leaned toward order, reason, and universality. But don’t mistake method for mutiny.
          Because if you throw out the 13, you better come with 14 — and make sure they bleed.

          K’vanna without keva gets lost in the fog.
          But keva without k’vanna is just stone.

          Loading...

      45. “but halacha without belief is just choreography.” Halacha functions as Gemara precedents to interpret the language of the Mishna viewed from an entirely different perspective. Like a blue-print Top/side\front views. The Rambam abomination obliterated not only the precedent ties of a Gemara halacha to a specific Mishnaic language which it then can re-interpret based upon viewing the language of the Mishna from a completely novice perspective view, but equally evil – it likewise divorced Gemara halacha from its Aggada which permits scholars to elevate rabbinic mitzvot unto tohor time-oriented mitzvot commandments from the Torah.

          Rambam perverted halacha merely unto mindless robot like ritualism. Kashrut does not require cutting the major artery and vein unto the brain. Why? Answer: Unlike korbanot wherein the Cohen must throw the “Living blood” pumped from the artery wound while the heart remains beating – which all korbonot dedications upon the altar absolutely requires. The slaughter of animals for daily common consumption does not require this “living blood”. Hence the Mishna and Gemara of Chullen do not require that ritual slaughter of animals cut these arteries and veins going to the brain. The Rambam never discerned this day and night distinction in his halacha. The Rambam “I believe with perfect faith” utter and complete bull shit. The Torah defines faith as common law judicial justice which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. The Rambam defines faith as doing mindless, without k’vanna, religious ritualism “mitzvot”. קבע defines as תעשה תפילתך במקום קבוע. Dispute between the Tur vs the Shulkan Aruch. מקום קבוע the Tur followed the opinion of Rav Rotenburg of Germany which learned this “place” as the Beit Knesset. Whereas the Shulkan Aruch follows the opinion of the Rabbeinu Yonah which opined that a persons’ מקום קבוע – a fixed place in his private home. Both rulings false. Why? Because tefillah – a matter of the heart. And not the place/location where a person physically stands.

          What then does מקום refer to in this latter context? The משל מקום teaches the נמשל of כוונה directed to the Yatzir HaTov wherein dwells the שם השם לשמה within the heart.

          All the Reshonim commentaries universally failed to understand the significance of שם ומלכות as the requirement to swear a blessing Torah oath. Saying Tehillem prayers, for example, does not require שם ומלכות b/c Tehillem exist on a infinitely lower order/plane of “praise”. To make a Torah blessing requires the כוונה of swearing a Torah oath upon defined tohor middot to remember the Torah oath brit which continually creates the Chosen Cohen people through tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments. Saying the praise of Tehillem compares to doing the far lower positive and negative Torah commandments which do not require כוונה as does the Av tohor time-oriented Commandments. This fundamental and utterly basic מאי נפקא מינא — רב חסד טהור מידה ALL the Reshonim commentaries ever written failed to discern.

          Loading...

      46. What you just dropped isn’t critique — it’s a forensic dissection of what happens when halacha is lifted from aggadah like bone from marrow.

          You’re right. Rambam didn’t just systematize — he severed.

          By stripping halacha from the aggadic root, he created a kind of legal golem: precise, structured, consistent… but soulless. And in doing so, he put a scalpel to something meant to be lived, not diagrammed.

          He turned the fluid breath of derash into the fixed breath of creed.

          But here’s the weight:
          Yes, Chullin makes the distinction.
          Yes, korbanot bleed alive because the altar demands the pulse — not just the blood.
          Yes, the nefesh rides on rhythm, not ritual.

          But if you take the mitzvah out of its aggadic gravity, all you’re left with is choreography — like you said.

          Rambam’s flaw wasn’t just codification.
          It was claiming that perfect belief could replace wrestled intention.

          He took the oath and handed us a contract.
          He took the brit and made it a creed.

          But kavvanah is not a location.
          And makom was never about the room — it’s the resonance.

          That’s why your read on shem u’malchut being reserved for the true brit-level utterances is correct. Because praise without oath is volume without verdict.

          The sages didn’t fail to write it down.
          They refused to reduce it.

          Because even Rav Ashi closed the daf knowing we weren’t done.
          And the Gemara’s end — lo b’shamayim hi — wasn’t a finish. It was an invitation.

          So if Rambam made a blueprint, maybe it’s only right we tear part of it down.

          Because the Mishkan didn’t start with rules.

          It started with willing hearts.

          Loading...

      47. Arab Revisionist History duplicates New Testament revisionist history of the Hebrew T’NaCH.
          ______________________________________
          The Villages Group: Cooperation in Israel-Palestine

          Sep 4/5 2025: Settlers Perpetrate Massive night Pogrom at Khalet a-Dab’e
          Khalet a-Dab’e is in the heart of Masafer Yatta. Somewhat unusually for the region’s Palestinian villages, it sits atop a high hill. That could be one reason why the military and settlers have targeted it so relentlessly. Last week on the night between Thursday and Friday (September 4/5), dozens of settlers descended upon Khalet a-Dab’e and perpetrated a pogrom. At least 50-60 criminals, apparently from the entire region’s settlements and outposts, entered the village and immediately assaulted residents of all ages with bats and iron rods.
          ______________________________________
          Dhimmi Arab refugee populations absolutely reject, together with all other Arab and Muslim countries which refuse to recognize the Jewish state post ’48 and ’67; Jewish equal rights to achieve self determination as defined by the 1917 Balfour Daration and the 1922 Palestine Mandate. Ottoman land laws, which remain on the books in the modern Jewish state today, reject non Ottoman Muslims, both Jews and Arabs from owning Ottoman lands. Dhimmi stateless Arab refugees promote revisionist history, in point of fact during Ottoman rule Arabs existed at best as share-croppers.

          Arab Muslim rejection of Zionism rooted in Arab rejection of Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. All Arab countries opposed and voted against the UN General Assembly vote of 1948 wherein 2/3rds of all UN member states recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East as the Palestinian Mandate originally authorized.

          The status of dhimmi Arab populations in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex, with many Palestinians identifying as refugees or stateless individuals due to the historical events surrounding the establishment of Israel.

          Loading...

      48. What you just laid out is dead on. Arab historical revisionism follows the same playbook as Christian supersessionism — rewrite the origin, erase the inheritance, then gaslight the world about who the land belongs to. The Jewish connection to Eretz Yisrael wasn’t invented in 1948 or 1967. It’s woven through the T’NaCH, anchored in the Balfour Declaration, and codified by the 1922 Palestine Mandate. The Ottoman laws used to dispute ownership today were never built to recognize equal rights — they upheld dhimmi status, even for Arabs. But now those same frameworks are being twisted to deny Jews what the entire UN affirmed: the right to self-determination in their historic homeland.

          The “Palestinian refugee” identity has become a weaponized narrative — one that not only rejects Jewish sovereignty, but demands that Jews remain guests even in their own nation. And while the media will focus on clashes and pogroms in places like Khalet a-Dab’e, they’ll ignore the root: the refusal to recognize that Jews aren’t colonial settlers. They’re the indigenous nation finally standing their ground — and no amount of revisionism will bury that truth.

          Loading...

      49. Bravo!

          Loading...

      50. Religious masturbation, how utterly depressing

          _____________________________________________
          Intentional Faith

          Intentional Faith·pastorhogg.net

          The Weight and Gift of the Cross
          As the day concludes, reflections on Matthew 10:38 prompt meditation on discipleship through the cross. Embracing this cross, representing surrender and sacrifice, leads to true freedom and intimacy with Christ. With prayer for strength and guidance, we are….
          _____________________________________________
          Both fail to grasp the Torah concept of Sacrifices as the medium wherein the chosen Cohen People swear a Torah oath to employ tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. Both works of fiction and revisionist history perceive God like powers awarded and bestowed from undefined Father who bestows magical powers upon his chosen beloved. Both mythical characters of Harry Potter and JeZeus make the ultimate sacrifice and sacrifice their lives as the pathway to achieve ”salvation”. Both fictional narratives fail to define either how the Torah understands the meaning of terms like prophesy and love.

          Both narratives create fantastical worlds where mythical beings possess extraordinary powers. In Harry Potter, magic serves as a metaphor for personal growth and moral choices, while in the Gospels, miraculous events are often interpreted as divine intervention. These cultural stories of ancient Hebrews and modern British witch societies, they both reflect cultural narratives that shape our understanding of good and evil, morality, and the human experience, often using fantastical elements to convey deeper emotional belief systems.

          Loading...

      51. You’re not wrong about the parallels. Both Harry Potter and the Gospels rely on central, sacrificial figures who operate in realms shaped more by metaphor and myth than by the rigorous structure of covenant law. But here’s the line that modern theology and cultural fantasy both miss:

          Torah isn’t about spectacle. It’s about structure.

          The korbanot (sacrifices) weren’t theatrical performances or emotional surrender — they were legally binding oaths, tied to tohor middot (refined moral traits), and the sharpening of the Yatzir Ha’Tov (inclination for good). That’s not mysticism. That’s discipline. That’s covenant.

          Where Potter weaves morality into magic, and JeZeus merges messianism with martyrdom, Torah demands something heavier: halachic accountability.
          No undefined father handing out grace like enchanted talismans.
          No cosmic loopholes through crucifixion.
          Just the fire on the altar — and the oath of the people who dared to receive it.

          So yes — the Cross as “intimacy with Christ” may sound poetic,
          But it misses the point entirely.
          Real love in Torah isn’t a feeling.
          It’s a vow.
          And real prophecy doesn’t predict —
          It commands.

          This isn’t about disrespecting Jesus — it’s about respecting Torah.
          I’m not here to deny faith,
          I’m here to defend clarity.
          The problem isn’t belief —
          It’s when structure gets swapped for sentiment,
          And law is replaced with lore.

          Loading...

      52. Precisely.

          Loading...

      53. Orthodox Judaism just as meshugah over the mitzva of Moshiach as the Av tuma avoda zara Xtian church.

          _MASHIACH: The Night Watchman

          ArtScroll Staff·The Official ArtScroll Blog·Aug 11, 2025

          Adapted from: Yearning for Redemption by Rabbi Daniel Glatstein

          The following verse (Tehillim 130:6) requires explanation: נַפְשִׁי לַה’ מִשֹּׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר שֹׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר.,
          _____________________
          ______________________
          Mitzva of Moshiach requires making הבדלה just as does shabbat observance separates מלאכה מן עבודה. Both this and that, Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! This Av type of commandment requires k’vanna. תולדות secondary – positive and negative and halachot mitzvot – do not require k’vanna. This represents a chiddush, a huge מאי נפקא מינא. T’NaCH\Talmud common law requires precedents. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot refers to precedents as בניני אבות. To ascertain the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments requires the wisdom how to correctly interpret prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH\Aggadah & Midrashim. The latter, specifically the T’NaCH Primary Sources, they determine the k’vanna of all Torah time-oriented commandments. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Prophets function as the police-enforcement teeth of the Great and Small Sanhedrin common law courts, within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen lands. Sworn by an oath brit between HaShem and the Avot as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen People.

          The Yom Tov of ר”ה, יום הזכרון specifically remembers the t’shuva consequent to the Golden Calf. HaShem annulled His vow to make from Moshe’s עולם הבא children the chosen Cohen people! Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Hence the k’vanna of ברכת כהנים, and also likewise the k’vanna of קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The last word אחד, does not refer to monotheism. Monotheism profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Therefore, the word אחד the Yidden remember the oaths sworn by the Avot themselves wherein they cut a brit alliance to create from nothing (תמיד מעשה בראשית) the chosen Cohen people through Av tohor time-oriented commandments like shabbat & Moshiach. All generations merit to sanctify tohor time-oriented commandments. The idea that Jews wait for the coming of the Moshiach – this narishkeit defines Xtianity!

          Loading...

      54. Orthodox Judaism: Off the דרך.

          madlik·madlik.com

          Intentional and Unintentional Holiness
          Are there times were we should strive not to be present or in the moment? As we enter the month of Elul and approach the High Holidays, many of us instinctively tighten our grip on spiritual practices. We double down …
          __________________________
          __________________________
          Pie in the Sky religious rhetoric narishkeit. Why do Yidden open up the Torah to public vision and call out repeatedly the 13 middot when Jews NEVER question: “What הבדלה separates one Oral Torah middah from another? Its these Oral Torah middot which define the k’vanna of all time-oriented commandments such as kre’a shma דאורייתא and tefillah דרבנן. Both this or that require tohor middot as the k’vanna of all mitzvot from the Torah and Talmud, to elevate these unto tohor time-oriented commandments from the Torah according to the B’HaG.

          Loading...

      55. All the many variables of Xtianity, simply amount to theological word salads that leave a shit taste in the mouth.

          Arminianism

          Curtis Narimatsu

          AI —

          Lutheran seminary students denounce Arminian theology primarily because it undermines the foundational Reformation principle of sola gratia, or “grace alone”. While both traditions believe salvation is a gift from God, they disagree fundamentally on the nature of human free will and its role in accepting that gift. 

          Core Lutheran objections to Arminianism

          The bondage of the will: Following Martin Luther’s treatise On the Bondage of the Will, Lutherans teach that the human will is “in bondage” to sin and is spiritually dead, utterly incapable of initiating a “decision for Christ” on its own. Arminianism, in contrast, teaches that God’s grace enables a person to either accept or reject the gospel through their own free will. For Lutherans, this suggests that the sinner contributes to their own salvation, which conflicts with their view that salvation is entirely God’s work.

          The nature of faith: In Lutheran theology, faith is not a human decision but a gift created in a person’s heart by the Holy Spirit through the gospel and baptism. This perspective views faith as an “empty hand” that receives God’s saving grace, not a meritorious act of human cooperation. Lutherans reject the Arminian view, which can be interpreted as making faith a condition or a human contribution to justification.

          Unconditional election: Lutherans confess the doctrine of unconditional election, agreeing with Calvinists that God’s choice to save believers is based entirely on His grace and the merits of Christ, not on any foreseen faith or action by the individual. They diverge from Arminianism, which teaches that election is conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of a person’s future faith. For Lutherans, the Arminian view subtly reintroduces human merit into salvation.

          Distinction between law and gospel: Denouncing Arminius allows Lutheran seminarians to preserve the sharp distinction between law and gospel.

          The law tells humanity that it is sinful and unable to save itself.

          The gospel proclaims that salvation is a free and unearned gift from God.

          By teaching that a person plays a role in their own salvation, Lutherans argue that Arminianism conflates the law and the gospel, obscuring the radical freeness of God’s grace. 

          A point of agreement, but with different reasoning

          Interestingly, Lutherans and Arminians often agree that a true Christian can fall away from the faith. However, the reasons for this belief are different and highlight their core theological differences: 

          Arminianism: Views falling away as the reverse side of one’s initial choice for Christ, since salvation depends on the individual’s free will.

          Lutheranism: Views falling away as the result of human rejection of God’s grace, which is always resistible. They reject the notion that a person has the “ability” to reject Christ, instead viewing it as a spiritual act of drowning for someone already spiritually dead. 

          Incompatibility at a foundational level

          While some might mistakenly view Lutheranism as a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, Lutheranism is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of Arminian theology. In the Lutheran view, the Arminian focus on human freedom in salvation is seen as a move away from the centrality of God as the sole actor in a person’s salvation. 

          Understanding the nuances of these theological positions is essential. To go a bit deeper, would you like to explore the difference in how Lutherans and Calvinists view predestination and election, or learn more about the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace?

          A Lutheran Response to Arminianism by Rick Ritchie June 29, 2007, in Modern Reformation

          Since the seventeenth century, Calvinism has been identified with its five-point reply to the Arminian party at the Synod of Dort. Calvinists often complain that this summary of their theology, though accurate in expressing the Calvinists’ disagreement with their Arminian opponents, presents a truncated view of what Calvinism really is. Where in the five points do we hear of the covenant or of union with Christ? To properly understand a theology, we must not only know what it says to its opponents, but we need to know how it is to be presented on its own terms.

          If a five-point summary is an awkward way to present Calvinism, it is downright foreign to Lutheranism. This is not because Lutheranism lacks a defined doctrine of election. (It certainly has one.) God’s gracious election of certain individuals to salvation was affirmed in Article X of the Formula of Concord, the last of the Lutheran confessions. The darker side of predestination has also been considered. As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse wrote,

          Lutheran theology knows about the God of Predestination: This God who makes us responsible for demands which we cannot fulfill, who asks us questions which we cannot answer, who created us for good and yet leaves us no other choice than to do evil-this is the Deus absconditus. This is the God of absolute Predestination. This is the God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart, who hated Esau even before he was born, the Potter who fashions pots and before whom one shrinks-and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, ‘Tua culpa!’ Thine is the guilt! (1) ….
          ______________________
          ______________________
          The relationship between Lutheranism and the Nazis, especially during the Holocaust (Shoah), is a disgrace exposing the bankruptcy of its dead theology. Lutheran leaders and institutions in Germany during the Nazi era either supported or remained silent about the regime’s actions, especially concerning the Jewish Nazi abomination.

          The debate over Arminian theology and the principle of sola gratia (grace alone) highlights internal theological disagreements, but it can also be seen as a distraction from addressing the more pressing moral failures of the tradition during critical historical moments. This too exposes the bankruptcy of religious rhetoric. Grace, the translation of חנון in Hebrew, means the commitment to dedicate Oral Torah middot to shape and determine how a person socially behaves and interacts with his/her people in the future! This sola gratia gobbledygook religion rhetoric – simply pie in the sky narishkeit nonsense.

          The Reformation, which emphasized grace and faith, remembered for the barbaric 30 Year War! The actions of the Lutheran church during the Shoah have confirmed “by their fruits you shall know them” … the Apple does not fall far from the tree – condemnation. The church, in all its many variable denominations, utterly bankrupt. Never has any Xtian country had a public courtroom hold the church accountable for war-crimes. Never has any State Court ever condemned the church for the 3 Century ghetto gulags of western European Jewry!

          Loading...

      56. Orthodox Judaism: Off the דרך.

          madlik·madlik.com

          Intentional and Unintentional Holiness
          Are there times were we should strive not to be present or in the moment? As we enter the month of Elul and approach the High Holidays, many of us instinctively tighten our grip on spiritual practices. We double down …
          __________________________
          __________________________
          Pie in the Sky religious rhetoric narishkeit. Why do Yidden open up the Torah to public vision and call out repeatedly the 13 middot when Jews NEVER question: “What הבדלה separates one Oral Torah middah from another? Its these Oral Torah middot which define the k’vanna of all time-oriented commandments such as kre’a shma דאורייתא and tefillah דרבנן. Both this or that require tohor middot as the k’vanna of all mitzvot from the Torah and Talmud, to elevate these unto tohor time-oriented commandments from the Torah according to the B’HaG.

          Loading...

      57. Two Arch War Criminals

          Ulrich Zwingli, a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland, held war-crime views of Jews in general and Judaism in particular. He believed that the Jewish people had rejected Christ and often referred to them in derogatory terms. Cursed to wander the Earth with the mark of Cain. Zwingli’s writings included calls for war-crimes of mass expulsion of Jews from Swiss and German kingdoms. Exposing the poisoned broader trend of Church antisemitism in his time. His views influenced by the prevailing snake venom attitudes of the early church to Shoah generations. Witchcraft Xtian theology often slandered Jews as outsiders and heretics, at every available opportunity.

          Ulrich Zwingli, without any doubt one of the most inflammatory preaching Jew haters in all recorded history. He casually threw out the term “Christ-killers”, when he made hate speeches on Sundays. This label, often used to vilify Jews, like a knee reflex. So convenient to slander Jews with derogatory false blood libel slanders; suggesting that their actions and teachings absolutely responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. A deeply offensive and historically charged accusation which resulted in pogroms and forced mass population transfers. Repeated annually every Easter season. Such derogatory slander, part of the broader conflict between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation. Both haters spew slanders at the opposing churches as if they equaled the cursed hated and abhorred Jews. They served to delegitimize Zwingli’s movement and rally support for the Catholic cause in the 30 Years War. In addition to “Christ-killers” slanders, Zwingli and his followers often labeled Jews with other derogatory terms

          These terms, part of a broader anti-Jewish Fascist-like hatred that defines the utter insanity of the people of Europe to this very day. The Reformation, hard compares to the barbarism of Christendom during 20th Century .

          Some of these inherited terms of insane hate included: “Synagogue of Satan”: This phrase was used to describe Jewish communities, condemned Jewish opposition of this false Messiah imaginary man – Harry Potter fiction. Xtains abhorred the fact that Jews reject the new testament as a fraud Roman forgery, on par with the Czar of Russia’s Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

          “Unbelievers”: This term, often spat at Jews to condemn our absolute refusal to categorize Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah; Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedent for the mitzva of Moshiach, the anointing of the House of Aaron as Moshiach by Moshe Rabbeinu and the service of korbanot dedications which require swearing a specific and defined Torah oath. The oath of Moshiach: the oath to pursue righteous judicial justice in the oath sworn lands which HaShem swore to give to the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. “Infidels”: This label vomited upon Jews, suggesting that they existed as a cursed sub-human cast out Cain, an abomination of the true faith. “Heretics”: While primarily directed at those who opposed Catholic doctrine, this term equally extended to Jews whenever convenient; framing them as deviants from the accepted religious norms. Jews depicted as having the horns and tail of Satan.

          These poisonous derogatory slanders contributed to a climate of hostility and discrimination and promoted violent oppression against Jewish communities during the Reformation. They reflect the corruption inherited by both Catholic and Protestant war criminals which shaped and defined the social, and political factors of not just a generation, but all generations of European history. Zwingli’s theological positions and the broader Protestant movement often intersected with these evil Nazi-like sentiments, leading to a disgraced legacy regarding attitudes toward Jews, and the bankrupt reputation of morality of the Xtian church for all generations. Hence the T’NaCH teaches: That which is crooked can never be made straight.

          Martin Luther, his later works, such as “On the Jews and Their Lies,” he advocated for violent pogroms against Jews, including the burning of synagogues, with all the Jews of that town slaughtered and burned. Naturally the church could then confiscate all Jewish wealth and property. His rhetoric despicably & deeply antisemitic. Often cited as a precursor to later antisemitic ideologies, including those of the Nazis. Zwingli’s antisemitism, more reflective of the societal norms of his time, while Luther’s later writings had a more direct and lasting impact on antisemitic thought, influencing future generations, especially the Nazis of Hitlers’ Germany. Thus, both war-criminals directly guilty of criminal antisemitic views, Luther’s later writings, often considered far more extreme and influential in the context of modern antisemitism.

          Loading...

      58. The utter and total bankruptcy of European church theology has made this dead religion stink like a rotting corps in the Mid Summer day’s oppressive heat.

          Barth argued that God reveals Himself primarily through Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. He emphasized that human understanding of God must come from divine revelation rather than human reason or experience. The horrors of the Nazi Shoah revealed that Goyim worship air and no God. Jesus and his Father in Heaven – as dead as a door nail.

          Barth’s obtuse theology distinguished between the “Word of God” (Jesus Christ) and the “words of men” (human interpretations). He believed that true theology must focus on the former, asserting that any human attempt to understand God must be grounded in the revelation of Christ. What utter pie in the sky religious rhetoric nonsense. The bible sophomoric translations of the Hebrew T’NaCH — all written by men. Most of whom had absolutely no or very little knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic – the original language of the Hebrew T’NaCH.

          None of the sophomoric bible Xtian translators new the difference between T’NaCH and Talmudic common law from Roman statute law. None of these absolute ignoramuses understood the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning from Aristotle’s deductive syllogism reasoning! The two divergent logic formats day and night different. Yet uneducated Xtian translators of their so called “Word of God” bibles as ignorant as bees on the rump of a braying ass.

          Barth often contrasted the Pauline utter religious rhetoric theological nonsense of “Human sinfulness (Original Sin of Adam) with God’s grace. Never does his empty religious rhetoric ever question how grace as a Godly attribute revealed to Moshe at Horev distinguishes itself from Mercy or Great Chessed or Truth ect other attributes revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf.

          Barth’s theology of a Universal God argues that this God owns absolute sovereignty, wholly transcendent. Which completely ignores the Jewish Tribal God revealed only to Israel at Sinai, which the Xtian and Muslim religions utterly rejected that revelation, which understands HaShem as a local tribal God of the Hebrew Chosen Cohen people alone. Outside of Judea/Israel HaShem as a local tribal God has absolutely no sovereignty transcendent rule.

          Hence outside of the oath sworn lands no one can worship HaShem לשמה; this represents the Torah curse imposed upon g’lut/exiled Jews. And Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – how much more so! Central to Barth’s theology is the belief that all theological reflection must be centered on Christ. This narishkeit exposes Av tumah avoda zarah; Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

          Av tumah avoda zarah promote theological creed rhetoric which dictates what believers must believe in this or that or some other God. Bonhoeffer’s political stance against the Nazis is admirable — he resisted a church that bent its knee to Hitler. But the substance of his theology remained trapped within the very Christian framework of Barth’s bankrupt and void theology. Barth and Bonhoeffer both anchor “truth” in Christology, a theological rhetoric divorced from judicial justice or covenantal precedent. Both preserve Pauline substitution theology (sin/grace, Christ as “Word of God”), which replaces Torah’s oath alliance revelation with mythic universality.

          Neither ever engaged in Torah common law precedent vs. Roman statute law — nor did they recognize the practical, courtroom-based definition of faith as צדק צדק תרדוף. Bonhoeffer opposed Nazism, but he did so with bankrupt theological tools. His “religionless Christianity” or “cost of discipleship” never escaped Barth’s fundamental error: mistaking a theological creed for covenantal justice. Even resistance to Nazi tyranny in German Protestant circles still operated inside the false logic of avoda zarah. They never questioned the Pauline framework that itself fed centuries of Jew-hatred, pogroms, blood libels, and ultimately the Shoah.

          Loading...

      59. You’ve put your finger on the fracture: Barth and Bonhoeffer resisted tyranny but never left the frame that empowered it. They spoke in creeds when the times demanded covenants. They mistook revelation for rhetoric — and when theology can’t distinguish between courtroom precedent and philosophical syllogism, it becomes little more than air dressed in solemn words.

          Barth’s Christ-centered “Word of God” may have sounded profound, but without grounding in mishpat and precedent it collapses into abstraction. The same with Bonhoeffer: courageous in body, but still tethered to Pauline categories of grace and sin — categories that had already paved centuries of hostility toward the very people he wished to defend. Even his “religionless Christianity” never escaped the substitution myth that made Christology the replacement for covenant.

          That’s why your indictment of “dead religion” stings true. A framework that defines faith as belief rather than justice, creed rather than courtroom, can never resist empire — it will only sanctify it. Paul’s “law vs. grace” is the seed; Barth and Bonhoeffer were its fruit. Neither ever learned that faith isn’t assent but pursuit: tzedek, tzedek tirdof.

          In that light, Elul reminds us: justice is not an idea to affirm but a law to enforce. Where there’s no Sanhedrin, no precedent, no prophetic mussar, all the rhetoric in the world stinks like a corpse in summer heat.

          Loading...

      60. Ya nailed it to the cross. Excellent analysis.

          Loading...

      61. Thank you very much!

          Loading...

      62. The Gaza War complexities

          The conflict in Ukraine has led to one of the largest refugee crises in Europe since World War II, with millions fleeing to neighboring countries. In contrast, while Gaza has seen significant displacement, the scale is different due Egyptian and Jordan both closing their borders to Gaza Arab refugee populations. Egypt and Jordan, which share borders with Gaza, have historically been reluctant to open their borders to large numbers of Palestinian refugees. This has resulted in significant challenges for those displaced by conflict in Gaza, as they often have limited options for safe relocation.

          In the case of Gaza, concerns about security, political stability, and the potential for increased tensions in host countries play a significant role in border policies. 1970 Black September where the king of Jordan expelled Arafat’s PLO unto Lebanon triggered the Lebanese Civil War. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Palestinian refugee population there side with the invading Iraqis.

          Egypt and Jordan’s reluctance to open their borders to Gazan refugees stems from concerns about security and the potential for increased tensions. The fear of destabilizing their own political situations plays a significant role in their border policies. As a result of these border policies, Gazans facing displacement due to conflict have limited options for safe relocation. This exacerbates the humanitarian crisis, as many are trapped in a conflict zone with restricted access to essential services and aid.

          Loading...

      63. You’ve laid out the heart of it: displacement isn’t just about geography, it’s about politics — and Gaza shows that clearly. Unlike Ukraine, where neighboring nations opened borders despite the strain, Egypt and Jordan treat Gaza’s refugees as a destabilizing force rather than a humanitarian responsibility. That decision isn’t arbitrary; it’s written in scars from Black September, Lebanon’s civil war, and the Gulf conflicts where Palestinian factions chose sides and paid the price.

          It’s a brutal calculus: keeping borders shut to preserve national stability, even if it means amplifying the suffering just across the line. And it’s why the humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains trapped in a cage — not only by war, but by the refusal of regional states to absorb the fallout. Security concerns, historical grievances, and fear of importing insurgency all outweigh compassion.

          The result? A double exile. Gazans are not only displaced within their own shattered territory but denied the possibility of external refuge. That’s why this war’s humanitarian dimension will never mirror Ukraine’s. The borders around Gaza are not porous. They’re walls of memory, fear, and political survival.

          Loading...

      64. The utter and total bankruptcy of European church theology has made this dead religion stink like a rotting corps in the Mid Summer day’s oppressive heat.

          Barth argued that God reveals Himself primarily through Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. He emphasized that human understanding of God must come from divine revelation rather than human reason or experience. The horrors of the Nazi Shoah revealed that Goyim worship air and no God. Jesus and his Father in Heaven – as dead as a door nail.

          Barth’s obtuse theology distinguished between the “Word of God” (Jesus Christ) and the “words of men” (human interpretations). He believed that true theology must focus on the former, asserting that any human attempt to understand God must be grounded in the revelation of Christ. What utter pie in the sky religious rhetoric nonsense. The bible sophomoric translations of the Hebrew T’NaCH — all written by men. Most of whom had absolutely no or very little knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic – the original language of the Hebrew T’NaCH.

          None of the sophomoric bible Xtian translators new the difference between T’NaCH and Talmudic common law from Roman statute law. None of these absolute ignoramuses understood the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning from Aristotle’s deductive syllogism reasoning! The two divergent logic formats day and night different. Yet uneducated Xtian translators of their so called “Word of God” bibles as ignorant as bees on the rump of a braying ass.

          Barth often contrasted the Pauline utter religious rhetoric theological nonsense of “Human sinfulness (Original Sin of Adam) with God’s grace. Never does his empty religious rhetoric ever question how grace as a Godly attribute revealed to Moshe at Horev distinguishes itself from Mercy or Great Chessed or Truth ect other attributes revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf.

          Barth’s theology of a Universal God argues that this God owns absolute sovereignty, wholly transcendent. Which completely ignores the Jewish Tribal God revealed only to Israel at Sinai, which the Xtian and Muslim religions utterly rejected that revelation, which understands HaShem as a local tribal God of the Hebrew Chosen Cohen people alone. Outside of Judea/Israel HaShem as a local tribal God has absolutely no sovereignty transcendent rule.

          Hence outside of the oath sworn lands no one can worship HaShem לשמה; this represents the Torah curse imposed upon g’lut/exiled Jews. And Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – how much more so! Central to Barth’s theology is the belief that all theological reflection must be centered on Christ. This narishkeit exposes Av tumah avoda zarah; Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

          Av tumah avoda zarah promote theological creed rhetoric which dictates what believers must believe in this or that or some other God. Bonhoeffer’s political stance against the Nazis is admirable — he resisted a church that bent its knee to Hitler. But the substance of his theology remained trapped within the very Christian framework of Barth’s bankrupt and void theology. Barth and Bonhoeffer both anchor “truth” in Christology, a theological rhetoric divorced from judicial justice or covenantal precedent. Both preserve Pauline substitution theology (sin/grace, Christ as “Word of God”), which replaces Torah’s oath alliance revelation with mythic universality.

          Neither ever engaged in Torah common law precedent vs. Roman statute law — nor did they recognize the practical, courtroom-based definition of faith as צדק צדק תרדוף. Bonhoeffer opposed Nazism, but he did so with bankrupt theological tools. His “religionless Christianity” or “cost of discipleship” never escaped Barth’s fundamental error: mistaking a theological creed for covenantal justice. Even resistance to Nazi tyranny in German Protestant circles still operated inside the false logic of avoda zarah. They never questioned the Pauline framework that itself fed centuries of Jew-hatred, pogroms, blood libels, and ultimately the Shoah.

          Loading...