 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
|
 |
Advertisements
May 6, 2009 | 11:52 am
Sexual abuse plagues Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
In February, I mentioned a report from NPR about sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s hasidic community. Yesterday ABC News followed up on the story about what Joel Engelman and Tamir Weissberg said happened to them as young Orthodox Jews.
The parallel themes between abuse in the Orthodox world and that which plagued Catholic communities are striking, particularly the code of silence brought on by either shame, fear of the abuser or a misplaced fear of God.
From ABC News:
The Brooklyn district attorney’s office, which last month announced a hotline for alleged Orthodox sex abuse victims, says it has 19 active cases of alleged sex abuse in the borough’s Orthodox Jewish community. And advocates say the problem extends beyond Brooklyn.
“If you’re a pedophile, just go to one of the orthodox communities. You’re probably safest there,” said New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, himself an Orthodox Jew. “It’s sad for me to say that, but it’s true.”
When Hikind broached the subject of sexual abuse on his weekly radio show last year, he said he was “inundated” with calls from alleged victims from the United States, Israel and parts of Europe.
ABC News has spoken to Orthodox Jews who claim they were victims of abusers in New York, Baltimore and Illinois, who shared stories of alleged molestation followed by what they described as hostility from community leaders when they sought help.
(skip)
“They are willing to protect the community at the expense of the children,” said a woman who claims she was abused by her father, a rabbi, and who asked to be identified only by her first name, Nanette. The woman’s father did not return repeated messages seeking comment.
She said that when she began discussing the accusations against her father, her rabbi said if she continued to speak about it publicly, no other Orthodox Jews would be willing to marry any of her siblings. She says her family refused to speak with her.
“My sister told me until I stop the slander, she can’t be my sister,” she said.
“One of the things they say is when people speak out like this it causes desecration of God’s name,” she said. “But the real desecration to God is that they are willing to protect the community at the expense of the children.”
For more on this two-year-old Jewish Journal cover story (pictured) about abuse in shuls across the country.
265 Comments — Leave your comment
Share this post:
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Google
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
EEOC says NY discriminated against Muslim principal
3.15.10 at 1:00 pm | Debbie Almontaser was forced to resign after . . .
An homage to ‘hairy Hindustan’
3.14.10 at 10:02 am | The mustache is losing favor in India, but not in . . .
Pope touched by sex-abuse scandal in Germany
3.14.10 at 7:23 am | Before he became pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger . . .
Court upholds ‘Under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance
3.11.10 at 11:31 am | Ninth Circuit panel says that . . .
Cartman knows that gingers have souls
3.10.10 at 7:18 pm | “South Park” returns next week . . .
More trouble for Sen. Ensign
3.10.10 at 2:55 pm | His affairs with a friend’s wife is . . .
Mormon hunks calendar created by Sin City missionary
10.15.07 at 7:01 am | . . . (927)
Obama’s Jewish problem? Separating fact from fiction
6.2.08 at 9:48 am | Despite so much talk to the contrary, Jews are . . . (575)
Mormon missionaries undressed
9.15.07 at 7:37 am | . . . (275)
Finkelstein welcomed to LA by Jewish Defense League
Very good information, thank you very much by the ...Detroit pastor goes Gatsby
I attend this church and it is wonderful. Members ...
Naked nonsense: More on the Miss California mess
Whatever she says, it will depend on the people ...
Evangelicals and the sins of Sodom
OK, I have put a point out there. It is the ...Court upholds ‘Under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance
This is all thumb-twiddling. How about requiring ...
Anti-Semites say the darndest things
It’s not a guess. But why don’t you provide us ...
COMMENTS
We welcome your feedback.
Privacy Policy
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
I am Orthodox, so I will speak to this first. Before anything else, I will say that for my part and that of any real Orthodox Jew;
Any Jew, Orthodox Jew, Hasidic Jew, Rabbi, Jewish school official, Jewish politician, Jewish rich guy, or Jewish Orthodox anything guilty of sexually abusing anyone else, child or adult, male or female, should receive the full weight of the laws of God and man with regard to such abuse, and that the laws of God and the Jews do not protect them in any way regardless of the sociology of communities and so on. No mercy, no compassion, zero tolerance.
And I say that every Jewish child should have confidence that the Jewish institutions that purport to represent God’s will and laws are their best friend and strongest allies, better and stronger than parents. (Isaiah 49:15) “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on thechild she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!”
And I say that anyone who does not fear God by definition places him or herself in a position to fear those of men, and those who do not fear those should fear Jewish community and institutional reaction. Specifically that any Jewish and especially Orthodox institution that does not make itself fearsome in this regard deserves to be destroyed and ultimately will. Any institution not so acting is guilty of desecrating God’s name. What is the use of teaching people to trust God and that God loves them, and then acting to destroy trust? And they are guilty of destroying the Temple. What!? “Every generation in whose times the Beit HaMikdash is not rebuilt is considered as though that generation was the one in which it was destroyed.” (Yerushalmi Yoma 1:1). This kind of behavior and that of anyone abetting it is a prime reason.
You will not find any Orthodox person speaking in the name of Judaism to disagree with these statements.
OK? That should cover the comments which ae coming about ‘covering up’ and ‘distancing’ etc.
Now for the distancing.
Abuse is not a characteristically Jewish problem or issue. My experience in the Orthodox community and that of everyone I knew and still do was relatively safe, happy and innocent. Anything about it that was less so came from sources outside of the Jewish community and Judaism itself. Obviously I knew individuals or about individuals who were creeps and creepy, but not for any reasons to do with Judaism or Jewish life. At a young age we all learn a Talmudic principle of “Ein Apotropos l’Arayos” (there is no safeguard against sexual misconduct) but don’t really feel it until after some life experience. Why do you think that Dov Hikind, a man of about my age was so shocked to learn of this problem? Because it is so relatively uncommon, that’s why.
I know from experience that the discussion on this blog is going to far more hateful than those on the ABC story. Jews are news, and Orthodox Jews are sure-as hell news. The headline ‘plagues’ is understandable but misleading and exploitative. I am still going to maintain that sexual abuse is a problem that becomes increasingly more severe and more common the further one gets from Othodoxy and Judaism in general.
There is no comparison between the Orthodox Jewish community and the Catholic church in this regard. Catholic seminaries, especially in the 70’s resembled mink ranches. A prime reason is that ‘celibacy’ thing they do, which is obviously going to distort the picture and influence who they attract. Post adolescents walk around with more steroids every day than Mr. Olympia injects in a month. I suppose there is an abuse problem among Greek Orthodox priests, but it is more in line with the rest of society.
I really feel that not only are the Orthodox waking up to attention on this matter, but that the attention will lead to leadership on resolving it. This is only the beginning.
What has been happening in Brooklyn has been happening in every orthodox community across the globe. The Awareness Center has been monitoring cases for just under 10 years. The status quo has been to hush up those who try to assist those who have been sexually violated and also those who advocate for them. All one has to do is look at the various cases on The Awareness Center’s site to see what I’m talking about: http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/clergyabuse.html
Some cases of interest include:
Malka Leifer, David Kramer, Yosef Meystel, Shmuel Juravel, Dr. Rabbi Alan Horowitz, Rabbi Eliezer Eisgrau, and the case of Rabbi Ephraim Bryks—just to name a few.
Virtually all institutions, especially relatively insular religious ones, can and must do more to safeguard kids. Most denominations continue, even now, to rally around the accused and isolate the accusers.
Despite this, it’s crucial that everyone who sees, suspects or suffers clergy crimes find the courage to come forward, speak up, call police, get help, protect others and start healing.
David Clohessy
National Director, SNAP
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
7234 Arsenal Street
St. Louis MO 63143
314 566 9790
The potter [God] made the first vessel [Israel the race] and found it marred,so He made the second vessel[Israel transformed]out of the same material [Jews, the apostles] The Apostles called out to the gentiles to be grafted into Israel [the olive tree].
The picture: After the cross the race became spiritually desolate and the translated [born again]Jew became spiritualy blessed through the Seed of Abraham,who is Christ Jesus.Gal3:29 In Abraham was Christ and they that curse Abraham will be cursed and they that bless Him shall be blessed.If you curse a true Christain you curse Abraham in whom dwells the Lord. Jesus said, before Abraham was,‘I AM” Then the first vessel cursed Him and the second vessel moved on to make many Nations. Now the first vessel [the anti-Christ] works on to distroy the second vessel and steal the Kingdom of God.Redundent to say,they will never succeed but they may gain this world for a short time,then the gudgement. Wake up and enter the Kingdom of God through the front Door,Jesus Christ. Race will never cut it. After the cross race is a falsity.Flesh and blood shall not inherite the Kingdom of God.
The problem in all sections of modern Judaism is their ignorance of the Babylonian Talmud. Only a very small percent of Jews have ever read any of the volumes of the Talmud, & because of this ignorance they do not know what is allowed in Talmudic Judaism. Sigmund Freud’s father was a pedophile who intewrferred with Freud’s brother & sister. William Fliess, Freud’s best friend was a pedophile. The Odipus complex is a BLATANT LIE. All of Freud’s patients were sexually abused & he knew it, but wilfully corrupted his findings & used a Greek Myth to hide a Jewish Fact.
Gerald Goldberg
what the hell is the matter with people ?
Vicki Polin,
Unless and until you put the abuse problem among Orthodox Jews in context of the problem among Jews as a whole, and that problem in context of society as whole, you are doing more harm than good. Every antisemitic organization takes your information about specific moral weaklings as representing Jews, the Jewish community and Judaism. I accept that Orthodox Jews should be given less of a pass than others; within that I submit that the Orthodox system and the Orthodox community measure up to the challenge of exceeding moral expectations.
It is impossible to forget Rachel on the May 1, 1989 Oprah Winfrey Show. The last time I explained that my post was deleted.
hardtruth
uh huh. Who do you think these guys were talking to?
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
Zechariah 8:23
Thus says the LORD, “The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush And the Sabeans, men of stature, Will come over to you and will be yours; They will walk behind you, they will come over in chains And will bow down to you; They will make supplication to you: ‘Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God.’”
Isaiah 45:14
Last train is leaving the station. All aboard!
Gerald Goldberg
Get a life. My best advice to you is to change your name and forget about the Jews in your new life. Join a mentally healthy society with no Babylonian Talmud and no Freud. Trust me, there are places one can live where years can go by without the Talmud or Freud coming up in conversation.
Ben Plonie, They were talking to Jesus.
I want to mention this: Jewish this, Jewish that, Jewish the other thing.There’s no such thing. Race does not talk. Ideology talks.A one week old Jew only wants his milk, just like a gentile wants his milk. Touching on ideology,all Jews [race] do not share the same ideology. The ideology that Jesus is a bastard;waits for its gudgment.All Jews do not hold the Talmudic veiw.
Many hold the Christain veiw.Many hold no veiw, they just want to mary an Irish girl and enjoy life. Mind-set is groupism not Jewishism. All Italians are not guilty of the crimes seen in the Italian mafia. If there be a Jewish group that are guilty of crimes against humanity [ humanity includes gentiles] then all Jews are not guilty of those crimes. Race does not talk.
hardtruth
Here is the Good News. Jews are not a race. They are an ideology and a nation, and the firstborn of the Jewish god.
Who was God talking about here?
“And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.”
Exodus 4:23
Once you understand that, many other verses in the Hebrew Scriptures become understandable.
That is the hard truth. I don’t know what you will do without your those cornerstones of your ideology. Don’t kill yourself or anything on account of me.
Why do I feel like you and your fellow sayanim might arrange for my suicide.
What god do you refer to—Satan?
Acording to the Noahide Laws I should be decapatated for worshiping Jesus Christ.
My son? I presume Exodus 4:23 is talking about Israel [a race].
A revealing book,“The Other Side Of Deception” by Victor Ostrovsky.
Let me see, ‘We shall war against the gentiles by deception” Oh ya! that tell all. But thats the first vessel that thinks that way. You know the marred vessel.
The one I like is, “The deceivers are themselves deceived”.—-Hebrew Scripture.
Oh but its not just the Jewish religion, its Catholics, and Islam too ; they cant seem to keep their hands of of children. This isn’t just religion, this is the weirdos in office , court and law enforcement, hollywood and God knows what other positions of influence and entitlement these perverts hold.
Absolutely, There’s two kinds of people: The regenerating kind and the degenerating kind.
You are correct,it’s not about race it’s about religion of an apostate nature. Jesus said,“Your traditions make God Laws of no effect”. Well the world is full of traditions of all kinds of flavors.
Satan owns this world until The Return.
Rothchild supported Scofield in spreading the two sleeping concepts: Jewish supremicy [chosen people myth] and beam me up scotty before times get bad. I call that the disarming of the dumb professed Christians.Satan is at work, he will never rest.Were’s his sabbath day? I guess he doesn’t have one.
I don’t want to shock you but the true Christains are the chosen people, both Jew and gentile. Will the dumb Christains give up there birth right to the children of Satan? Born again implies a new birthright. Abram was born again and his new name is Abraham.Jacob was born again and his new name is Israel. Ye must be born again.
Born of the Spirit not the flesh.
Ben, if it’s any consolation to you, the sort of ritualistic childhood sexual abuse that Polin lists on her site occurs in non-Jewish communities as well.
Viruses spread from person to persons so do ideas.
That’s why holywood is so effective starting a new vogue.
Here’s something to think about. There is no such thing as a Jewish religion.Logic: There’s no such thing as an English,French,Irish etc. religion. If one Jew says I don’t adhere to the Talmud or want any part of it, then at that point it can not be a Jewish religion. It would then have to be seen as a religion that many Jews have an affinity for. The old testement is not Jewish,it is the Christian religion entrusted to Israel.Symbolism: Moses struck the Rock [Christ crusified] and water pured out [the holy Spirit]. Moses was told to speak to the Rock next time but he struck the Rock [ crucifyig Christ twice] God was angry with him.
“Let us make man in our mage” Our? Are we blind? Lambs blood on the doorway? It’s all about Christianity. Isia 53: “They nailed My hands and My feet, they cast lots for My garment” It’s all Christian,entrusted to the Israelites.
It is candle-lighting time where I live, so I can’t continue with this. Too bad, I’m sort of in the mood to debate a screwball.
Oh, well, for now let’s just say to screwball, I mean hardtruth that you have nothing to fear; you have been determined to be no threat to anyone at all. And the Good News is that although it is a bit controversial, gentiles are permitted to worship another entity in addition to the Creator, just not Jews. Later, babe.
Proton Soup
I don’t need consolation. Maybe next week I will address this privately, it won’t survive moderation.
Absolutely’ If you cant disprove a truth,then you call the truth teller a screwball.I knew companions that often did that in the third grade of Govt. Schools. It’s like 911, there are no explosion used there,it’s only the talk of screwballs. I think most people in the matrix will agree with you there. The Mossad/CIA controlled news matrix at leased.
Around 1895 Freud used hypnosis on his patients. He found out that ALL his patients had been sexually abused. His own father was a pedophile, as was his best friend Fliess.
When he introduced his findings to his circle psychologists, they all did a runner & rejected him. How many of them were pedophiles? Freud found a Greek Myth to hide the Jewish Fact that pedophilia was rampant in Judaism in 1895, as it has been since Babylonian times. The Jewish Talmud teaches the age limits on boys & girls that you can have sex with. A brother-in-law who falls off a roof with a “hard-on” & accidentially inserts it into his sister-in-law; this is not intercourse!!! Ha, ha, ha.
I think its time Talmudic Jews took their head out of the sand, because if they don’t the rabbis have you in the perfect position to keep SCREWING YOU.
Gerald Goldberg
Any kind of hate religion towards any one is deleterious to it’s members as well. Ex: Rothchild gave Hitler financial support during the holocaust. Ever see a movie were 12 rob a bank and six get shot by there own members,then three more get shot, next two are left with the money and you guessed it one runs of with the money. What we have here is they are all brothers in wickedness and the wickedness won over the brotherhood.
Consider this hatefull statement out of the Talmud. The life of a nonJew is absolutly of no value.
The best of the gentiles should be killed. Only the Jew is a human being all else are anamals. You can steal from an animal and it’s no crime. There are many more but I tend to get sick when I remember them.
My point being, this is not the religion that Abraham had in mind for his people. Therefor I can not call it a Jewish religion. It’s an ocult that some Jews unfurtional got cought up with. It developed incrementaly by the rabis. Yes it took thousands of years but it’s still hate,bigotry and counter psychology on the inocent, like the word antiSemetic. This word is used as a weapon, not an ingenuous term.
I have Jewish freind,I love them all, of course they are Christian Jews because there more compatable with me. Never the less I hate absolutely nobody notwithstanding I repel evil. Evil is a concept not a human being. Like guns don’t kill idears kill. Ideas cause the person to pull the triger.
I think this will be my last attempt to reason in this room because I feel I am talking to a stone wall.
Gerald Golberg
Freud wouldn’t have known the Talmud from a Viennese sausage. It has already been discovered that the reason that Freud used the Oedipus Complex as a model was because Freud himself was raised by a Roman Catholic nursemaid named Monika Zajik and not his mother. She is the one who induced neurotic sexual obsession and confusion in him by both manipulation and threats of castration. What’s your excuse?
hardtruth
We’ll miss you. In the Kingdom of God.
All men and man made religions fall way short of God. The problem is people continue to go to temple, church and this action CONDONES this sexual abuse . If you are a Christian your church is private little closet, without the spires, priests, rabbis and all the useless window dressing hocus pocus. ALL mens churchs are of hand hewn stone and dead mens bones.
If the Talmud wars against non jews and esp Christians, Jews are basically “asking” for it.
If… if… if… an old Yiddish expression applies here.
‘If your grandmother had ‘eggs’, she’d be your grandfather.’
It is now becoming clear that Talmudic Judaism has the greatest number of pedophiles of any religion in the world. Perverts like rats are everywhere, but what would you think if your “religion” bred “rats”? The Jewish Talmud is a “breeding manual” for breeding “rats”.
Most Jews who are ignorant of what the Jewish Talmud teaches, go into denial. Bertha Pappenheim exposed the
Jewish prostitue gangs in the 18th century, but was told to shut up in case of more anti-Semitism. Vicki Polin has exposed the pedophile rabbis all over the USA & she is being told to shut-up. No matter what perversion it is we Jews have it by the ton, & our only way of dealing with our perversions is stick our head in the sand & scream “Racist”! Anti-Semite”! “Jew-Hater”! “We NEVER did anything wrong”! “Everyone hates us”! Why? Why? Why? Look at our history, starting in Torah, the Book of Joshua. Yeh, so we massacred men, women & children, so what? So David & Solomon built Concentration Camps, so what? WE offered our children to Moloch as human sacrifice just after the first Passover & had escaped from Egypt. So what? In Exodus 32:7-14 the G-d of Moses wanted to wipe the Israelites off the face of the earth. So what?
I wonder was G-d the first anti-Semite? Ha, ha, ha.
“Come on the Yids”, for F—k’s sake, when the G-d of Israel wants to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, you can’t blame that bloke in Iran for wanting to do the same thing.
Nobody’s Child
I’m nobody’s child I’m nobody’s child I’m like a flower just growing wild
There’s no mommy’s kisses and no daddy’s smiles
Nobody wants me I’m nobody’s child
I was slowly passin’ a Playground one day
And stopped there for a moment just to watch the children play
Alone a boy was standin’ and when I asked him why
He turned his eyes that couldn’t see and he began to cry
People come with children and put them on the swings
But they all seem to pass me by and leave me all alone
I know they’d like to take me but when they see that I’m a Jew
They always help some other child and I’m left alone
I’m nobody’s child…
No mother’s arms to hold me or soothe me when I cry
Sometimes it gets so lonely here I wish I could die
I walk the streets of heaven where all the Jews will be
And just like for the other kids there’d be a home for me
No mommy’s kisses and no daddy’s smiles nobody wants me I’m nobody’s child.
Gerald Goldberg
Although you are a lunatic, I will use your lemons to make lemonade.
I was not familiar with Bertha Pappenheim, and I learned a lot. After a complicated emotional history (she was ‘Anna O.’, Freud’s first psychoanalytical patient) she was hostile to her mother, rejected her Jewish background and expressed her obsessional rage in activism. As you say, sort of like Vicki Polin. ‘Anna O.’ if we remember suffered from disturbances of sight and speech, paralysis, a split personality, the loss of her native language and its replacement with English, hallucinations and suicidal impulses.
Unlike Vicki however, Bertha reclaimed her Judaism, and directly ascribed Jewish problems to the disconnection of Jewish women to Jewish life and values. These were the reasons for the prostitution and ‘White slavery’ in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Note also that in this time frame Eastern Europe was under post-pogrom and Soviet execution of rabbis.
So the hero of the story is the Jewish character, Jewish role models, the Talmud, etc. Pappenheim became a positive force because of her Jewishness and not in spite of it, and ultimately successful in direct relation to her attachment to it.
If some Jews are adherent to the Talmud and others are adherent to Christianity and still others to atheism,then what pray tell is Jewishness? Were’s the oneness? Were’s the unity.
All religions have been infiltrated by Satanism. Im still waiting for a “Thank You” from the rabbis to the American Christians and non-jews who put their lives on the line, fought Germany, and died. But I wont hold my breath, you know why ? Because the nazi party WAS jewish. Hitler was “jewish”, as was Eichmann and Goebbels, as were many others. Just like Obama is a zionist stooge patsy; he will be blamed for everything, so you will not “see” these satanic zionist puppet masters pulling his marionette strings behind the scene. The good news is perhaps 6 million “jews” weren’t “holocausted” ,I dont deny it I just dont believe it.
Even my brooklyn jewish gf who was sexually abused by her father, says all the orthodox rabbis run the porn buisness. So its not far of a stretch that they would sexually abuse their own ‘kids’ and children in general. Maybe the childrens little hands makes them feel more manly. How Godly ...
Lucifer, What you say is true;so on that note I would like to offer that all this talk of crime is not truely about the Jewish race, allthough a large portion of profesed Jews but not proven, hide behind Jewery to protect there crimes.They make Jewery a business,a machinery to exploit and shield themselves against those that may expose them. The word dirty comes to my mind. I find no place to be harsh against the Jewish race because of a group that be criminal. I have frends that are of the Jewish race, I love them dearly. They do no evil at all.
You two interacting with each other is like a freak show. I know I shouldn’t enjoy it but it is riveting in a sick way. I know I’m not high; is this a dream?
I dont know Ben, your grand father must’ve had ovaries. A real man can discuss and debate with fact and figures, not this nonsensical ‘poetry’ you keep scribing, but for some reason,like a little girl, it always an emotional debate with insult, with you ‘guys’.
Would you like to start with the torture of circumcision and this little blood sucking trick the rabbi pulls with his ‘glass tube’ IF he even uses the glass tube . . . That was retrieved from Encyclopedia Judaica. Any person who goes along with this tradition or says nothing condones this pedophilia and is mentally ill.
I think I should go to a Jewish hospital and see if any new borns speak out and say,” I’m Jewish and I’m going democrat. I don’t expect that to happen because blood has nothing to do with religion. Whatever religion your into you put yourself there. It’s not because your Jewish. This Jewish this and Jewish that is B.S. Your responsable for your choices. It’s nothing to do with blood.
Lucier (moronic handle)
I’m all about facts and figures. There is no debating someone who says absolutely nothing that is true. You are just punking out on engaging facts and playing the game.
I will however address the issue of removing blood from the circumcision wound; not that you deserve it. From your mode of expression, you are at best an ignorant fool and at worst a hateful villain. But we knew that already.
There are one or more threads on circumcision in the blog; you can search for them if you wish. Those debates were long and detailed and I advise you to find them and read and assimilate their lessons, but I will give you a quick synopsis here.
Jews perform circumcision because we believe God requires it of us. It is our uniform, our gang colors, our common bond, our blood oath to seal the deal we have with God. As performed upon an infant, the pain is literally momentary. The benefits of circumcision are lifelong and so thoroughly proven that only a lunatic fanatic would oppose it for other people.
On the flip side, we forbid ALL bodily modifications found among the primitives including piercings, tattoos, scarifications, mutilations, stretching necks and lips and earlobes and compressing feet etc. with all of their attendant suffering and complications.
As for the blood removal, it is done simply to reduce or eliminate infection and inflammation from the wound. You don’t know this, but the germ model of infection is only about a hundred years old. Before that surgery was done with hacksaws in blood-spattered aprons used from patient to patient.
While nobody knew about germs, Jews were aware that wounds would sometimes swell and redden, and that when the blood was squeezed from the edges of a wound this might be prevented.
I am willing to bet a million dollars that if the blood was to be squeezed from the edges of any wound in modern surgery, the incidence of infection (sepsis) would radically decrease. Just remember to give the Jews the credit for this discovery. If someone is in a position to organize such a study, I will donate my Nobel Prize to the entire Jewish Nation.
hardtruth
As Jews, we belong to a larger spiritual national entity that includes past and future generations as well. This unity is unavailable to non-Jews who cannot imagine or visualize such a unique character. The fact that you are blind to it does not mean it does not exist. it is not exactly a matter of blood, but blood is definitely a factor.
Give the Jews credit? I’m confused. How many Jews? Every Jew on the face of the earth credit for blood letting or do you have a certain number.
Why do I feel that this kind of semantics leads down the rabit hole.
I could play this kind of word creation about the English too but I won’t because I think it’s B.S. We are individuals and reality stops there. Who are the individuals? Do you have there names?
Not each Jew, but all Jews. It is evidence not only of a beneficial cultural practice and early scientific discovery, but of the general beneficent character of the Jewish society which as you know derives from original revelation and divine inspiration, hallelujah.
Light unto the nations and all that.
any child will suck on a wound when he cuts himself, good grief
If I ever came across as denying the power of a social body, I didn’t mean it that way. Im sorry for that.
I became a mason ten years ago. I’m not active because I became disillusioned. The first year I walked around thinkng I belonged to a secret body and now was a new person with a new purpose. What happened to me because I belong to Christ was I came to realize I was being controlled. There was a higher agenda here coming from a dark place.I was an element in this body only if I remained of my own free will. Now that’s my point:free will:Choice.The body has no power but for the union of the members. Now a forged body can distroy the Nations as well as heal the Nations. How shall we know if a body is good or evil? Simple: “By there fruits you shall know them” If an arm of the body tries to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Arabs, fails but then brings down three tall buildings in NY,gets the owned media whore to blame it on the Arabs.
Well, I know what kind of fruit that is. Especialy in the light of there slogon,“We shall war by deception”.
Ben you are an idiot who like to hear himself “talk” and pontificate nonsense. Ive never except for a few girlfriends and depending how their minds have been warped, are generally the more sane group from this so called religion.
Circumcision - God didn’t ordain anything of the sort, that’s the satanic mental illness of the rabbis you so ardently defend. Moses wasn’t even circumcised. You confuse Gods Law with the laws of men.
God gave you a foreskin for a reason and MEN come along and cut of off. We call this genital mutilation. and you condone this, this makes you mentally ill.
Hardtruth - masons are basically the shabbos goys of the marxist jews; doing the dirty so their hands dont get dirty. Good you got out, they are satanists . . .
Michael Hoffman said it best “The white race are the golem for the rabbis.” This is one of the most beautiful and most F’ed things I have ever heard. And so true…
I have heard these arguments before. Very hard to respond to why the Jewish social body came to one of the few places in the world with no coal or oil or uranium or iron or gold or diamonds or water or timber or topsoil or infrastructure or institutions or capital or friendly neighbors or allies or support systems and fooled everybody and stole it. Uh huh.
As to why the Jewish state would try to sink the USS Liberty without actually sinking it (guess the old Liberty was a tough old boat), or attack a ship belonging to an ally, that’s a toughie too.
And what the Jews had to gain by bringing down three tall buidings is hard to figure. Planting nineteen Saudi Arabians all named Mohammad in the US to hijack the planes must have been hard for them too.
Ben states - “And what the Jews had to gain by bringing down three tall buidings is hard to figure. Planting nineteen Saudi Arabians all named Mohammad in the US to hijack the planes must have been hard for them too.” Just media lies lies lies.
Simple israel needed to suck America into a war with the muslims, bc they just dont have the wear with all or man power to fight their enemies that completely surround them.
Yes, Americans are bunch of stupid goyim sheep.
Lucifer,your wrong,circumcision is legit. It’s old testement.Case closed.True Christian are circumciced too but it’s in the heart.Pupose:to assist dulling the senses of lust for dedication to God.
Ben,your talking to me or are you. Tell your listeners about the five Mossad Israelis dancing on the van and taking a movie wile the buildings came down,high fiving because mission acomplished. Now we can blame the Arabs and send gentiles over to fight in our wars. “We shall war by deception” A million gentiles are not worth one fingernail on a Jew. Nice attitude, YA?
Look at a pizza oven at 600 degrees:think about jumping in for two minutes and coming out alive. Yet we are to beleive that the employees were walking around at the impact area in a temperature of 1400 degrees, calling out for help. Ya right and the earth is flat too.
Arabians? How can I be sure,and beside they worked for the CIA,Six of them are alive today. Why is the whore news so evasive to quality questions and resort to name calling to block evidence? Most of us will beleive a lie but not all of us. Hitler proved that.
Why does the ADL hate Christianity and want to remove it from every part of sociaty but give other relgions a free pass? Explain it to me because i’m so stupid.
What does Zionist Israel have to gain by bringing down three tall buildings is hard to figure? No,Ben,it’s not hard to figure at all. Afganistain woun’t borrow money from the IMF, so they have to go.
Israel wants more realestate for there headquarters in the NWO. It goes on, do I have to write a book to make it clear. Ten seconds in the path of most resistence three buildins come down when only two were hit by whatever—military jets. Ya right! Were are the desks,chairs,rugs,bones of the victims,all turned into rolling DUST across NY City. Come on give me a break.
I don’t beleive even one comercial plane hit those buildings and as to the Aledged Arabs, They along with many others got paid well. After 911 many failers received promotions for there treason.
Luce - “The white race are the golem for the rabbis.“
“Yes, Americans are bunch of stupid goyim sheep.”
I think you really need to work on your self-esteem. Maybe the rabbis could work some of their mojo on the white Europeans and get the UN and the EU off their back that way?
hardtruth - Let me get this straight: The Jews brought down the World Trade Center because Afghanistan wouldn’t borrow money from the IMF, so the Mossad got the CIA to pay pretend Arabians well to fly military jets to hit he buildings, and six of them survived. The Mossad then broke cover to dance on a van and high-five each other in public.
That makes sense.
911, big event,calls for dancing,never thought they would be breaking cover. They were young,slipped up.
Who said the military planes had a pilot. Check out the new technology on remote controlled piloting. Very precission.
Get of it with the Jews talk. Only those involved would be responsable. My Christain Jews had no part with it. Millions of Jews had no part with it. This was a very covert operation, even in the sight of millions of Jews, who knew nothing of the scheme.
If murder covers the trail of this scam;no problem,“the end justifies the means”. Carl Marx, oh I forgot he was an Irishman, I suppose. Ta ta these Irishmen seem to pop up every were.
OK, it wasn’t the Christian Jews, and it wasn’t millions of other Jews. It might have been Carl Marx, but he has been dead for a long time. It was only those involved.
The end justifies the means. The ‘means’ were some complicated story of a very covert operation instead of a simple one, but what was the ‘end’ to be gained, which is the first question I asked.
None of it makes sense without a reason. Let’s get back to Afghanistan. And why Israel and the Mossad cared about Afghanistan. And what good Afghanistan is doing Israel now after all this stuff. And why Israel and the Mossad don’t finish the job now that Afghanistan is turning out to be a waste of time. And also why the CIA was trying to destroy the Pentagon, or the White house since the President was in Florida at the time.
Ben, Afghanistan is the key to the Caspian.
“circumcision is legit” still Moses was uncircumcised and God forgave him. But Jesus and Lucifer were both “The Bright and Morning Star.” You can still be circumcised and break Gods commandments. If we are to believe any of this religious hocus pocus. Circumcision is still genital mutilation and why are rabbis putting their mouths on a babies bloody penis ? Its filthy, disgusting and unsanitary. Show me where Jesus said you have to be physically circumcised? Saul was heretic, I dont listen to P/Saul, he never confessed his sins by way of Jesus. It should be the FIRST thing he scribes, but doesnt. He talks a good rap but never confesses.
Ben you are very confused and do not even deserve a reply . . . Jesus said it correctly, “You liars murderers and thieves” This I agree.
Ben, you must be young. Am I right. Look up false flag terrorism. Thats why they hit the Pentigon and the buildings.
Who did this: The round table group, today known as the CFR. Big wigs like Rockefellows—Rothchild Dynisty—Fed, IMF and high positioned spies in our Govt.. They hide behind jewery but they do not represent the whole of Jewery, not by a long shot.
Why do they do these things: to establish a New WORLD ORDER, Israel being the Capitol of the WORLD. They have to creat caos first then from caos they build their NWO. They run this program by deception. Do you get the reason now?
Mossad Chief: Awright you guys, I’m looking for top people for a mission. We’re bringing down the World Trade Center in new York for some cockamamie reason I don’t really understand.
Hot shot: Send me in, Chief! I’m up for it!
M.C.: Forget it, Junior. Stick to incitement and entrapment of right wingers who can screw up the next election. I need experience here.
E.B. I can do it! I was top in my class in false-flag terrorism!
M.C. Look, kid, this is going to be the mother of all terror scams…
E.B. Chief, me and my boys won’t let you down!
M.C. Well, OK. But no rookie stunts like dancing on top of your van and high-fiving each other.
And don’t walk in any buildings that are cooking at 1400 degrees without puting on some suntan lotion first.
Also don’t stay any longer than one hour,otherwise you just might not survive. I would sugest that you jump into a pizza oven first so you can become accustom to the heat. That would be 600 degrees. The news media would love to run that one.
Admidst the sturm and drang of this unLawful war, and this fake war on “terror” and the BS lying media, we have a national emergency going on RIGHT NOW which is this the medical system is killing Americans at a rate of approx. 2200 people a day. Thats A DAY.
http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html
Now I want people to listen up rteal good, and use some critical thinking. The medical system is NOT your friend, it is poisoning you and KILLING you. They (The drs, lawyers/judges/courts, Big Pharma) just have Americans so freaked out over the “fantastic” they are are not keeping their eyes on the ball or the sublime - which we are being murdered right here at home by these scumbags.
Now let me ask you - who is running the medical system, courts and media ? Ill ask you this - is it Christians ? Is it the islamo fascists ? Or is it predominently JEWISH Media, Drs, lawyers and courts ?
ETC…?
America you need to wake up now they are already killing us right here at home, No they are not holding a gun to your head, they are killing you in the hospitals, with drugs/forced vaccines, botched surgeries and staph infection. They dont care about you, and they are killing you THEN they put liens on your property, because a dead man cant satisfy the debt. Then they steal your estate, wife, daughters.
The Iraq war doesnt even come close to the casulties. Another source is “License to Kill” by Andrew Robbins echos the same; the medical system is KILLING us.
Lucifer shining the light on you cockroach suckers…
License to Kill by Andrew Robbins-
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Licensed-to-Kill/Andrew-G-Robbins/e/9781425929565/?itm=1
ps - nice pic of the jewish pope with his yarmulke bowing before the bricks at Herod’s “wailing wall” . . .
The Pope is just checking out the real estate because he expects to be moving in.
Did you ever see a Swedish baby born with skies on his feet or a Jewish boy born with the Talmud in his hands?
I think that makes my point. Yes the Swedish boy will be tought to ski and the Jewish boy will be tought the Talmud but it is my conviction that there is no such reality as Swedish sking or Jewish ideology. Any one of these entities can be taken up by an alternative race of poeole or by green men out of space.
I don’t know what point you are trying to make, but Jews derive from God’s covenant and promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If Abraham was a Swede and God told him to ski and to teach his children to ski, than we would be Swede’s and you would be having the same kind conversation with me with different details.
You sometimes talk like a believer, but it is evident you have never read what you probably call the five books of Moses or the prophets. Until you do you are talking from second hand information and just babbling. You don’t know where I am coming from, you are coming from, and Jesus (if he existed) was coming from. It’s all basically in there (plus some additional information in the tradition that don’t materially change anything). Read it cover to cover and report back, and we’ll discuss it.
Ben states - “You sometimes talk like a believer, but it is evident you have never read what you probably call the five books of Moses or the prophets.”
Here is where the lie begins; the 5 books of Moses are not Talmud. The Talmud from what I gather is actually the antithesis of Torah; laws/traditions of men vs. Torah or Gods Laws and Commandments, if we are going to believe any of this religious hocus pocus mind control.
And - “you are coming from, and Jesus (if he existed) was coming from.”
I believe you have to be careful of ANY scribe, old and new testament; its all religious propaganda that can be used to manipulate. In Peter Schaffer’s book ,“Jesus in the Talmud”; he is a Jewish Hebrew scholar at Princeton U and he states there is a lot about Jesus in the talmud. They admit killing this figure called Jesus by hanging him from a tree, amongst other things as being in Hell etc… . I just dont believe the New testament is an accurate portrayal of this historic revolutionary figure who wanted peace. Which even if he were a myth, it still out weighs the codified mental illness of talmud.
If we could get a COMPLETE set of the talmud in every library I would read it cover to cover but they dont , bc Ive tried asking the libraries and Im sure some scumbag lawyer on the board censors such things. But if they did, the jig would be up.
The Jews are the most deceived people in the world. If you call yourself a “jew” , you should know what that means. its the same with the satanic pedophile catholic church.
I do my utmost best not to ramble. Two points: The Jewish religion of today is not an old testement religion.The rabbis think there above God. They even think they can advise God. Second point: If Abraham shot a goat and preserved it, passed it on with additions, Like a ring in its nose. Six pointed star on the side of its head from generation to generation to now of 2009, it would not be a Jewish goat. It would just be a goat—period. So it is with the religion that the rabbis invented. The word of God belongs to God entrusted to Israel for a light to the Nations. Israel did not do its job so God devorced Israel. Its against the law to remarry a devorced woman. So there’s no hope for the race exept you guys are born again in Christ Jesus. If you refuse, then you colectively are the anti-Christ. The anti-Christ HATES Christianity and is out to distroy it. Amoung the many pagon religions it would like Christianity first on the chopping block and as soon as possable. Christianity,{probably shocking to you}is a Jewish religion. If God gave this goat to Abraham from heaven it would be a Jewish goat. But in this fictional story, Abraham just took it upon himself to shoot the goat,so that does not make it a Jewish goat. Also the red six pointed star over America is not the STAR OF KING DAVID. It’s the star of Rothchild who lends his fiat money to both sides of every war so the Christians can kill each other off.
I would like to make a revision: “So the phoney stupid Christians can kill each other off”. The true Christians know better.
In the contemporary use of the word Jew, we may have a problem here, in the light of old testement the Jews were at war with the Israelities. I don’t want to get into that ball of yarn. But the fact of it does distort the general picture that the dumb evangelical churches hold in there deceived brain.
Lucy and hardy,
My comment about the Only Testament was directed to hardy, not Lucy. Although you are both extremely ignorant loons, hardtruth leans to the more ignorant and Lucifer to the more loony. It’s an interesting challenge and entertainment for me to engage you guys as if you were sane.
Focus for a minute. The question for now is why my mentioning the Only Testament leads you to change the subject, and talk about the Talmud, the rabbis and Rothchild and anything else you can think of. That’s not rambling? Hahahahaha. We can talk about the Talmud and the rabbis shortly (although Rothchild is not my responsibility) but right now you need to read the Only Testament in order to understand the background to the history of the last few thousand years. Or at least what I explain to you about it.
For now let’s just understand that the problems of the world are not due to the sins of Israel. I’m not changing the subject, this is all in Genesis. Why do you think that God invented Jews in the first place? You guys already got the world destroyed once and then screwed up your second chance. Abraham was the solution, not the problem. We can talk about it, but not if the only thing you know about Jews is ‘Michael Hoffman said it best “The white race are the golem for the rabbis.“’.
The first vessel the Potter made is over and done with.
God broke the contract with you guys because you broke it with him. So now he made a new vessel ‘in Truth’ out of the same material. Jesus is a Jew,Peter is a Jew,Math,Mark,Luke,John,Saul and thousand of others;the same material He made a new covenant in Truth.
Jesus said, “I AM THE TRUTH” so the first vessel crucified the Truth,cause He was competition in there political establishment and they refused to beleive Him because they were blinded in sin. Even if they read about him in the old testement they were stif-necked and refused to listen with the exeption of those who turned to the new covenant in Truth. The old testement is plowed under with the exception of the spiritual Seed of Abraham [Jesus Christ] who lives for ever. I AM THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING,IN ME ARE ALL THINGS MADE AND HAVE THERE EXISTENCE] I AM THE WORD OF GOD and I was made flesh to be a blood sacrifice for your sins.
I know you have been trained to see this as blasphemy but I’m sorry, Christ is your Savior not yourself collectively. The Kingdom of God is within your heart not the political establishment.
Why should I go read a lot of stuff thats in the grave of remembrance.
You’re still doing it. You won’t read it because you can’t read it without your fragile illusory identity unraveling. You will find that the source of all that stuff you quote can be understood by putting quotation marks around many of them as referring to God’s point of view, and understanding terms like ‘son’, ‘firstborn’, ‘servant’ etc. as referring to the nation of Israel as a whole, the way that Jesus himself, if he existed, understood them. So change the subject, change the subject, change the subject.
Aside from the fact that the alleged new covenant itself alleges that it is based on the old covenant, the original covenant states that it is eternal and the Jewish (Israelite) nation as its custodians and guardians is eternal. If a guy can come along and explain that the eternal covenant is broken and plowed under, what do you do with the next guy or guys? How do respond to the claim of Muhammad that he is the last and greatest prophet, greater than Jesus? By saying “No, he isn’t”? By slaughtering them (with Christlike love of course) in the Crusades? Why not do what we do? Ignore both of you and go on doing our thing.
Boys, boys! Can’t we all just get along? Whoops, better get out of the Holy land, it almost closing time!
Go to http://www.theamericanradio.com and listen to James Lloyd from 10am to 12:00
He can inform you more than I can.
Then try http://www.powerofprophecy.com for the grand finality.
Keep in touch if you learn of anything meaningfull.
In His Light
Hardtruth
Correction: http://www.theamericanvoiceradio.com
correction again; http://www.theamericanvoice.com
I don’t think so. But if you are seeking truth, give http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html a whirl, and http://www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html has many answers. If you are into audio I have heard and recommend these recorded lectures at http://www.outreachjudaism.org/biblical.html
But there is no need to debate theology. If you only understand that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, and that the way to know the Father is the Son; knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and is revealed through the Son; and that God’s firstborn is Israel as stated in Exodus 4:22-23, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.”
See how we connect the dots?
Thank you, I didn’t know you connected the dots in that veiw point.However I very much appreciate the fact that you revealed your understanding on the only begoton Son who shed His blood for the remission of our sins and rose from the grave to be with the Father. I guess the Father must be hanging around the White House.
I will do some studying on your veiw point. If I get any great revelations I will get back to you.
Thank you again I love your input.
Were does lucifer come into all of this though. That part makes it confusing to me. Let me guess,they must be the Jews who say they are Jews but do lie and are of “The Synagogue of Satan” by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock. Mega-explosive reading. A revelation that will blow your brains out. by Rivercrest Publishing. 1708 Patterson Road,Austin, Texas 78733
The dots I connected are what I mentioned earlier about making sense of Christianity arising in a Jewish society. The Five Books of Moses, prophets and Writings (Tanach) were the only spiritual reality that counted. Within them, it is specified that they were the eternal truth given to the eternal people of the the eternal god. That the books themselves and the folk knowledge surrounding them, the laws of personal and social conduct were the contents of a proper education. The performance of God’s will depended on that. The books also stated that there would be attempts to misrepresent God’s will, and that prophets could be tested and killed if proven false.
So if Exodus calls the Israelites God’s firstborn son, and the prophets repeatedly refer to God’s servant and son as Jacob and Israel, then that’s the reality. That means all of the references to a ‘son’ in the New Testament should be taken to mean Israel as a nation.
In that context, anyone calling Jews the synagogue of Satan and so forth does not deserve a hearing at all. We may wish him a nice day or a crappy day depending on our mood, but will never take him seriously. If it is important to your religious identity you can, but don’t forget that your attitude is what led to the slaughters of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It is impossible to disagree with Matthew when he says
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
The fruits of Christianity are the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. From our point of view of course. Now some consider those a good thing, but don’t take it as a compliment.
christianity caused the holocaust? how do you figure that, ben?
Two ways. The Holocaust did not come out of nowhere. it was a natural development;
first from the centuries of enthusiastic defamation and slander against the Jews in Christian source documents and their interpreters;
second from the centuries of Church institutionalized humiliation, dehumanization, torture, defamation, expulsion, execution, mob actions against Jews etc.;
and third from the failure of Christian lands and institutions and societies to stop it. There is no sense claiming that the Nazis terrorized those who helped Jews. Hitler could have been stopped long before it got to that point. I know that Germany is known as the home of Protestantism but fully one third of Germans were catholic at that time. If the sainted Pope had dropped a hint that Hitler wasn’t kosher it would have had great effect. But never mind the Pope; what about the Protestants themselves? You know - Jesus, peace, love, all that good stuff. Where was it?
It is no use claiming that the Holocaust was the work of only a few. It was a grass-roots effort.
But don’t get hung up on the Holocaust if you don’t get it. Matthew’s comments equally apply to the Crusades, the Inquisition and the pogroms. The Crusaders were bestial and especially to the Jews. You may recall that the Jews were not really involved in the fight between the Crusaders and the Moslems, yet the knights warmed up by storming through Jewish villages and hacking Jewish parents and children to death and hanging them up on the walls. The Holocaust was not unique except in scale and modernity, it was in essence just one more damn thing.
what do you mean by “not really involved”? one is either involved or not.
but you’re right, Matthew’s comments do apply here. those people were obviously not Christians, you can tell by their fruits. indeed, the Catholic Church tortured many Christian Reformers in its own midst.
Take note that I was reffering to those who are NOT Jews and say they are. I go with Proton Soup,basically he is saying that not all that is Christian is Christian and Catholism is asuredly not Christian. I also go with Apostle Pauls idea that not all that is Israel is Israel. Not all that is on the face Jewish truely Jewish. To sum it up, Jesus said narrow is the way that leads to righteousness and few there be that find it. Broad-way—my pun on way—is the way that leads to hell and many there be that go there in.
I absolutely agree that terror from either religion would be a false religion. Both religions on the face of there profession have been true and false. Today I am totally discouraged with the face of Chriatianity. I think they are a school of stupidity. I agree with Mathew, who was a Jew and a Christian:beware of false prophets. That means in both camps.
I also think that as it was in the days of Noah so it is today. Only Noah and his family were saved,who shall be saved today? How many false members of both camps shall be taken away for distruction, because of Gods wrath?
You know Proton Soup, you have a habit of quibbling and niggling and avoiding the main point of posts. If this is deliberate, cut it out. ‘Not really involved’ is just an understated expression. The Jews had nothing to do with the issues surrounding the Crusades. At that particular point in history, the Muslims controlled access to the Christian pilgrimage sites in the Holy Land, and decided to raise the fees and bribes and taxes for pilgrims to access them, similar to the artificial oil supply crisis of 1973. The Christians got fed up with that and launched the First Crusade. Obviously there was more to it, so let’s not drag in a boatload of historical trivia.
There were no Church reformers in those days, the Church was the head of Christ or whatever and the Crusaders were knights of the Church which did have an army in those days. The were terrorists and brutes and the state of the art of Christianity, which was otherwise busy making the lives of Jews in their domain terrorized with maximum horror. And all the while feeling that they were doing the Lord’s work. A detailed description of what they did do unarmed and uninvolved Jews as well as the other low points I mentioned is X-Rated for violence.
And from the point of view of the Jews, when it comes to brutality and evil the so-called Church Reformers were worse than the Catholics. Who is a Chruch Reformer in your opionion; Mr. Rogers? How about Mr. Reformation, Martin Luther? Not just some hillbilly lunatic in a hooded robe. Check out the full text of ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’, published 1543. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1543_luther_jews.html
There is a clear and direct line from the contents of this document and the Holocaust, period.
(In Google Chrome this page is unreadable unless I CTL-A to highlight the whole thing)
On Amazon, the links to related material to this one include the whole zoo of antisemitic hate literature as linked by our evil posters above. If anyone wanted a bibliography of Jew hatred it can be found there.
And this is Martin Luther. Everytime I have one of these dicussions, I always get that ‘Oh, they were not real Christians’. As with the Germans and the Holocaust. “oh that was only the Nazis, well really only the Wehrmacht, actually the SS, but only the leadership, and when it comes down to it they were only doing their jobs so the whole Holocaust was the work of Hitler. Can’t we move on now that he’s dead’?
As I pursue it, it always develops that there has never been a real Christian since the Apostles, and even they kept being scolded and chastised for screwing up, which leaves only Jesus and he wasn’t a regular human.
Born again Jews in Christ Jesus; as you mentioned the Apostles were, like an oyster with a pearl in it. They look like a regular oyster sucking on the bootom of the ocean but when they die the pearl is harvested and brought to the Kings quarters.
Just for the record. I do not hate any one on the face of this earth or any one beneath it. I think Bush is despicable but I don’t hate him either. I think no one has the right to say a man hates on the basis of there supposed perception. Either the acused said, I hate or you have no grounds. You are not a heart reader. People have been murded with no hate involved.And if certain Jews want to bang away on hate,be carefull, those in glass houses should not throw stones.
Im here, Ive made my points. The catholic church is not Christian. Regardless of what window dressing and hocu pocus they throw at you.
If you read your new testament, you will find that both jesus and lucifer are the “bright and morning star” if that was your question . . . Im out . . .
it’s necessary to quibble with you Ben, because quibble is all you do. and i can never be sure of the veracity of what you say because of something you might leave out. for example, you may claim that moral superiority and then offer as evidence that jews are less likely to be arrested. but then you will leave out the bit of information that it is forbidden to be a mosser and turn another jew over to the authorities.
personally, i think it is just bizarre that you want to blame christianity as a whole for the holocaust. you have the same sort of logic as those that blame “the jews” for everything.
Keep in mind, there are two kinds of Jews the proselytes of 1300 and the true Jew of the tribe of Judea, the blood line of the big three. Now the proselytes claim they are of the tribe of Judea but they lie and there god is lucifer not the God of Abraham.
Proton Soup
I hope you notice that you are talking to yourself a bit more than is healthy. You put words in my mouth and then argue with them. Why not just stick to what I actually write?
If I say “...the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust” as the fruits of Christianity, and you disagree (wrongly) with the Holocaust, then the proper response is not to divert attention away from the other three but to meet the challenge head on.
You may think the Church as an institution is corrupt, and the ‘reformers’ were good. Even so the Church did not teach corruption but the messages of Jesus. But if you think the Church is no good and I show you the Martin Luther hate-connection to the Holocaust, then the proper response is not to divert attention away from the proof but to meet the challenge head on.
If the subject of the conversational flow is the nature and quality and outcomes of Christian teachings upon the world, then the proper response is not to divert the flow to a past or synthesized comment by me elsewhere but to comment upon the current subject head on.
You are not fooling anyone and especially not me.
There is something to say about being a ‘mosser’ in situations where the authorities are corrupt and evil which has been a historic , but do you honestly think that Jews who commit crimes upon non-Jews are protected by laws against turning fellow Jews to the authorities, or that Jews who commit crimes do so only upon observant Jews who distort the statistics? I have no trouble stacking up the Jewish scorecard against any and every competing belief system or tradition on any and every criterion. The statistics are there regardless of how you want to interpret and spin them. The burden is upon you after two thousand years of your advanced spiritual technology to show me the happy, successful, loving, brotherly, reverent Christlike society after subtracting all the ones who are are not real Christians and don’t get it. Not just your pastor who is a really nice guy. After the Amish and Mennonites, what do you have? Something of significant size and influence if you don’t mind.
hardtruth
Let me get this straight: You are not hateful but you consider the Jews to be Satanic terroristic imposters. Love you too!
(King James, Zacharaiah 13)
1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.
2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.
4 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:
5 But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Prophet speaks falsely… his own parents condemn him for lying and thrust him through… prophet is ashamed and backs off from claiming prophetic ability… wounded in the hands by the community of his friends…
But I digress. Or do I?
Exodus 23:13 “Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.
Deuteronomy 13:6 “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods ’ (whom neither you nor your fathers have known,
Deuteronomy 18:20 ‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’
i guess i just find it a bit pointless to argue with delusional people, Ben, although i’m certainly curious about what makes you that way. do you really think the authorities in Brooklyn are corrupt and that’s why people are afraid to turn to them? or does it make more sense to assume that the culture of Brooklyn’s orthodox community is corrupt?
and you repeat your mantra incessantly like you’re trying to convince yourself, that jewish people have always been victims and never guilty of anything at all. do you really expect anyone to believe that? what brings you to this conclusion? i know with the catholic church it was always that the church believed that its actions were acting with the authority of Christ, and therefore incapable of being sinful. what is your excuse? do you think you are chosen and therefore acting with the authority of the Lord and thus blameless? i really want to know. because i don’t understand you at all and think you’re kinda nuts.
I could help you if I knew what my delusions might be, Proton. OK, I’ll let you evade my direct points and change the subject once again.
In your last post you have helped me zero in on an essential point that we have been circling around. Yes, it is true that the “Jewish people have always been victims and never guilty of anything at all”. Not Jewish persons, but ‘The Jewish People’. Obviously there have been people of Jewish origin guilty of something or other, whether in proportion or more accurately in lesser proportion to their numbers. But as a community, nation or institution the Jewish people are guilty of nothing. This contradicts specific charges in the New Testament. That is what drives non-Jews (you) crazy. That is why they (you) seize upon individuals as if they are acting on behalf of some conspiracy. They (you) can’t accept that God really is on their side in the long run, as this idea threatens their (your) identity as a replacement of the Jews in God’s favor.
Christianity and its offspring on the other hand have no positive program. It is based entirely on the rejection of the Jews as God’s people in various convoluted ways. If you really had confidence in your position you would not hate the Jews and try to eliminate us. The first Christians believed that the Jews would disappear in short order. It wasn’t until they persisted in surviving, aided by the codification of Jewish knowledge and study and culture in the Talmud by the way, that the Christians got all upset and focused the Romans on destroying us and continued that policy in various forms for the following centuries to the present.
Not only that, but if things were as you say, there would be that happy, successful, loving, brotherly, reverent Christlike society after subtracting all the ones who are are not real Christians and don’t get it that you could name, and you would not have to change the subject. Maybe my delusion is that I don’t see it. Help me! You have had two thousand years with statistically almost no Jews alive to mess you up as you complain about in the first century. Where is it? In Kishinev? Auschwitz? The Vatican? The Hague? Washington D.C.?
As a Jew, I don’t take responsibility for Jews who do not act as Jews. For Israel defending or ensuring its existence; yes. For ‘Madoff’ and ‘Markoff’ and ‘Adam Lambert’ and Gene Simmons and Amy Winehouse, no. They are on their own with the Jew thing.
As for Brooklyn, you can learn from my earlier posts that problems of crime and perversion are insignificant there in relation to the same problems in society at large, but there is no excuse for even one such violation, and Jewish law does not protect violators from secular criminal prosecution.
And what did you think about that booklet by martin Luther. Also kinda nuts?
Ben, i’m sure you’ll be surprised to learn that not only do i not want to eliminate yourself or any other Jews, but neither is there any great Christian Conspiracy to do so.
as for Brooklyn, it appears that although abusers could be secularly prosecuted, there’s no need to turn an abuser over to the secular authorities unless the life of the child is in danger (the abuser doesn’t repent and agree to get help). the reason things appear insignificant to you is that skeletons are being locked securely in their closets, just like the catholics did.
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2009/05/reporting-child-abuserabbi-shlomo-aviner-17-maybe-ahavah-u-be-emunah-behar-bechukotai-5769-translated-by-r-blumber.html
i haven’t studied Luther’s booklet. for all i know he may have some legitimate gripes.
As I pointed out, the situation with Jews and non-Jews works in precisely the opposite fashion. While Jews may do wrong and the Jewish people is blameless, Christians may be pure while the Christian institution is not. You do not seem to be highly placed in the councils that address that, and probably don’t really care about it either. I accept that you do not have a personal wish to eliminate Jews, but it is the caption of Western civilization and history that Christianity does. I do urge you to satisfy yourself regarding Luther’s booklet and spare us your uninformed commentary and speculation.
Rather than ‘Failed Messiah’, who is an obsessive compulsive nut dedicated to ridiculing Jewish figures and fomenting Jew-hatred, note rather the links I provided above of responsible religious and social people and agencies addressing this (relatively small but important) problem, and who dismiss the idea of locking any skeletons in any closets. The Jewish people will eventually lead the way to solutions and resolutions of this terrible scourge as in so many other such social ills.
well, you’re seeming a bit like the flip side of that obsessive-compulsive nut at the moment.
and i recognize your valiant attempts to pull me down on a tar baby of Luther, the Inquisition, etc. but the only thing that pulled me back into this thread of crazy talk from Lucifer and pals is your equally crazy talk of blaming the Holocaust on Christianity. surely you recognize that quite a few mostly-Christian nations banded together to defeat that psychopath.
but still, as always, you don’t explain this: “But as a community, nation or institution the Jewish people are guilty of nothing.” rather, you just state it as though it’s an obvious fact and move on. it’s a rather queer statement, and i have no idea from whence it comes. that would be a pretty grand claim coming from anybody. a statement of faith, you might say. surely you don’t pluck it from thin air.
Ben your twisting what I said. I never said, “THE JEWS”
What I said was there is the bloodline and there is the proselytes hiding behind the Jewish community for less then genuine purposes. These are the kazars from the steps of Russia in the 15th centutury. I’m trying to make a distinguishment and you run over it with a steam roller, lumping every budy together. Thats just not the way it is. There are bloodline Jews, proselyte Jews [Samy Davis jr] and Christian Jews. I suppose you think that the Christian Jews are conspiring against there brothers too.
Lets look at the facts,the Christian community have there brains brused by two concepts that came down from Scofield who was supported by Rothcild:that being, don’t criticize the Jews and before bad times come to the USA we will be zoomed up by Jesus. How convient. Communism infiltrates the Govt by facters we must not criticize and it doesn’t matter any how because Jesus will beam us up before it gets rough. Very clever.
So what happens with this new cult? It spreads through out the evangelical churches, nueting the Christian community and giving a free runway for a conspiricy against Christianity. You will notice that not all Christian are so stupid to fall into that trap.
As for lucifer, I never speak a nagative of my own words, I merely parot what I read in suedo-Jewish literature. Check out scul&bones;,33degree masonary, Bohimian groves,CFR, Lucifer is all apart of there worship. Please stop the lumping. That’s growing old. Foreget not,I have Jewish friends and I love them dearly. They have no part with the illuminarti conspiricy. I have one Jewish friend that cuts my mothers lawn for free because she is 86 yrs.on S.S. Thats in Natick,Mass. What a good hearted fellow he is. And he’s big buisness on rt9 in Framingham,Mass. I wouldn’t dream of lumping him in with a Jew that would sue me for stepping in his flower garden accidently. This the “Jew thing” is a fiction. I know how it works cause I’m a Mason, a branch from Jewery. We do not convict our own in Court.
“surely you recognize that quite a few mostly-Christian nations banded together to defeat that psychopath.”
No, what I recognize is that the mostly Christian nations elected Hitler, threw flowers at him, denied his threat to them, bent over for him, allied with him, rolled over for him, banded together to appease him, and threw him raw and bloody meat in the form of Jews to delay his advance. Read the history of the ‘30’s. There were a hundred opportunities to stop Hitler, and a thousand to prevent the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because a government waged an extermination campaign with an army against unarmed civilians absolutely unopposed by any so-called Christian values or institutions or personalities. Hitler backed off with the least opposition. Little Denmark saved its Jews, not due to its people who are a bunch of a-holes today but to its king. Little Bulgaria saved its Jews because they were not grass-roots bigots. Little Albania saved its few Jews because they were not Christians but Muslims with a positive culture stronger than their faith.
I have two statements up that should be easy pickings for your rational self. After all, if I said that water flows uphill the moon is made of cheese, you could disprove it without the need to tap dance.
The first is that the direct influence of the founder of Protestant Christianity bore the fruit of the Holocaust; I quoted Matthew and not the Talmud and I provided a link to a fairly short original document to prove it.
The second is that the Jewish people as an entity are blameless regardless of anecdotal accusations of Jews not acting in the name of Jewish interests. A grand statement but an easy one to disprove if untrue. I’m not saying you won’t find a wealth of accusations against the Jews, just that you would have to lie down with pigs to find them (no offense hardtruth and Lucifer).
Ben, I’m just asking cause I don’t know all the answers.
When Germany was at war with England; Germany treated the Jews very well. They welcomed Jews in there Country and alowed them to run there buisneses with impunity.
Why then did the Jews betray Germany;properganderize Germans as bad people and wheel and deal to bring America into that war but against Germany if England promised in return, a peice of Palistine;Best known as the Belfore Declaraton.
I am not pretending to know all about it but I am asking. Why? Why did they betray Germany? Were’s the moral here? Germany treated them good.
ok ben, so your blamelessness claim is simply a matter of vanity, i can accept that.
as for your conspiracy theories, it seems like only yesterday you were gleefully mocking jewish conspiracy nuts, and now it turns out that you’re a conspiracy nut yourself. i suggest you rethink this before you become a laughingstock. and israel could have saved many many jews if only it had not had internal opposition to a plan for ransoming jews from Himmler. it appears that not one jewish life was worth delaying the return to israel.
Jewish? OK, Lets look at this. In the old testement account where the LORD removed the throne of Israel from the House of Saul, and installed David as the king of Israel. 2 Samuel states that God chose to TRANSLATE the kingdom from the house of Saul in order to set up the throne of David FOREVER.
The unusual usage of the word translate [born again] in the stunning move of the LORD, who removed the kingdom of Israel from Saul[and subsequently gave it to David], is a marvelous account antiicipating the spiritual regeneration of the house of Israel.
In the New Testement we see the same word used as the Apostle Paul speaks of the Lord, “Who hath delivered us from the powers of darkness and hath TRANSLATED us into the kingdom of His dear Son [Colossians 1:13]. This mystical term, describing how God transforms our lives from the earthly to the hevenly, is seen in His Kingdom in the Old Testament—-and that Kingdom is clearly seen to be ISRAEL.
This is profoundly prophetic as it prefigures Saul as the Old Covenant—and David as the New Covenant. Through the house of David, and his son Jesus Christ, God has TRANSLATED ISRAEL into a SPIRITUAL house. I am translated and grafted on to Israel. I am part of Spiritual Israel. I am a Spiritual Jew. I am of the seed of Abraham. The True seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ and in Him do I find my TRANSLATION. Gal 3:29
Proton Soup
You are seriously blind. If I say the Jewish nation is blameless, the burden of proof is upon you to prove they aren’t. If you are right, it should be a piece of cake for you to disprove. So far you are all hot air - “Surely this, and conceit that”.
If on the other hand I say the Christians, in the form of its founders and institutions and communities are to blame for centuries of atrocities against the Jews culminating in the Holocaust, and promoted by Martin Luther, the evidence leaps off the pages of history and all you can do is change the subject.
If you said that the Cherokee nation, or the Basques, or the Kurds or Armenians were collectively guilty of something anyone would agree you are a bigot; but you seem to think it is reasonable to say the Jews are guilty of something. And that it is a conspiracy if I ask you “of what?”
I know about the failings of Israel and the Zionists, and they did not come from them as Jewish but as rejecting of Jewish values. The secular political Zionists wanted to create a state detached from the Jewish nation of the past, and still do. They cannot be taken as an example of Jewish behavior.
But the perpetrators of the Holocaust fit perfectly with the Christian past in relation to their treatment of the Jews. I know that the Nazis were not examples of ‘good Christians’. But they were the inevitable result of the actions of ‘good Christians’ throughout history.
“If I say the Jewish nation is blameless, the burden of proof is upon you to prove they aren’t.”
seriously man, this is the stupidest thing i’ve read all week, and believe you me, i know stupid. it’s your statement. YOU back it up. no one even drug it out of you, you just like boasting is all.
and now, even though i didn’t owe you the proof (the burden is yours alone), you still can’t accept it. it’s pretty simple Ben, if “they did not come from them as Jewish but as rejecting of Jewish values”, then the nation, the State of Israel, has erred. Israel as a nation is therefore not free of sin or blame. which is fine, none of us meet God’s standard. but before you, me, or Israel can move on and be right with God, we first have to accept that we have not met the mark.
me, you, Israel, and “The Jews” are not perfect, and never will be. that trait is God’s alone.
Of course the burden of proof is upon you. YOU drug it up when you said “and you repeat your mantra incessantly like you’re trying to convince yourself, that jewish people have always been victims and never guilty of anything at all. do you really expect anyone to believe that?” That is an exaggeration of what I said, but from your point of view it’s essentially true. I don’t know your beef but if you don’t think it’s true then say something specific.
The birth of Israel and its character are detailed in the Bible. The character of Israel is defined by its adherence to God’s laws and fulfilling God’s will. Anything else is not Jewish. That’s a high standard and Israel has certainly had its lapses. There was that Golden Calf thing and other incidents of false worship, doubting God and acting against his will, not observing the seventh year; those things are a rebellion against God and God takes corrective action.
But none of that affects you or is any of your business. We can easily be blameless in relation to you while being imperfect in relation to God. We don’t complain about being victims of God. However when some guy comes along and calls us ‘the synagogue of Satan’ and institutionalizes that into attitudes that lead to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust, then we are victims and it is your responsibility. Christians don’t want to be evil, they just convince themselves that they are doing God’s work in doing so. All of those were perpetrated by Christian institutions and populations, and there is no counterpart to that in Jewish actions.
There is a weird aspect to your criticisms of my posts. You do everything you accuse me of. Political Zionism has its positive aspects and is Jewish in its origins but not its ideology and methods. That is why many Othodox people are generally supportive of the land of Israel but have mixed feelings about the state as constituted. That is why we don’t feel responsible the actions of any given Zionist as representing a Jewish one. However according to you, the Church are not real Christians, even when they were the only game in town. Distancing, distancing. Church reformers are the good ones, yet when I show you Martin Luther’s bigoted tract (also available in the original German if you go for that) that draws a staright line to the Holocaust you refuse to read it. Distancing, distancing. Worse, sight unseen you allow that Luther might have had some valid points. There is your ‘matter of vanity’. I can accept that too, after pointing it out explicitly.
From our point of view, when guys on horses with swords come to dismember us, torture us, burn us at the stake or in barns, or condemn us in the United Nations forums and conferences we need a scorcard to figure out which ones are the real Christians.
to be sure, Ben, the only thing i really have a problem with is your holier-than-thou attitude. i don’t know where it could come from short of a religious belief that jews are not responsible for any sins they commit against gentiles. i don’t suppose you’d consider the sins of Agriprocessors a bad thing, either, which would be ironic considering there are few things more inherently jewish than the blessing of butchered animals by priests.
and why, oh why, do you continue to make your bed with christians all these years if we are just out to get you? surely there are other peoples out there more deserving of your talents and less out to get you. why us, Ben? why do you love us so much?
The main thing I have a problem with your is evasiveness in responding to specifics and in lying. I never said I was holier than thou. I just said that we-all are holier than thou-all.
I never in fact mentioned a religious belief that Jews are not responsible for sins committed against gentiles (note - no gentiles were harmed in the writing of this post). You have been around here long enough to know that I support the full force of applicable law to be applied to Jews in an even-handed manner. My full opinion of the Agriprocessors events is posted on the relevant blog post, but boils down to that Agriprocessors was no worse and arguably better than than similar businesses completely untouched by applicable laws, and were thus not treated in an evenhanded way; to the point of government malfeasance.
Kosher food preparation and production has absolutely nothing to do with ‘the blessing of butchered animals by priests’. Anybody with knowledge has to consider that statement ignorant and dumb, but it is not important that you understand it. Your ignorance does have relevance to the next point, which is that I don’t make my bed with Christians. I interact with christians every day, treating them with respect, integrity, and the diplomacy to avoid confronting them on their errors, to the extent that they do the same.
The real question is what brings you to the discussion. I am posting on the blog of the Jewish Journal which discussed Jewish matters to a greater than average degree, and I don’t bother traveling to christian or antisemitic websites to put them down and argue with them, even though I could. I do however try to prevent them from spreading their biases on Jewish sites. I won’t miss you.
you say evasive, i say jumping out of the way when someone throws a pile of crap at the wall to see how much will stick. i don’t really see the point in arguing with a conspiracy nut about his delusions, crazy can be contagious if you’re not careful. if you want christians are involved in some grand conspiracy to kill all the jews, then fine, believe whatever it takes to give your life meaning. just realize that most everyone else thinks you are irrational.
we-all is the same thing as far as i am concerned, and i’m glad to see you admit to it. it’s not at all diplomatic as you seem to think and will only cause you continued friction with gentiles.
as for why i’m here, i’ve mentioned before that it is to learn and satisfy my curiosity about jewish people, what they actually believe, think, etc. i see no point in going to non-jewish sites to accomplish it. so far, i’m seeing that some of the things i’ve heard and suspected are absolutely true, at least in a subset of jewish people. i’m sorry if this makes you uncomfortable. perhaps you would feel more comfortable in a place less public.
The facts of history are the facts of history. For twenty centuries - The hated and the haters, the betrayed and the betrayers, the tortured and the torturers, the dead and the killers. The Jew and the ‘Un-Christian’. These people did not hide their values or actions.
You seem to think that by speaking of nuts and delusions, conspiracies and irrationality you can soothe the facts away as imaginary abstractions. The true abstraction is that ‘real Christian’, who essentially doesn’t exist except in the imagination of his defenders. ‘Real Christians’ saved thousands of Jews from the Holocaust. And they acted on their own, without institutional support. No Underground Railroad for the Jews!
Phony Christians slaughtered millions. Score: A Thousand to One.
The day is coming when you and we will have to account for ourselves. I wish you justice.
i wish you God’s grace and forgiveness, Ben.
We’ll see. A Real Christian would have said that before throwing piles of crap on the wall like Brooklyn’s corrupt community of abusers, or Martin Luther’s potentially valid points, or the crimes alleged in the Agriprocessors witch-hunt.
Since you were kind enough to psycho-analyze me, I urge you once again to read the short tract by Martin Luther and gain some insight into the source of your attitudes and those of mainstream Protestantism of the past 500 years and into today.
No, don’t scroll back, let me do it for you - http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1543_luther_jews.html
Ben, i would urge you to go re-read one of Brad’s recent blog posts where it talks about how evangelical christians are big supporters of israel and jews, and then rethink your malicious slander.
If we define malicious as meaning ill will, and slander as meaning something untrue, then I am innocent of malicious slander.
With all due respect, for reasons we won’t dwell on Brad unabashedly does not represent mainstream Jewish thinking.
For another, this blog does not treat evangelical christians well at all.
For a further point, I urge you to re-read my own responses in which I have said that a sincere Christian is a joy to be around, and that I would rather have an evangelical Christian committed to the will of the god of Israel and to the validity of prophecy as Prime Minister of Israel than the next thousand pragmatic Jewish politicians.
And finally, I urge you to take responsibility for the atrocities committed by Christians upon Jews from Day 1 (maybe day 2) and the failure of Christianity to produce a self-described Christ-like society and culture, capable for example of not perpetrating or of preventing the Crusades, Inquisition, pogroms and Holocaust. And which continue to today in the form of Par Buchanan/Mel Gibson Catholics and Jimmy Carter Protestants.
Since you don’t want to take responsibility for the Catholic church, I urge you to educate yourself on the views and influence of Martin Luther, who you presumably follow, and such groups as the Lutherans are not ashamed to associate with. And in so doing, recognize the source of your attitudes toward the Jews and hopefully free yourself of them.
From Wikipedia:
In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[1] Luther wrote that they are “full of the devil’s feces ... which they wallow in like swine,”[2] and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut”.[3] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[4] afforded no legal protection,[5] and these “poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing “[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.”[7]
The prevailing scholarly view[8] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany’s attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the National Socialists displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[9]
* * *
Luther advocated an eight-point plan to get rid of the Jews either by religious conversion or by expulsion:
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ...”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...”
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ...”
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ...”
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]...”
“Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow… For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
“If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.” [33]
* * *
Luther’s work acquired the status of Scripture within Germany, and he became the most widely read author of his generation, in part because of the coarse and passionate nature of the writing.[154] The prevailing view[156] among historians is that his anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany,[157] and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the National Socialist’s attacks on Jews.[158]
I can’t cut and paste the whole thing.
http://nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
Martin Luther’s dirty little book:
On the Jews and their lies
A precursor to Nazism
by Jim Walker
“Since you don’t want to take responsibility for the Catholic church, I urge you to educate yourself on the views and influence of Martin Luther, who you presumably follow, and such groups as the Lutherans are not ashamed to associate with. And in so doing, recognize the source of your attitudes toward the Jews and hopefully free yourself of them.”
ugh. Ben, you just do not know what you are talking about. how about you just spend some time doing some undercover work. visit a few different christian churches, sit in on some sunday school classes and sermons. you don’t have to participate in any worship, just say you’re curious about this Jesus guy if you feel compelled to say anything at all. you could just say you’re looking for church if you’re afraid of being “found out”. perhaps you’ll find something else you don’t like, but honestly, i’ve never found all this negative jewish feeling you think exists. maybe it’s in some cinderblock freewill chapel with snakehandlers or rebel flags, but honestly, i have no idea what you’re going on about.
“I have no idea what you are going on about.”
I made a point earlier that it is the mainstream Christian institutional apparatus that conducted itself in a wild, cruel and foul manner to my people over its recorded history, leading in an direct explicit line to the Holocaust and earlier events no less horrific. All this time they were conducting Sunday school classes and sermons with similar content. I did not make this comment to you or in response to you.
The statement is self-evident to me and most historians with the information publicly and widely available, but you jumped on it and persistently refuse to face it head on.
I have many interactions and relationships with very nice and loving Christian people, with mutual tolerance and respect, and we get along fine. When they tiptoe around theological issues I do likewise, and when they confront me or accuse me on them I do likewise as well. This thread was taken over by the snake handlers above and that’s what you stepped into.
I can understand that these are uncomfortable and unfamiliar ideas for you, and I would not go on about them at all if you didn’t go on about that I am possessed by irrational feelings. In my usual Christlike manner I have tried to let you off the hook with understated diplomacy and links without quotations. Over time I am increasingly compelled to rub your nose in it, just a little.
But as much as you may think of this as a fringe issue, for those personally affected it is a large chunk of life. The polluted attitudes I describe stemming from original source material including the New Testament itself are not necessarily taught or discussed, but are in the cultural air we all breathe and the water we swim in. It is not surprising that they are usually brushed under the rug.
Most Christians are oblivious. Jews tend to range from internalizing them to various unhealthy degrees, to protecting themselves with education and awareness; depending on their adherence to popular culture. In the course of teaching my children when young to be and act good and nice etc., I have had to explain that they will meet people including teachers and bosses who won’t like them and be rotten to them for no personal reason at all, just as I have, and my father had. Those who don’t get this are often surprised in life, and we see those reactions on this blog as much as anywhere.
Rabbi Asher Wade (Born in Danville, Virginia (May 31,1949) as Wallace S. Wade, see http://www.asherwade.com/show.asp?PID=5), relates despite advanced formal theological education he was simply never taught those parts of the New Testament that we are making reference to, and the same goes for Gavriel Aryeh Sanders (born Mark Sanders, http://www.ministersjourney.blogspot.com/, http://www.gavrielsanders.com/ and YouTube) and others http://jewsbychoice.org/2008/03/27/three-inspiring-gerim-rabbi-asher-wade-gavriel-sanders-and-yisrael-campbell/
But when someone like Mel Gibson or Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter (Sunday school teacher) focuses on them everybody scrambles for balance, but you can’t fault them for using such material if its supposed to be divine. As I mentioned earlier, they do not consider themselves evil, but are convinced that evil is good.
what part of the new testament are you making reference to?
Have you ever read it? All the gospels put together are shorter than a Dan Brown novel. We can skip all the associated commentary for now.
oh, so that’s where you get your ideas from
Nice try. Read the New testament and report back.
nice try, yourself. you were being snarky then, just as you’re being snarky now.
I am through supplying you with large amounts of specific information with references, and only eliciting opne-line non-seqiteurs from you. We can just volley till you’re ready to play.
you claim the new testament is anti-jewish, and i simply asked you what scripture in the new testament offends you. you say non-sequitur, and i say ignoring a rather obvious ad-hominem diversion.
Gospel According to Mark
3:6 The Pharisees are said to have begun to plan to destroy Jesus
7:6-13 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments
8:15 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees
10:2-5 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted
14:55-65 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
15:1-15 The crowd demands that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified.
Gospel According to Matthew
3:7 The Pharisees and Sadducees are called poisonous snakes
12:34 The Pharisees are called evil poisonous snakes
15:3-9 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments
15:12-14 The Pharisees are called blind guides leading the blind
16:6 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees
19:3-9 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted
19:28 The disciples of Jesus will judge the twelve tribes of Israel
22:18c The Pharisees are called hypocrites
23:13-36 The scribes and Pharisees are repeatedly vilified as hypocrites
23:38 The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken and desolate
26:59-68 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
27:1-26 The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified
27:62-66 The chief priests and Pharisees request a guard at Jesus’ tomb
28:4 The guards tremble and become like dead when the angel appears
28:11-15 The chief priest bribe the guards to lie about their actions.
Gospel According to Luke
3:7 The multitudes are called poisonous snakes
4:28-30 The members of the synagogue in Nazareth try to kill Jesus
7:30 The Pharisees are said to have rejected the purposes of God
11:39-54 The Pharisees and Torah scholars are repeatedly condemned
12:1 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy
13:14-17 The ruler of the synagogue is condemned as a hypocrite
13:35a The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken
22:63-71 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
23:1-25 The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified.
Gospel According to John
5:16-18 The Jews are said to have persecuted Jesus and wanted to kill him
5:37b-47 It is said that God’s word and God’s love is not in the Jews
7:19-24 It is said that none of the Jews do (what is written in) the Torah
7:28d It is said that the Jews do not know the One who has sent Jesus
8:13-28 It is said that the Pharisees know neither Jesus nor the Father
8:37-59 The Jews are said to be descendants of their father, the Devil
9:13-41 The Pharisees and other Jews are condemned as guilty
10:8 The Jews are said to be thieves and robbers
10:10 The Jews are depicted as those who steal and kill and destroy
10:31-39 The Jews are said to have picked up stones to throw at Jesus
11:53 It is said that the Jews realized that they would have to kill Jesus
11:57 It is said that the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to seize Jesus
12:10 It is said that the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus and Jesus
12:36-43 It is said that most Jews loved the praise of men more than of God
16:2-4 (The Jews who) kill Jesus’ disciples will think they are serving God
18:28-32 The Jews are said to have demanded that Pilate sentence Jesus to death
18:38-40 The Jews are said to be demanding that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified
19:4-16 The Jews are depicted as insisting to Pilate that Jesus be crucified.
Acts of the Apostles
2:23b Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus
2:36b Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus
3:13-15 Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed the originator of life
4:10a Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed Jesus
5:30b Peter tells the members of the Jewish council that they killed Jesus
6:11-14 Some Jews are said to have brought false accusations against Stephen
7:51-60 Stephen shown as condemning the Jews for betraying and killing Jesus
9:1-2 Paul is depicted as planning the arrest of disciples of Jesus
9:23-25 Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul
9:29b Jewish Hellenists are also said to have tried to kill Paul
12:1-3a It is said that the Jews were pleased when Herod killed James
12:3b-4 Herod is said to have seized Peter also to please the Jews
12:11 Peter is said to have realized that the Jews wanted to kill him
13:10-11 Paul is said to have condemned the Jew Elymas as a son of the Devil
13:28-29 It is said that the Jews had asked Pilate to crucify Jesus
13:39d It is said that Jews cannot be forgiven by means of the Torah
13:45-46 Jews are said to have spoken against Paul
13:50-51 Jews are said to have encouraged persecution of Paul and Barnabas
14:1-6 Many Jews opposing Paul and Barnabas and attempting to stone them
14:19-20 Jews are said to have stoned Paul, thinking that they had killed him
17:5-9 Jews are said to have incited a riot, looking for Paul and Silas
17:13 Jews are said to have stirred up turmoil against Paul
18:6 Paul said to have told the Jews, “Your blood will be on your own heads!”
18:12-17 Jews are said to have brought accusations against Paul
19:13-19 Jewish exorcists are shown to be condemned
21:27-36 Jews are depicted as seizing Paul and as trying to kill him
22:4-5 Paul says that when he was a Jew he had persecuted Christians
23:2-5 Paul is said to have condemned the chief priest for striking Paul
23:12-22 Jews are said to have plotted to eat nothing until they kill Paul
23:27-30 Paul is said to have been nearly killed by the Jews
24:9 The Jews are said to have accused Paul of many crimes
25:2-5 Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul
25:7-11 Jews are said to have continued to bring accusations against Paul
25:15-21 Jews are said to have spoken repeatedly against Paul
25:24 All Jews are said to have shouted that Paul must be killed
26:21 The Jews are said to have seized Paul and tried to kill him
28:25-28 Paul is said to have condemned the Jews for never understanding God.
thank you
It is not as if this information is not publicly available, or that its connection to a certain view of Jews is obscure, or that those views and influences would not result in the actions that they did.
There was a popular Nazi song called ‘The Devil is the father of Jews’. Not nice, right? But when Jesus himself says in John 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”, you can’t just call the Nazis names because they didn’t listen to “forgive them because they know not what they do.” They might respond, “OK, so we’re not such hot Christians; we’re all sinners and all that sh!t”, but they certainly have some kind of authoritative theological cover.
And when Pilate (a brutal tyrant according to Josephus) washes his hands of the affair and the Jewish mob shouts crucify him and (Matt. 27:20-25) answer, `His blood be on us and on our children!’, and when Christians widely see and treat the Jews as eternally guilty, what’s the answer? “We said what”?
And let’s not call that one a random example. The whole story is that that of the history of the Western world from the Jewish point of view. We consider the whole story to be somewhere between false and distorted at best, and end up with snake handlers and Nazis to debate the matter. When that guy above says ‘some of my best friends are Messianic Jews’, or a liberal Christian says “I forgive you”, my reaction is ‘thanks for less than nothing, go to hell’.
Most Christians miss the point which is - Jesus came to end the corporate religious state, he cut out the middle man, that man had a direct line to God thru prayer. That was a no no because men and women have been seduced by the mind control of religion; thats jews, christians, muslims ETC . . . he was an anti government anarchist. He broke with the mass mind control. So we have perverts in the churches and temples and mosques; the middlemen.
You may find it interesting in Dan. 7+8,and Rev. 13
This is were physical Israel is seen as the little horn and the first beast. The second beast is the apostate church that rides on the first beast.
This metaphor pritty much explains the main plot.
Or in the authentic tradition:
The first beast was the Kingdom of Babylon.
The second beast was he Kingdom of Persia.
The third beast was the Kingdom of Greece.
The fourth beast was the Kingdom of Rome.
These are evident from the rest of Chapter Seven.
The little horn was the Kingdom of Titus.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490/showrashi/true
Physical Israel received it’s deadly wound in 70 AD and was not, then it was healed in 1948,now is.
Who is the yeast-headed religious whore that is riding on Physical Israel back? Try christians like Bush.Obama,TV evangelist of many virioties,even the catholic church. This does not fit Titus.
Daniel 8:11 states “and through him the daily sacrifice was removed, and the base of His Sanctuary was cast down”. Titus sent Nero as general to destroy the Temple. It is not yet healed, although you may or may not find it significant that the Hebrew date of Abraham’s birth was 1948. We’re getting there.
Pen Blonie , fuck head go do your homework. Jews are anti-Christ. Always have always will be. They only ones lying, stealing, and killing my friends in a PROFESSIONAL capacity are jew Drs, jew lawyers and their masonic satanic stooges. Pen you are an ignorant pig. As for the Bush’s, Obama, Clintons and the catholic church; they are all zionist and satanic pedophiles. Nothing Christian about them.
Well! WWJD, sir! If my satanic stooge wasn’t off this week you’d regret those accusations!
Im sure you can pony up a rabbi to throw a hex on me . . .
WWJD ? He’d call you out on your bullshit, as Im doing. Its pointless to argue with you sociopaths, you could care less . . . you dont offer proof or refute what I have to say, and frankly its a matter of life and death and you just insult ppl, so I throw your hex back at ya. Bitch.
You expect me to offer proof to refute that jew doctors and lawyers are lying, stealing and killing your friends? If it’s not a secret, how come they have not killed you?
1) I am not in the courts 2) I am not in the hospital 3) I am not in the hasidic nursing homes 4) Because they are too busy killing others and stealing their properties. But I can see and observe whats going on.
I posted above how the medical system is killing Americans. I have experienced others friends misfortune first hand. Im not looking for scapegoats, Im just witnessing the governmental abuse and checking the numbers. Most of the doctors/lawyers are “jewish” and their nominal gangster lackie judges.
Im also much more savvy than most so I see whats going on, Im not ignorant as others are and can counter.
Talmudic jews are a far higher threat to America than the boogeyman islamic terrorist. I see thru the hocus pocus.
Why arent you as an American indignant and saying something ?
I am going to try to shine some realism onto your dim and befogged psyche. I don’t know where you live but I assume it is in the United States where Jews are at most 2% of the population. Of those, only about ten percent are Talmudic (or Orthodox) Jews. Of those, most live in concentrated communities in a handful of locations, where everything on the radio does not sound like ‘Dueling Banjos’.
Therefore in your neighborhood less than one in ten thousand people are Talmudic Jews, and there are probably less than ten thousand people in your county. Not only is it impossible that most of the doctors and lawyers there are Jewish, but the chances are excellent that you have never even met a Jew.
Which is unfortunate, since Talmudic doctors and lawyers provide the finest and most ethical professional services. Next time you get hoof and mouth disease, let the local vet sober up and check it out and leave the Talmudic doctors to their busy schedules.
Fuckhead, I date Jewish women, I fuck them with my uncut cock and they love it. Why ? Because Im a real man, who actually works for a living with my hands, not by preying on the ignorance of others, scumbag. I live in Jew capital of the world NYC. No dueling banjos here.
Ive studied enough of your satanic religion to know what its all about about; pedophilia, “destroy the best of gentiles”, screw thy neighbor, Africans are sub-human primates, all women are whores and of satan; I’m surprised you even procreate. Jews dont even like jews. Ill add because Arabs are actual Semites, Zionist Jews are the most anti-semetic jackasses on the planet. What dark irony of hypocrisy.
Did you know the most “anti-semetic book ever written wasnt Mein Kampf (if Hitler even wrote it…) it was “Jews Must Live” written by a Jew, Sam Roth.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/roth.htm
Do your homework and research as to what your rabbis are up to, do your research as jews SHOULD do before subscribing to any religious doctrine. I rejected Catholicism for its satanic mental illness long ago.
You state -
“Which is unfortunate, since Talmudic doctors and lawyers provide the finest and most ethical professional services.”
Ha ! Total unadulterated Bullshit, Balonie. Ive been down the road with Jewish Dr and Lawyers, I know better. You can insult me all you want, your hexations have no effect on me.
The only Jewish women who would date someone like you are the ones with bigger cocks than you.
Your lame insults have no effect. Ill pray for you . Do your research and stop being a pompous arrogant jackass.
thank you mmmm.
justin tv
bedava lig tv izle
Shalom,ben Plonie (Plonker)
In Torah & Tanach, G-d seems to hate us.
In Deuteronomy chapters 27 & 28 He states that if we don’t obey Him he will do all these things to us. And all these things have happened to us. In Exodus 32:7-14 He wanted to wipe us off the face of the earth. Is G-d anti-Semitic? Even Moses called us a stiff-necked
people (Exodus 34:9).
In Amos 5:23-27 He exposes our sin of BURNING our children to Moloch.
In Ezekiel 22:26-31 He exposes our false prophets & condemned our usury on the poor.
It would seem that we are heading for a Third World War & Israel is going to be right in the
middle of it.
Christians say the slaughter will be terrible, but that then we will be saved by Messiah, the One we refused 2000 years ago. It is looking very like that at the moment. Atheistic Zionism is drawing the wrath of Islam & the rest of the world on our heads. Those Jews who control the Federal Reserve Bank are being blamed for the financial mess the world is in at the moment.
The Internet is educating the non-Jewish world on the murderous actions of Jewish communists in Russia,
Poland & the rest of Europe, in World War II.
It also shows us as leading lights in pornography & all kinds of sexual perversions, as well as drug smuggling.
Slowly but surely you can sense the coming hatred that will result in a terrible Jewish slaughter in Israel. And all this has been prophesied. It seems that the G-d of Israel will have His way no matter what we do or say.
He is a sovereign G-d & we should have obeyed His commandments & acknowledged His Messiah when He came; now we have to learn another terrible lesson. We are indeed a STIFF-NECKED people.
Gerald Goldberg
Hey Jew
by Yessar Arafat
Hey Jew, don’t make it bad
Take a sad song and make it better
Remember to let me into your heart
Then you can start to make it better
Hey Jew, don’t be afraid
You were made to go out and get me
The minute you let me under your skin
Then you begin to make it better
And anytime you feel the pain
Hey Jew refrain
Don’t carry the world upon your shoulders
For well you know that it’s a fool
Who plays it cool
By making his world a little colder
Na na na na na
Na na na na
Hey Jew don’t let me down
You have found me, now go and get me
Remember to let me into your heart
Then you can start to make it better
So let it out and let it in
Hey Jew begin
You’re waiting for someone to perform with
And don’t you know that it’s just you
Hey Jew, you’ll do
The movement you need is on your shoulder
Na na na na na
Na na na na yeah
Hey Jew, don’t make it bad
Take a sad song and make it better
Remember to let me under your skin
Then you begin to make it better
Better, better, better, better, better, oh
Na, na na na na na na
Na na na na, hey Jew
Na, na na na na na na
Na na na na, hey Jew
Na, na na na na na na
Na na na na, hey Jew
What do you mean ‘us’, paleface? Speak for yourself. If you have any confessions to make, this isn’t the place to do it.
Dear Benny “Plonker” Plonie
There are many groups in the world arguing about the Holocaust. The all seem to miss the mark. The first thing one should do is find out what the word holocaust means. A holocaust is a “burnt offering” to a god. The Israelites have a long tradition of offering human holocausts to the god Moloch. In Amos 5:25-27 and Acts 7:42-43 we read of these practices. The Israelites were no sooner out of Egypt when they began to offer their children to Moloch. We read in the Prophets of the Tanach about such practices, which God and they condemned time after time. Surely this is one of the greatest sins a parent can commit.
Jews like to talk about the Passover, but NEVER talk about their Holocausts in the Wilderness. God left them to wander in the Wilderness for forty (40) years, until everyone of them, who offered human sacrifices, were dead.
One would think Jews would be ashamed for these dastardly, evil deeds, but no, they justify them in their Jewish Talmud: Sanhedrin 64a-64b.They are still allowed to offer Holocausts TODAY. The Jewish Talmud shows them how: You give the victims to another (Nazis) & get them to offer the Burnt Offering, that way you don’t feel guilty & AFTER you can blame the Priests of Moloch (Nazis) for burning your fellow Jew.
Now, Plonker, that is DEMONIC & that is what HAPPENED. The Zionists didn’t want old, poor, sick Jews in their New State, so they created the circumstances whereby the Nazis would get rid of them. Did you ever read the Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black. He is on your side, but even he couldn’t hide THE FACTS. Chaim Weizmann nearly left the “cat out of the bag”, when he spoke about the Jews in Germany. Yes there was a HOLOCAUST. Yes MILLIONS of Jews were offered to Moloch in that holocaust. Yes, the Nazis did the BURNING, but it was the Zionists that did the OFFERING. This is the TRUTH that is hidden from the world today, but when people see the Holocaust for what it really was, then all Hell will break loose.
The Holocaust was the price Satan asked for Modern Israel, & he got it. So look to Ben Gurion & CO for your TRUE-BLOODIED ANTISEMITE, & stop blaming the GOYIM for what happened in Germany. Go back to Theodor Herzl & learn from him. It was his plan to use the Goyim as his tool for getting Israel. His plan was put into action after his death.
ZIONISM & NATIONAL SOCIALISM ARE FROM THE SAME TREE.
Look up my good friend, Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons on the Internet & read this article, The Secular Zionist Agenda for a Jewish State. Chaim lives in Israel, so don’t go running off at the mouth, that he is a Self-hating Jew. You are part of “US” Plonker, otherwise get out of the kitchen if its getting too hot for you.
Gerald Goldberg
It is a misfortune of the Jews to be plagued by foreign cranks, some of the worst of which derive from some diseased and dysfunctional branch of the Jewish family tree. It is not possible to determine which you may be. You write like a hybrid of Nazi and radical Christian of the Mel Gibson variety, and unwittingly betray your unfamiliarity with authentic Jewish knowledge. Of course you are crazy and evil, but the most targeted reference I could make about you would be ‘clueless’.
I would not characterize Rabbi Chaim Simons as self-hating at all. He seems to be much more of my kind of guy, and if he hates anything it is people like you. In fact, I am quite comfortable stating that God hates you as well. Everything you write has the certain common themes: Ancient Jews were no good. Modern Jews are no good. Religious Jews are no good. Secular Jews are no good. In fact, the only thing these groups have in common are the positive aspects of Jewishness.
Suffice it to say that all of your so-called references are fraudulent.
Hi Benny Plonker,
How’s this for clueless:
Theodor Herzel
The founder of modern Zionism
Herzl stated in his diary
“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)
THEODOR HERZL
Theodor Herzl, father of political Zionism and founder of the World Zionist Organisation was born in 1860. Following his general education, Herzl studied law in Vienna. However, a year after gaining his doctorate, he began a career in journalism.
The growth of anti-Semitism in France stirred Herzl’s interest in the Jewish problem and the Dreyfus case convinced him that the only solution was for the Jews to leave the various anti-Semitic countries in which they resided and be resettled in a country of their own. He therefore decided to apply himself to the realisation of this ideal.
Herzl’s Diaries
Herzl had kept a diary as a young lawyer in the 1880s, but in May 1895, he started keeping a diary devoted entirely to the Jewish cause.
On 12 June 1895, Herzl confided to his diary his programme for the removal of the indigenous non-Jewish population from the Jewish State and the expropriation of private property by the Jewish State.
In those days, countries consisted of the few rich landowners and the multitude of poor, and Herzl had plans for each of these classes of population. With regard to the landowners, Herzl wrote in his diary: “When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently, the private property on the estates assigned to us.”(1) For the remainder of the population, he wrote in his diary on the same day: “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries whilst denying it any employment in our own country.”(2) We can thus see that the means Herzl envisaged to transfer non-Jews out of the Jewish State, was to deny them sources of livelihood in the Jewish State, and find them employment elsewhere.
In the above extract, it is noticable that Herzl did not use the words “Palestine” or “Arabs”. As can be seen from his book “The Jewish State” (Der Judenstaat) which was also written (or at least drafted) in the summer of 1895, Herzl had not yet decided on the final location of the Jewish State. “Shall we choose Palestine or Argentina?” wrote Herzl, and listed the advantages of each of these two locations.(3) Although Herzl did not state this in his book, Argentina may have suggested itself to him, because of the then recent purchase by Baron Maurice de Hirsch of a very large tract of land in Argentina to resettle three million Jews. At that time, Herzl was trying to interest Hirsch in his ideas. However, we are mainly interested in Herzl’s plan “to spirit the penniless (indigenous) population across the border.”
Herzl was also vague about the “transit countries” to which the non-Jewish poor would be spirited. One of Herzl’s biographers, Desmond Stewart, analyses this term in connection with both Argentina and Palestine. In the case of the former, Stewart comments, “There are no transit countries, only an ocean between Western Europe (where Herzl envisaged the Jewish migration as starting) and the coast of Latin America.” With regard to Palestine, there would also be no “transit countries” since Herzl (from an entry in his diary) envisaged the settlers arriving at Jaffa by ship. Hence Stewart concludes, “All that is clear is that most of the natives will have to leave.”(4)
Herzl realised that secrecy and discretion were necessary to put these ideas into practice. His diary entry thus continues, “The property-owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly. Let the owners of immovable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.”(5)
Herzl described his methods of expropriation. “The voluntary expropriation will be accomplished through our secret agents. The Company would pay excessive prices.” Herzl was determined that once property had been acquired it would be retained in the hands of the Jews. “We shall then sell only to Jews, and all real estate will be traded only among Jews,” he said. As a qualified lawyer, Herzl realised that he would not be able to declare sales to non-Jews invalid. He therefore took precautions to avoid resale to non-Jews, as he wrote, “If the owner wants to sell the property, we shall have the right to buy it back at our original sale price.”(6)
Herzl realised that some property owners would, for sentimental reasons, be reluctant to part with their properties and in such cases these people “will be offered a complete transportation to any place they wish, like our own people. This offer will be made only when all others have been rejected.”(7)
The phrase “like our own people” is amplified by Herzl in his book “The Jewish State”, where he explains how the “Jewish Company” will arrange the exchange of non-transferable goods of Jews moving to the Jewish State. “For a house it will offer a house in the new country, and for land, land in the new country; everything being, if possible, transferred to the new soil in the same state as it was in the old.”(8) Thus we can see, that in Herzl’s programme, as propounded in his diary, “in the last instance” non-Jewish estate owners in the Jewish State would be offered equivalent housing and land outside the area of the Jewish State.
Herzl says that in the case of the estate owners not accepting this offer, no harm would be done to them. The Jewish State would “set the entire old world a wonderful example” since the Jewish leaders would “respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion.”(9)
However, on the same day that he wrote the above, Herzl also noted down in his diary, several unpleasant and dangerous tasks for “the natives” prior to their transfer: “If we move into a region where there are wild animals to which Jews are not accustomed - big snakes etc. - I shall use the natives, prior to giving them employment in the transit countries, for the extermination of these animals. High premiums for snake skins, etc, as well as their spawn.”(10)
During the subsequent days, Herzl wrote an “Address to the Rothschilds” (which was to be the first draft of his book “The Jewish State”). Here, however, he omitted to mention the tasks for “the natives”!(11) A few months later in January 1896, Herzl wrote an article in “The Jewish Chronicle” of London entitled a “Solution to the Jewish Question”(12) and in February his book was published. In neither of these works did Herzl suggest using the indigenous peoples to rid the country of its wild beasts! “Supposing, for example, we were obliged to clear a country of wild beasts”, wrote Herzl, “we should organise a large and lively hunting party, drive the animals together and throw a melinite bomb into their midst.”(13)
Even if it is suggested that Herzl’s diary entry proposing the use of “natives” to clear the country of snakes and wild beasts, was merely recognition of their superior skills at such tasks, the question remains as to why this solution was not proposed in his book, (which was written at about the same period), omitting, if desired, the phrase regarding “the natives’“ subsequent transfer.
Interpretations of Herzl’s Diary Entry
Up to the 1970s, the various biographers of Herzl had been unaware of (or had suppressed!) Herzl’s transfer plans. The first biographer to discuss them was Desmond Stewart, whose book entitled “Theodor Herzl” was published in 1974.
In attempting to analyse Herzl’s approach to the non-Jewish inhabitants of the proposed Jewish State, Stewart linked Herzl’s thoughts on “how to obtain the territorial basis for a (Jewish) state with British actions in Africa.”
It must be remembered that this was the period when European powers, especially Britain, were acquiring colonies in the African continent. Herzl had studied the methods used by Cecil Rhodes, the British Empire builder to separate certain African tribes from control of their land. Stewart considered that “Herzl’s stencil for obtaining a territory and clearing it for settlement was cut after the Rhodesian model” but added that “one problem - that of the native population - presented itself in a more urgent form to Herzl than to Rhodes.” He explained that this was due to Herzl’s envisaging the settling of “millions of Jews” in the Jewish State “all at once”, whereas the settlement of Rhodesia “would be limited and over a protracted period”, since Britain already had many “Homes”.(14)
Stewart is not completely accurate here, since Herzl had written in “The Jewish State” that the departure of the Jews from their countries of residence would not be sudden. “It will”, he said, “be gradual, continuous and will cover many decades.”(15) However, it is certainly correct, that whereas the Jews were to have only the one Home, the British already had many colonies.
Stewart considered that from the reference books, almost certainly available in his Paris newspaper office, Herzl was fully aware of the extent of the non-Jewish population in Palestine, when on 12 June 1895, he devoted many pages in his diary to his plans for the removal of the natives.(16)
The historian Joseph Nedava disagreed with Stewart, whom he described as a “hostile biographer” (of Herzl). In his study, “Herzl and the Arab Problem”, Nedava rejected Stewart’s suggestion that Herzl was basing his plan for the indigenous population on the African model. Instead, Nedava, in explaining the phrase “to spirit the penniless population across the border”, argued that Herzl realised that if he were to be faced with a “landless proleteriat in a newly developing colonising project” it would be “highly dangerous” and would “lead to catastrophe.” Herzl was therefore “not adverse to driving the principle to its logical conclusion and entertain the idea of evacuating the landless to another country after providing for their integration there.” The expropriation of private property was in order to “avoid ruinous speculation.”(17)
Stewart, however, had largely based his “Rhodesian Model” theory on the meeting between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1898.(18) Of this meeting, the Kaiser wrote (in his unpublished memoirs), that Herzl’s blueprints for large-scale settlement in Palestine would “culminate in a plan to create a ‘Jewish Chartered Company’ for Palestine patterned after the ‘British Chartered Company in South Africa’.”(19) Nedava made no attempt to explain the Kaiser’s remarks.
The “British Chartered Company in South Africa”, (British South Africa Company), governed part of south Central Africa and amongst its objects was “to encourage emigration and colonisation”. It received a Royal Charter from Queen Victoria in October 1889, at the instigation of Cecil Rhodes, who became its managing director.
Stewart pointed out that whereas Rhodes gained Royal support in legalising his colonisation methods in Africa, Herzl forsaw that the extreme measures he advocated in planning colonisation in the Jewish State would “temporarily alienate civilised opinion.”(20) He wrote in his diary, “At first, incidentally, people will avoid us. We are in bad odor.” Herzl realised however, that this unpleasantness would only be a transient phenomenon and was worth the price. He then added, “By the time of reshaping of world opinion in our favor has been completed, we shall be firmly established in our country, no longer fearing the influx of foreigners, and receiving our visitors with aristocratic benevolence and proud amicability.”(21)
In his book “The Jewish State”, Herzl had propounded a similar idea regarding the Jews from the Jewish State returning to their previous countries of residence. He wrote, “If some of them (Jews) return, they will receive the same favourable welcome and treatment at the hands of civilised nations as is accorded to all foreign visitors.”(22)
Stewart’s biography of Herzl was carefully researched and during the period 1971-72, he exchanged a considerable amount of correspondence with Mark Braham, a man who had written about Herzl in his book “Jews Don’t Hate”. A number of these letters dealt with Herzl’s plans for the transfer of the indigenous population from the proposed Jewish State.
Although Braham would describe himself as an “anti-Zionist”,(23) the Press Officer of the British Zionist Federation wrote to him giving a different assessment: “You certainly present our case extremely eloquently and as a Zionist I find there are only a very few trivial and minor points on which I would disagree with you.”(24)
This exchange of correspondence began in March 1971, when Stewart wrote to Braham telling him that Braham’s “interpretation of the character and motivation of Herzl was similar” to his, and Stewart thus wanted to consult with him whilst preparing his book. This put Braham in a quandary. On the one hand, since Stewart was not sympathetic towards Zionism, non-cooperation could lead to Stewart producing “a work that was bound to be slanted against Zionism and Israel.” On the other hand, cooperation might possibly “be an influence of moderation on what might otherwise become an unbalanced and dangerous work.” Braham chose the second alternative and when Stewart’s book was published realised that he had made the right choice.(25)
Stewart would send Braham typescript of the various chapters of his book when they were ready, which he would then read. However, Braham commented that after he had read the chapter dealing with Herzl’s transfer proposals, he read no more of the typescript. As Braham said, “I began to feel that my position was untenable. I found myself in the position where I became counsel for the defence for Herzl in a desperate search to explain the entries.”(26) As we shall see, in course of the following months Braham kept putting forward different reasons in his correspondence with Stewart, in order to try and play down or talk away Herzl’s transfer plans.
Stewart finished in “rough draft” the chapter dealing with Herzl’s transfer plans in early May 1972, and presumably immediately sent Braham a copy. On 18 May Braham gave Stewart the following answer to Herzl’s transfer plans: He felt that Herzl was “not concerned with shifting the Arabs as such; his concern is to shift the poor and he fully expects the ‘property owners’ to ‘come over to our side’. This fits neatly into his basic plan to destroy the Jew and create a new nation, a middle class paradise, liberal, secular and European. He had no use for the Arab tribesmen, not because they were Arabs, but because they were gypsies.”(27)
Just over a week later, (it seems that he had not yet received Braham’s letter), Stewart asked in a postscript, “Are there any Talmudic quotations ruling out the kind of policy of force & deception which Herzl assumed would be necessary for dealing with the ‘natives’ - whether in Argentina or Palestine?”(28) There is no record of Braham answering this question!
In early July 1972, Braham went to Jews’ College Library in London to look up Herzl’s diary, in particular the reference for 12 June 1895 - the date that Herzl had proposed transfer. He informed Stewart that the impression that he got from these diary entries was that “Herzl was simply setting down a formula in the abstract for setting up a state in a territory inhabited by ‘natives’,” and that his attitude towards non-Europeans was the typical 19th century European attitude with Herzl being a typical example.(29) In a paper presented by Braham to an Adult Jewish Study Circle in New South Wales, Australia in May 1974, he brought further evidence of this attitude, by mentioning a case in 1837, just a generation prior to Herzl, where “the Australian responsible for the Myall Creek murders had pleaded in court that they did not know it was against the law to shoot aborigines.”(30)
Stewart in his book had compared Herzl to Rhodes, but Braham held that Herzl had “an immense respect for the rule of law” and this fact set him above Rhodes.(31) However, support for this assessment by Stewart comes from the biography of Herzl by Jacob de Haas, who personally knew and worked with Herzl. In this biography we see that Herzl was in fact an admirer and supporter of Rhodes’s ideas.(32)
Later in his letter, Braham considered that Herzl’s “scheme to buy the land at excessive prices and in secrecy” was “the classic ploy of property developers and businesses whose stock in trade is to pay what appears to be a handsome price for a piece of land without disclosing its true potential. My conclusion is that Herzl was a coloniser, certainly; there is no doubt he intended to create a state over the heads of the indigenous population - but by stealth rather than force of arms.”(33)
In his reply to this letter, Stewart wrote that he agreed with almost everything Braham wrote on this subject in his letter, adding “but it is also very close to what I wrote!”(34)
Braham had realised his limitations and thus searched for a Jewish scholar who could advise him “about problems” beyond his “limited capacity”.(35) The scholar he found was Bruno Marmorstein,(36) who at that time was Chairman of the Board of Governors of Jews’ College, and a few weeks earlier with the “willing cooperation” of Stewart(37) had passed on to him the typescript for an opinion. Before reading Stewart’s draft, Marmorestein had “been ignorant of the existence of these entries (as 99 Jews out of every 100 undoubtedly are).”(38) Braham also commented that he himself did not really believe they existed until he had checked it out a few weeks earlier. He had in the past put down the rumours he had heard about such entries to the “propaganda of the kind one associates with anti-Semites.”(39)
In his reply, Stewart wrote that he was not surprised “that Bruno Marmorstein and 99% of Jews everywhere are ignorant of the passage about spiriting the poor across the frontiers.” He then went on to try and link Herzl’s transfer schemes with “the whole series of laws passed by the Zionist state immediately after the 1948 exodus. Laws by which even temporarily abandoned property was made over to Israel; laws by which whole areas were proclaimed military zones and the Arabs moved out ‘for security reasons’; you must read Sabri Jirjis for this; he is an Israeli Arab lawyer who gives all the details of operations which are in the spirit of Herzl’s diaries.”(40)
On receiving this letter from Stewart, Braham wrote to David Jacobs, Press Officer of the British Zionist Federation, bringing these quotes from Herzl’s diary and Stewart’s argument that “the Arab refugee problem has its origins in Herzl’s Diaries.”(41) He felt confident that Jacobs “had come across these entries in the Diaries and had some explanation - perhaps a mistranslation or ambiguity.”(42) Braham certainly did not expect the answer which Jacobs immediately sent him: “I feel it is very unlikely that these quotes [from Herzl’s diaries] are in fact genuine.”(43)
In a letter to Stewart, Braham reported on his correspondence with Jacobs adding, “His reply, enclosed, will astonish you as much as it did me, I am sure. When I said that 99 out of every 100 Jews would not be aware of this material it was a serious underestimate. Imagine, the PR officer of what is probably the second most important Zionist Federation in the world doubts the validity of the quotes. And this is perfectly genuine, quite obviously.” He then commented on the success of the suppression of these quotes from Herzl’s diary: “I really did not suspect that the efforts of the Zionist editors had been quite so successful: I once remarked, half jokingly ... that there certainly was a Zionist conspiracy - against the Jews! I begin to think so on this score.”(44)
Several months later, Braham reported to Jacobs how he was “approaching the problem of some of these outrageous entries in the Herzl Diaries.” He argued that modern Zionism began half a century before Herzl. Herzl’s grandfather Simon Loeb Herzl had been a member of Rabbi Alkalai’s congregation in Semlin and the source of his Zionism was in fact from his grandfather. When Theodor Herzl came on the scene, Zionism was already a worldwide movement. Braham argued that “Herzl was something of an irresponsible artist and much of his Diary contains illconsidered, almost idle, jottings. ... The Zionist movement should consider cutting Herzl down to size: the alternative is to risk having these entries thrown up as ‘inspired words of the prophet’.”(45)
In 1989, Shabtai Teveth came to a different conclusion from Braham regarding Herzl’s plans for Arab transfer: “In retrospect it appears perfectly logical that this notion of an allencompassing Jewish transfer in Herzl’s thinking would be accompanied - if only for the sake of symmetry - by a parallel and just as comprehensive a transfer or ‘evacuation’ of Arabs.”(46) If in fact Teveth’s reasoning is correct, Herzl “for the sake of symmetry” would have included Arab transfer in his published book “The Jewish State”, in the same way as he included Jewish transfer. However, as we know, Herzl “hid” his plans for Arab transfer in the pages of his private diary!
Herzl’s True Thoughts
Do Herzl’s diaries accurately reflect his thoughts? An article written by Harry Zohn, the English translator of his diaries, clearly gives a definite affirmative answer. Zohn writes that the Herzl diaries are a “remarkably frank record of the incorruptible, outspoken Herzl who detested dissimulation and self-deception and who noted on the very first pages that his diary entries would be valueless if he attempted to play the hypocrite with himself. The Diaries are therefore a voluminous and unblushing compendium of Herzl’s triumphs and tragedies, not merely in the arena of world politics but on a personal plane as well, presenting Herzl from within.”(47) Similar views are expressed by Alex Bein in his biography of Herzl.(48)
Unlike his books, Herzl’s diaries were not intended for publication during his lifetime. Soon after his death, the question of publishing his diaries arose.
David Wolffsohn, Herzl’s successor as President of the World Zionist Organisation, quoted Max Nordau, who, in emphatically opposing their publication, said, “You will ruin Herzl’s name if you publish his diaries. Whoever reads them is bound to believe that he was a fool and a swindler.”(49) This statement is not elaborated upon, but possibly relates to Herzl’s views, as propounded in his diary, on the appropriate treatment for the indigenous population of the proposed Jewish State, since Nordau was strongly against prominent Zionist figures putting forward transfer proposals in public.
We can see this from a letter which he wrote in 1919 to the Anglo-Jewish writer, Israel Zangwill, who was a strong supporter of transfer of the Arabs. Nordau described Zangwill’s stand on the Arab question as “regrettable”. He wrote, “It’s no use qualifying your scheme as your own individual idea - we have not to count on the good faith of our eternal enemies, and henceforward they will quote you as their authority for the accusation that, not you Israel Zangwill, but the Jews, all the Jews, are an intolerant lot dreaming only violence and high-handed dealings and expulsion of non-Jews.”(50)
The original letter of Nordau’s has not been traced, although from a number of postcards and letters exchanged between the two of them at that period,(51) we know that they were in regular contact.
We do however have the reply sent by Zangwill to Nordau on 28 January. In this letter, he pointed out that Nordau “somewhat misconceived my attitude on the Arab question”. He added that at the same time he had “received a similar castigation from my old friend, Judge Sulzberger, of America.” Zangwill was however so firm in his opinion on the Arab question that he wrote, “but not even both these stars in their courses fighting against me have altered my conviction that I am absolutely in the right.” He then asked Nordau for his “own solution of this vexing question, which, to my mind, is the destruction of Zionism.”(52)
When, a few years later, which was nineteen years after Herzl’s death, his diaries were first published, Joseph Bloch, the great fighter of anti-Semitism, was “appalled”.(53)
Herzl’s Letter to Al-Khalidi
Herzl’s public attitude (which is quite different from his private views!) towards the indigenous population is illustrated in a letter he wrote to Youssuf Zia Al-Khalidi, Mayor of Jerusalem, in 1899.
At the beginning of March 1899, Al-Khalidi had written to Zadok Kahn, Chief Rabbi of France, saying that the Zionists’ case was just but could not be implemented in Palestine due to the opposition of the Turks and the local population. Al-Khalidi suggested that the Jews would do better if they went elsewhere.(54) Rabbi Kahn forwarded the letter to Herzl and suggested that he make an authoritative reply.
On 19 March, Herzl replied to Al-Khalidi in a letter which was both meek and reassuring. “You see another difficulty, Excellency, in the existence of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. But who would think of sending them away?” wrote Herzl, “It is their well-being, their individual wealth which we increase by bringing in our own.” He went on to point out that Jewish colonisation would cause the value of Arab land to rise five or ten-fold in the course of a few months.(55)
Another example of Herzl’s public pronouncements on this subject arose in May 1903, during the course of a discussion on the question of the purchase of the Jezreel valley. Herzl is reported to have remarked, “One cannot displace these poor Arab farmers from the soil.”(56)
Herzl’s Charter
Amongst the Herzl papers at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, is Herzl’s Draft Charter.(57) This document is typewritten with some handwritten amendments. It is undated and is in German.
One of Herzl’s objectives was to gain a Charter for Palestine. He felt that this should preceed colonisation of the country. Until the British conquest, towards the end of the First World War, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Herzl considered that the Zionist movement’s diplomatic achievements depended on Turkey, which at that time was in chronic financial difficulties and Herzl’s strategy was therefore centred on a plan to gain the approval of the Sultan.
On 15 May 1901, a long-planned audience with the Sultan finally took place, but Herzl did not mention his proposed Charter at this meeting. However, at a meeting held a few days later with the Sultan’s representatives, Herzl “propounded the Charter ... for the first time” and he “contented” himself “with their listening to all these suggestions”. One of the Sultan’s representatives then went to inform the Sultan of Herzl’s proposals and he returned to inform Herzl that the Sultan expects to receive Herzl’s “definite proposals within a month”(58).
From Herzl’s diary, we can see that on 29 May 1901, which was two weeks after his meeting with the Sultan, Arminius Vambery, (a Hungarian Orientalist, who worked closely with Herzl), met with Herzl in Germany. After giving Vambery a report, Vambery responded that “we shall have the Charter this very year”. He informed Herzl that he planned to go to Constantinople that September and that “meanwhile he [Vambery] would like me [Herzl] to make a draft of the Charter which he intends to present to the Sultan and get it signed by him without any Secretary or Minister finding out about it”.(59)
The next mention of this Charter in Herzl’s diary is dated 21 August 1901 and is a copy of a letter Herzl sent to Vambery. He wrote: “I am herewith returning to you Draft I, which met with your approval, because I have a copy of it”. We can thus see that some time prior to this date, Herzl had sent Vambery a copy of his draft Charter and asked Vambery for his comments. Vambery had expressed satisfaction and returned this draft to Herzl. However, since Herzl already had a copy, he sent it back to Vambery.
The draft Charter was in German and it would seem that Vambery had suggested preparing a French translation, since Herzl continues his letter to Vambery: “Translating it into French is pointless, because it probably will not be practicable in this form”.
In order to implement his plan, Herzl wrote in his letter that “first of all he [the Sultan] must give the Charter, specifically, to the Jewish Colonial Trust for the formation of the Compagnie Ottomane-Juive pour l’Asie Mineure, la Palestine et la Syrie [Ottoman-Jewish Company for Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria]. To give the whole thing a financially sound character, the Jewish Colonial Trust could deposit a security of, say, one million francs as soon as the Charter is delivered to us, and this earnest would be forfeited to the Turkish treasury if the Company was not founded within a certain period of time”.
Herzl concluded by saying that “Draft I would therefore have to serve only as a preamble, and you will certainly know yourself the most appropriate manner in which it can be used”.(60)
Walid Khalidi, (a founder of the Institute for Palestine Studies and its General Secretary), concluded that the draft Charter was “drawn up sometime between the summer of 1901 and early 1902”.(61) However, from the above diary entry, it seems to have been written before August 1901. It is of course possible that the draft Charter in the Central Zionist Archives is a later draft, although there does not seem to be any evidence to support the existence of such a later draft.
The contents of Herzl’s Charter deal with the privileges, rights and obligations concerning the colonisation of Palestine and Syria.(62) [Until after the end of the First World War, there were no actual borders between the regions of Palestine and Syria - it was all part of the Ottoman Empire. “Palestine and Syria” was the term used when planning Jewish settlement during this period.]
Included in Herzl’s Charter were paragraphs dealing with the loan which the Company would make to the Sultan; the right of the Company to bring Jewish immigrants into the region; the option to acquire certain categories of lands in the region; autonomy; Jewish military defence units and the appointment of a Governor and a Chief Justice for the area.
Paragraph 3 of this Charter reads, “The right to exchange economic enclaves in the area - with the exception of the Holy Places or places of worship - by compensating the owners with equally large and equally qualitative plots in other provinces and lands throughout the Ottoman Empire. The emigration costs are to be paid to the owners and they are to receive an advance for building necessary housing and buying necessary utensils to be repaid in installments over a number of years, the security being the plots they received in exchange.”(63)
This paragraph in Herzl’s Charter conferred the right to acquire certain (Arab) lands in Palestine and Syria, giving in exchange comparative plots of land within the Ottoman Empire, while financially assisting the previous owners with emigration and resettlement. For example, under Herzl’s proposals, the Jews would have the right to transfer an Arab from Jaffa to Constantinople, provided they paid his transfer expenses and gave him an equivalent parcel of land at his new destination.
It is not absolutely clear whether Herzl was referring to a “right” to transfer Arabs compulsorily or merely assist their voluntary transfer. The wording in his Charter strongly indicates transfer of a compulsory nature. This opinion is also held by David Hirst in his book “The Gun and the Olive Branch” where he writes, “Article Three of the draft charter would have granted the Jews the right to deport the native population.”(64) An almost identical wording is used by the Dutch Orientalist, Van Der Hoeven Leonhard.(65) However, when assessing the weight to be attached to these opinions, it should be remembered that these two authors show an anti- Zionist bias. It is also just conceivable that this Charter refers to a voluntary transfer and the “right” is that granted by Turkey, (who in the past had put many obstacles in the way of Jewish settlement in Palestine), allowing the Jews to exchange land after its owners had agreed to move out of Palestine. However in January 1901, just a few months prior to Herzl writing this Charter, the Ottoman administration had removed many of the restrictions on Jews regarding the purchase of land and the building on it, in Palestine,(66) and this thus strengthens the argument that it was intended to be a compulsory transfer. Furthermore, restrictive expressions such as “equally large and equally qualitative plots” are used; were the exchange by agreement with the owners, they might have preferred monetary compensation, or a larger quantity of land of a lower quality. From all this we might conclude that the intentions of Herzl were for compulsory transfer.
Throughout his Zionist career, Herzl had strong feelings that the Holy Places must be given extraterritorial status and it is therefore fully understandable that he immediately excluded them from this “right”.(67)
This Charter was unrealised, since the Jewish bankers whom Herzl approached for the loan for the Sultan told him to return when he had an agreement with the Sultan and the Sultan told Herzl that he would only negotiate after he had the loan!
In conclusion, it is interesting to note that David Wolffsohn when composing a charter for Palestine in 1907, followed the points made by Herzl in his charter, except that he completely omitted the paragraph giving the right to transfer Arabs out of Palestine into some other part of the Ottoman Empire.(68) It is of course possible that Wolffsohn disagreed with this transfer plan of Herzl’s. On the other hand, he may of been influenced by Nordau’s appeal not to publish Herzl’s diaries, an appeal which we saw earlier, was quoted by Wolffsohn in his diary.
The length of your pasted propaganda is no more than evidence of your impotence to express a coherent independent thought. As I said, one has only to Google any significant phrase of your crap to turn up a decent list of antisemitic hate websites. On the other hand, a search for those phrases in Herzl’s actual diary which is available online in several editions yields nothing. On the third hand, no statement by any Jewish or Zionist leader is definitive of the movement which actually began thirty eight centuries ago under another name or no name at all. The place to look for the origins of Zionism is under Torah, Jews, Father of; see Abraham.
Hi Benny Plonker,
Listen up:
THE MILLIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED
By I. Domb
________________________________________
Many books have been published, read and forgotten. There is one book, however, which dare not be allowed to share this fate. This is the chronicles of Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl, ztl, of the war years, 1942 to 1945, so aptly named “Min Hametzar” (From the Depths), published in New York in 1961 in Hebrew. Not enough individuals have read this book. The ghastly facts uncovered in it are not sufficiently well known.
Who can imagine the Hitlerite holocaust? Where is the language to describe it? All the known words of human speech have already been used for conventional occurrences; they have acquired everyday meanings and have been fashioned with an inability to describe the horrors of an Auschwitz or a Treblinka. What can be said to make individuals understand the wild cries of the night, when our brothers and sisters were led to the slaughterhouses? And in what way can one convey the conversion of precious Jews to the status of animals preparatory to being slaughtered?
Skyscraping walls prevented their cries being heard, and in that horrible man-made silence, the most valuable portion of the Jewish people was compressed in the confines of the ghettos in hunger and in thirst, in epidemics and in torture, crying bitterly, only to themselves, until the end of their anguish; when they were loaded into the sealed anguish; when they were loaded in the sealed cattle-wagons for the week-long journeys, when their corpses and the still have-living reached the slaughterhouses and gas chambers. Where can existing words be found to fit this story, and who is there to coin new phrases with meaning enough to tell this tale?
Yet all this was done through a directive from an innocent-looking office, where the S.S. murderers, with the methods of modern civilization gave the orders which, by chain reaction, set in motion all the machinery of death and destruction to which a stop could not be envisaged. One stroke of the pen to extinguish a hundred thousand lives. A few words enough for a million. And these few officers set the wheels turning in Auschwitz, in Treblinka; the Einsatzkomandos; the deep pits on the lonely plains of Europe overflowing with human blood. So much power behind it, such a military might enforcing it that only the winning of the World War could interfere with this running horror.
But how astonished was Rabbi Weissmandl to discover that these strokes of the pen could so easily have been erased, that the Jewish tragedy could to a considerable extent, have been alleviated by some simple “old fashioned” methods. How many hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives could have been saved—perhaps even millions.
Wisliceny was the German henchman for the Jews of Slovakia, Eichmann’s representative in that area for establishing the ghettos, destroying their livelihood and finally dispatching to slaughter the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Slovakia and the neighboring countries. He carried out this mission as directed by Eichman and as his own cravings commanded. His was the first country in Europe to be designated for the supply of Jews to the slaughter houses, as it was Slovakia that was first occupied by Hitler—even earlier than Poland. The puppet government of Cardinal Tissu had asked Hitler to “cleanse” its country of Jews. Officially it even paid Germany for transportation, and Wisliceny was the ultimate ruler and organizer. He was nearly always drunk; drunk from spirits and intoxicated with blood—and seemingly unassailable.
Rabbi Weissmandl
Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl, at the end of 1943, when two thirds of the Jews of Slovakia had already been transported for “work” to that far destination, got to know through a certain Hochberg—an S.S. intriguer, and second in command to Wisliceny, that his chief was also lustful for money and that already on more than one occasion, money had bought relief for some individuals, postponing their deportation. Overwhelmed with joy at this discovery, he consulted his father-in-law, the great and renowned rabbi of Nitra, ztl, who agreed that if this old-fashioned method was effective, there was no reason why it would not be attempted on behalf of the great masses to be saved.
Rabbi Weissmandl writes of this same Hochberg, “I was first there on Friday in the summer of 1942—Tammuz, 5702. I was standing in the corridor near to the office of Hochberg and all of the waiting rooms around were crowded with those who had come to Hochberg to beg a postponement of that ultimate journey for “work in the east,” as many still believed. I heard the voice of Hochberg speaking on the phone to his chief, Wisliceny saying, ‘Her Hauptstumbandfuehrer, ich melde ghorehsamst, the train has left: Man 727, Women 637, Children 1667: altogether 3,028 Jawohl!’ Never will this total leave my memory; 1600 children! No outcry and no tears. No one cares. The whole world is silent. Jawohl, Herr Hauptsturmbanfuehrer.
One of the famous men of Pressberg, Reb Aharon Gruenhut, finally succeeded in gaining confidence by Hochberg in Rabbi Weissmandl, for whom a secret appointment was arranged. On this occasion, the rabbi presented himself as one who had connections with rabbinical circles throughout the world. He showed Hochberg his passport that contained a British visa issued just before the outbreak of war, and told him of his visit to London and of conferences there to impress him with his high standing. He then made it clear that he had come on a secret mission of the highest importance as a representative of Jewry abroad, who had contacted him through the American “Joint” in Switzerland. Their message was that they were prepared to pay in cash for the stopping of all further transports of Jews from Slovakia to the east. The “Joint” was ready to pay the price that his chief, Wisliceny, would name. Rabbi Weissmandl emphasized that neither Hochberg nor Wisliceny should believe that his mission was directed by local Jews.
During this conversation with Hochberg in 1943, when the scales of war were already a little out of balance for Hitler’s Germany after the heavy defeats in the east and the support of the allies by American might, Rabbi Weissmandl was able, with American might, Rabbi Weissmandl was able , with careful tact, to introduce doubts into Hochberg’s mind about German world conquest, and more specifically about Hochberg’s own position after the war. He conveyed to him that it would be very much to his and his chief’s advantage to make some provisions for their own safety. In this respect, he was now authorized to offer the promise of World Jewry that if they would stop all further transports, he and Wisliceny would be save.
Hochberg became enraged at such suggestions, but as the conversation progressed, he became much softer and began to listen carefully to what was proposed. He listened and replied, “I must go to see Wisliceny.”
He left immediately and Rabbi Weissmandl waited. Every minute seemed like an hour; every hour seemed endless. He sat there exhausted, awaiting the reply fateful for the remaining Jews of Slovakia, with so many hanging in the balance.
He had set there for many hours, when suddenly the door burst open and Hochberg hurried into the room. Speaking rapidly and with great excitement, he said, “the deal is done. My chief asked for $50,000 and no further transports will be sent; but he lays down the following terms: Wisliceny will show his goodwill: three transports—next Tuesday, next Friday, the following Tuesday—each of about 3000 souls, will be held up, but on Friday after that, the first Installment of $25,000 must be handed over. After that, there will be no further transports for seven weeks, to enable the second installment of $25,000 to be obtained and paid, after which there will be a final stopping of all transports. There is one further condition. You must be able to show that the money comes from abroad and not from Slovakian Jews themselves.”
The latter was an important point to this S.S. henchman, as a guarantee that it was world Jewry who was behind the deal, and who would finally keep its promise for his safety. In any case, Rabbi Weissmandl did not then think that Slovakian Jews could possibly find such a sum, as by that time they had been stripped of all their possessions. On that other hand, he did not imagine for one moment that the wealthy “Joint” would not provide such a relatively small sum to save literally tens of thousands of lives from total annihilation in the German slaughterhouses.
Rabbi Weissmandl left Hochberg’s office with hope and joy. He hurried home to Nitra to inform his father-in-law and to set about getting the deal consummated. The Rabbi of Nitra, in spite of his happiness at the possibility of saving so many lives, expressed some reservation. He felt that from a distance the “Joint” would not see their tragedy, and that the Zionist leaders working together with the “Joint” had a different calculation. But he suggested, representatives from beyond the “Kanzelel”—the Council of Orthodox Jewish Communities—should be drawn into this, and even the Zionists and non-Orthodox groups taken into partnership.
The name of Mrs. Gisi Fleischman came to the forefront, as she was of Zionist circles and also the pre-war representative of the “Joint” in Slovakia. Besides her prominence, she was a good-hearted and courageous women and her word would carry weight with the “Joint”. It was also decidedly to call on Mr. Fuerst—known for both his integrity and financial ability.
Among the weapons with which the Zionists have equipped themselves to pierce the walls of resistance to their influence, there is one most predominant. This is “ahavas Yisroel”—love of the fellow Jew. This slogan and catch-phrase carries extra weight with the religious Jew to whom this concept has a special attraction. The Zionists have explained that their aim is achieving statehood is to provide a refuge and shelter for much tormented Jewry.
The long, bloody paths of our, till now, 2000 year long exile, with its inquisitions, persecutions, pogroms, slaughter and torture, has always been at the front of every Jews mind. Seldom was there a place on this earth inhabited by Jews, or a stretch of time, without blood and tears at the hands of our many persecutors of all nations. It was these pogroms that provided, for the short-sighted, the initial conditioning to seek a solution in the outward idea of Zionist achievements.
Possibly the Zionists, themselves, at the first steps of inception, were honestly taken by the idea of that solution; and it was this kernel of compassion that gave to them the power to influence others with this superficial consideration. Zionism has built on the basis that the solution of nationhood applicable to any other nation is in the same way also applicable to Jewry, as they could see no difference between the nations of the world and the Jewish people. As they see it, Jews regulate their fate by the same ways and means as all other peoples. The belief in exile by Heavenly Decree as a punishment for our sins, and the belief in Heavenly Redemption by the Will of the Creator was, to Zionism, non-existent. People’s thoughts were not directed to the fundamental, all-embracing heresy upon which Zionism was established, but grasped only the attractive promises that were offered because unfortunately, Zionism arrived in the most feeble and small of all generation, coupled with distressing happenings, which contributed to the closing of people’s minds to the truth and to their being led astray by the Zionist Idea.
How much were Rabbi Weissmandl and his colleagues overcome with joy when they succeeded in getting the right people together! How great was their hope! But how much were they overwhelmed by sorrow when they tried to get things in motion, and how great was their frustration when they learned that the Zionists, together with the “Joint”, stopped every outside help from reaching them. This was not only when it was a question of saving the remnants of the Jews of Slovakia—about 40,000 souls—but also when the possibility of saving what was still left of the Jews of Poland and Hungary was in question; a matter then of millions of souls. Then, too, the Zionists deliberately prevented any help from being extended under various excuses that even a child could see through. This was their policy—stupid and merciless—but they perused it relentlessly. In the end, they admitted openly that their policy was not to help fellow Jews, but to let them perish in the tens of thousands and in their millions.
This is forever unforgettable and unforgivable. Zionist “ahavas Yisroel” must be displayed conspicuously and beyond any doubt.
The Friday when the first installment of $25,000 had to be paid was fast approaching and there was not yet a way how this money could be found for Wisliceny. Mrs. Flesichman was also the representative of the World Jewish Congress and well known to the Jewish Agency. She was, therefore, considered to be the most suitable person to make contact with these organizations. Her words would be listed to….
The pressure became even greater when it was seen the S.S. oligarchy was in earnest. The first transport has been stopped. But how can contact be made with Zurich, with New York and with Jerusalem, the seat of the Jewish Agency, which influenced and coordinated the work of these other two bodies? Slovakia was then a small country sealed off by the German occupation of the surrounding territory. There was no common border with any free country, so how could any message be conveyed to the outside world?
Shloime Stern was instrumental in finding a temporary solution. He obtained a diplomatic courier, who was prepared to take all the important messages to the “Joint” in Zurich. He was also able to borrow money, temporarily, from various sources in Slovakia, putting together the equivalent of the enormous sounding sum of $25,000. The money obtained was changed on the back market for dollars and handed over to Hochberg for Wisliceny. Hochberg accepted it and came back with the message that there would be no further transports for seven weeks, which time was set for the completion of the deal.
They were all convinced that once the diplomatic courier would get their message to the “Joint” and the Jewish Agency, not $50,000 but ten times $50,000 would at once be put at their disposal for this and similar “deals.” Surely Jews the world over would dance for joy upon hearing that at last the door was open in the inner circles of the S.S. and a way found to rescue their fellow Jews.
Mrs. Fleischman sat down to write the memorandum to Salli Mayer, the “Joint” representative in Switzerland. She was careful in her every word, explaining the situation of hope that had been ignited. The “Joint” should hasten its help at this last moment and miss the life-saving opportunity that had been so dramatically forced. The memorandum was sent to the “Joint”, to the Jewish Agency and to a personal friend of hers, Mr. N. Schwalbe in Zurich. And then they sat down to wait.
Days went by, swallowed by weeks, and of the seven not many were left. The time for the final settlement was fast approaching and a great sum of money was needed. Many people had managed to escape from the hell of Poland to Slovakia on their way to Hungary and Romania, which were not yet being so intensely processed by the Hitler hordes. They were not a thousandth of a percent of those who were so brutally done to death, but still a number to be supported and a problem of Slovakian Jewry. Money was needed to bribe the Slovakian genarmerie and police to stop their pressure for the deportations to continue. Money was needed for the labor camps in Sered, Novaki and Wiener in Slovakia.
The Slovakian anti-Semitic government had built these camps for a slave labor before deportation began, and it was put to those Jews still left there that if they, themselves, would build up and increase the capacity of those labor camps, they would absorb more and so relieve the pressure for “deportations.” and above all, the money was needed to refund the temporary loans from so many sources that had gone towards the first payment to Wisliceny and to provide the second $25,000 that would finally seal this blood transaction.
All this money was a matter of life or death for the tens of thousands of Jews in Slovakia and, in the end, for millions still alive throughout Europe. Who could provide and who should provide, if not the “Joint” and the Jewish Agency, who held possession of the vast sums of money given by Jews the world over for the help of their brethren in need? Was there anywhere at all any need that was greater?
The diplomatic courier left for Zurich, holding in his hands the lamentations of the strangling remnants of Jewry; in his hands, their appeal from death.
This courier had to spend some days in Zurich before his return. He was awaited with mounting anxiety, for with his advent were tied up all the hopes of the masses under sentence.
And he returned. But not even a letter was sent with him by those “help organizations” only a verbal message that they had no time to write, and of help there was no mention at all.
Rabbi Weissmandl writes that on hearing this message, they ‘felt as though the house had collapsed on them’. It was only Mrs. Fleischman who started to explain matters after this great shock. She said that “uncle” Salli Mayer was a very cautious man and it was necessary to write again. It was also necessary to write to Mr. Silbersten, the Jewish Congress representative. “And who knows, maybe they are doing something great,” she added. Maybe for such a big undertaking they had to refer to New York and Jerusalem—who knows?
Rabbi Weissmandl, himself, followed up with letters to the Agency and the “Joint” in the name of the Rabbis left in Slovakia—letters of tears and of pleading—but still there was no reply. Meanwhile, the seven weeks had passed and they had to send to Hochberg, asking him to explain to Wisliceny that the messenger that was to bring the money from Switzerland had met with an accident and was delayed in a hospital there. He would be bringing the money in three or four weeks time. Wisliceny agreed to wait.
In the end, a letter did come from the “Joint”; a letter written by Salli Mayer, which said that $50,000 was a lot of money for such a small country, and that in the previous year’s budget of the “joint”, only a few thousand dollars had been allocated for them. The “Joint” had to be run according to their system. The explanation given in the memorandum why they now need all this money and the documentary evidence as to what was happening in Poland, to which country the “deportations” took place, were exaggerated stories. This was the way of Eastern European Jewry, who were always asking for money. In general, he added, it was impossible to send anything at all just then, as the money was coming from America, which had prohibited the sending of funds to enemy countries. What was possible to do was to render some small help, monthly, if the “Joint” in Hungary would agree to do this out of the blocked account that been held since the outbreak of the war.
Rabbi Weissmandl and his colleagues read the letter, but they could not believe it had been written by fellow Jews. Their hearts stopped beating when its contents became clear to them. But this was not the end. There was a further letter. It fully explained the first. But it was more deadly and more devastating. It disclosed the bottomless abyss to which born- Jews can sink—the responsibility of Zionism.
You can rant & rave, but the FACTS will stick in your miserable throat. Zionist Jews were responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of their fellow Jews.
Go back & read Nehemiah, Jeremiah & Isaiah, G-d could only find a handful of Jews who would His will, & its the same today. The only GOOD Jew is a MESSIANIC JEW.
Gerald Goldberg
Ghouls.
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/body-snatchers-your-kindly-jewish-rabbi-kidney-brokers-resell-organs-from-poorest-nations-on-black-market/
and harvesting body parts in Israel. How much you wanna bet they harvest body parts here ?
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/israeli-army-killing-palestinians-in.html
Hey Palony. You are not a “semite”. Try again . . .
Hi Benny Plonie,
I thought you might like to read a bit of history, it makes interesting reading.
THE JEWS WHO LOVED HITLER
Perhaps no subject on Earth has been so misrepresented as that between Adolf Hitler and German Jewry. On the one side were groups of Nationalists and Communists who hated Jews and would stop at nothing to vent their hatred against any and all Jews. On the other side were moderate (for that time) Germans who collaborated with Jewish Zionists to reach an amicable settlement which would gradually move Jews to a homeland of their choice (usually Palestine), which was seen as a positive thing by many Germans and Jews. Adolf the Great was of the second (moderate) group, which caused much bitterness between the two factions, because it was often perceived that Hitler took little meaningful action against the Jews, while often actively assisting Jews and even harboring Jews as personal friends.
The German collaboration with Jewish Zionists (Haavara Agreement) resulted in most German Jews having already left Germany before the war began, an odd agreement seen from today’s politically correct perspective where the deliberate and brutal murder of all Jews is taught and legally enforced (In many countries including Germany, France, Canada etc) on pain of imprisonment or huge fines. This mass-movement of people was achieved in a peaceful manner, with many Jews praising Adolf for the manner in which he conducted this delicate procedure. As a result, many Jews fought for Hitler during the war. Jews even nominated Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize. In short, there was a great deal of support for Hitler from Jewish people until the day he died. Some of this support is documented below. Today’s (almost) universal Jewish hatred against Hitler is a syndrome fuelled by propaganda after the war, and deserves further study elsewhere. The seeds of this later syndrome lies mainly with Non-German, typically American Jews, who initiated a worldwide campaign against Hitler and all German Jews that “collaborated” with Hitler.
Divisions shaping Jewish society in National Socialist Germany
The standard theory that “all Nazis hated al Jews” is often accepted as the politically correct thing to believe. Sadly that belief breeds mischief and can sow the seeds of future strife. The more rational truth is that Nazi’s had both good and bad in their ranks. Similarly Jewish people in Europe had both good and bad in their ranks. The same logic holds true for subdivisions of people - e.g. the German Police Force or Jewish communists.
The path to understanding what really motivated all parties is to study their major divisions; their hopes and aspirations, and see the development of events through the eyes of each group. If events only make sense by criminalizing an entire group, one has missed out on something vitally important. Some groups are more highly motivated than others and likely have different moral standards to others. These should all be weighed against one another in order to understand events.
With that in mind, let us take a brief look at the major divisions shaping society in Nazi Germany.
MAJOR GERMAN JEWISH DIVISIONS
• Jews who have lost their Jewish identity and are totally absorbed into German society.
• Jews who view themselves as an independent group and wish to rule themselves in a land of their own.
• Jews who view themselves as an independent group, but have no desire to leave the comforts of their host country.
• People from amongst the above groups who support a Marxist revolution in Germany.
Obviously there are further complications such as military background, age and religion, but in the interest of simplicity we will consider mainly those listed above.
Other important factors:
• The majority of German Jews are Ashkenazi, who on average have a remarkably high verbal IQ. This is a genetic trait which results in those Jews naturally taking up top positions in society such as in medicine, politics and economics. This causes resentment in the general population who often suspect vile motives and conspiracies, which is typically not the case, except in politics.
• Jews are unique in world history in not permitting their society to merge significantly with that of host countries. This has protected their culture and genetic lineage for hundreds of years - to a large degree. This feature of Jewish society also includes mutual support across borders. Jews are more inclined to support their racial brethren than other cultures, but occasionally also prone to harm one another, perhaps not unusual in any race..
MAJOR GERMAN NON-JEWISH DIVISIONS
• Nationalists in Germany, also including Germans living adjacent to, but not part of Germany who were deprived of their German citizenship after the first world war.
• National Socialists who want better conditions for the common working class, but without involving foreign powers.
• Germans who support a Marxist/socialist revolution in Germany. This group is split into those who rabidly object to Jewish participation and/or leadership, and those who do not object to a Jewish role in the revolution.
These divisions are simplistic, but will do for now.
Other important factors:
• Germans have the highest technical ability, on average, in the world. This is an inherited trait and is the reason Germany was technically the world leader before the war.
• Germans were shamelessly abused by the treaty of Versailles and general resentment was a national fact. Combined with poverty coupled with international threats and impossible restitution payments, the German public were eager to improve their lot, and astounded and impressed by the obvious prosperity wrought by the Nazi government.
• Adolf Hitler was remarkable in his ability to keep disparate groups of people working together for a common cause. His high intelligence and habit of surrounding himself with others of high ability caused Germany to recover economically and be perceived as a threat by her trading partners, particularly Great Britain.
Adolf Hitler was an astute politician. He realized that a democratic victory could only be obtained by being inclusive to as many disparate factions as possible. In this he was deliberately vague, as is wont with politicians in every Western democracy. Adolf targeted Jewish communists as the enemy, but knew that the finer nuances would not be comprehensible to the average public, so his simplistic message was: “Blame the Jews and blame the communists - which is usually the same thing”. This is a simple propaganda message which was popular with the electorate and got him elected.
Such duplicity is common in politics. When Adolf gained power he simply failed to implement certain policies he had previously hinted at, although still often giving them lip-service. For example, he had previously stated as an absolute principle that certain private property would be nationalized or confiscated, a sop to attract communist voters. Once in power Hitler did no such thing and after some time this caused unrest in the ranks. Some top National Socialists had first converted from being staunch Jew-haters and communist agitators to National Socialists, such as Julius Streicher and Ernst Rohm. Hitler was treating Jews far too lightly to their minds and they saw this as tantamount to treason. A plot to get rid of Hitler was hatched and the infamous “Night of the long knives” followed after the plot was discovered. Adolf Hitler was not an untouchable dictator. He constantly had to intervene and compromise with his supporters and antagonists, often unable to swing things his way but on average succeeding well enough for his purposes.
The new German government quickly had trouble from anti-Semites in their own ranks The international Jewish community declared economic war on Germany and the near-bankrupt country was in a state of shock as foreign reserves quickly dwindled to zero. Of course the Jews were publicly blamed; quite correctly, for this state of affairs, though the majority of German Jews certainly had nothing to do with this. But many rabid anti-Semites among Hitler’s supporters demanded action, and clearly something had to be done.
Adolf’s method of dealing with his anti-Semitic supporters over the Jewish problem was typically innovative, although misunderstood by many. He tried to find a formula which would solve the problem, cause minimum disruption and maximum long-term benefir to Germany. The chief supporters of the Jewish war against Germany were mostly German communists who in turn were mainly Jewish. Adolf had them rounded up and imprisoned in concentration camps. Then Adolf tried to find common ground with the Moderate Jews in Germany, and found that Zionists were eager to work together with him. The partnership held firm until the end of the war in 1945.
In practice this meant that all German Jewry had to be partitioned into sections:
• Germans with one or more Jewish grandparents were classed as “Jewish”.
• Other Germans are not Jewish.
• On request or by decree, some Jews could be re-classified regardless of their Jewish ancestry. This happened to an astonishing degree, with Adolf Hitler himself signing a good many such re-classifications.
Jews who wished to emigrate to Palestine or elsewhere were treated well; discriminated against in a few respects and lavishly assisted in other respects. All Jews lost their German citizenship and were in certain categories limited as to their profession, but were permitted to have their own schools and living areas which were financially assisted by the German government. Those who emigrated were given lavish assistance to the extent that a chorus of complaints sounded from within the National Socialist hierarchy.
The overall situation was such that although many Jews emigrated - large numbers of them later decided to return to Germany as, despite the limitations imposed on Jews by the German Government, life was considerably better in Adolf the Great’s revitalized Germany than in the financial depression which still ravaged the rest of the world. Most Jewish businesses in Germany continued to thrive without interference, even right through the war years.
Jews locked in concentration camps formed a minority there as these were mainly the communist and criminal elements in the Jewish community. The bulk of prisoners were German criminals, homosexuals and others.
The Gestapo and SS developed excellent relations with Zionist groups in Germany and Palestine. Soon an agreement was signed whereby approved Zionist representatives could visit any German concentration camp and recruit Jewish members for emigration to Palestine. The Zionist representative had total authority to select any or all Jewish inmates that were willing, and the Nazi government would assist financially. Zionists wanted Jews to emigrate, and the Nazis wanted Jews to leave. It was a match made in heaven.
The overwhelming support by Zionists also severely disrupted the international Jewish economic war against Germany. Things were going well. If some non-Zionist Jews grumbled and complained; well, that was just too bad. These were difficult times for everyone. The Jewish “problem” was resolving itself and Germany was rapidly emptying of undesired Jews. The process was peaceful and the economy improved for everyone in Germany. Because of this amazingly peaceful revolution Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel peace prize by a group of Jews headed by Gertrude Stein.
It was too good to last. The international Jewish community was livid and took steps to halt all Jewish emigration from Germany. In this they were agonizingly successsful. Protests by Jewish organizations in Germany against the international Jewish war fell on deaf ears.
The Zionist Jew, Georg Kareski, repeatedly urged the Nazi government to introduce a Jewish Star of David, to be worn by Jews. Eventually his suggestion was accepted and On October 1939 it was ordered (by Chief of Defense Canaris) that this measure should be introduced in the General Government, and on September 15, 1941 it was ordered for the entire Reich.
Jewish leader, Georg Kareski
“The Nuremberg laws also fulfill old Zionist demands”
Kareski fully approved of those sections of the Nazi law which described and enforced the racial separation of Jews and Germans. These, he claimed, legally expressed the long held desire of Jews to develop in their own National direction. The same racial laws are still used by Israel even today, to determine the “Jewishness” of a prospective immigrant..
“Hitler… one of the most significant figures who ever lived”
President J.F. Kennedy
“Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived…
He had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him.
He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he (Hitler) has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War ... whatever else may be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”
- Winston Churchill,
Prime Minister and Statesman,
Great Britain.
The Zionist Federation of Germany (by far the largest Zionist group in the country) submitted a detailed memorandum to the new government that reviewed German-Jewish relations and formally offered Zionist support. The first step, it suggested, had to be a frank recognition of fundamental national differences:
“...Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses in the cultural domain, we—having been brought up in the German language and German culture—can show an interest in the works and values of German culture with admiration and internal sympathy ...
For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration of even a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question not sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples and at the present moment especially the German people ...
Boycott propaganda—such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways—is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build ...
We are not blind to the fact that a Jewish question exists and will continue to exist. From the abnormal situation of the Jews severe disadvantages result for them, but also scarcely tolerable conditions for other peoples.”
PROMINENT ZIONISTS WANT ALL JEWS OUT OF GERMANY
“each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews”
- Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization and first president of the state of Israel.
Zionism was actively supported by the SS, the Gestapo and Adolf Hitler.
Between 1933 and 1942 there existed an organized a network of 40 camps throughout Germany where prospective Jewish settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine. These German funded “Kibbutz” training camps were run by Zionists. When the emigrants left for Palestine they were permitted to take all their wealth with them.
This was the direct result of an agreement between Zionists and Germany, whereby Jews would be encouraged to settle in Palestine, Madagascar, or other areas denoted by the Zionist group.
Through this “Transfer” agreement, Hitler’s Germany did more than any other government to support Jewish nationalism and further Zionist goals.
Other Jewish groups sabotaged the agreement when they successfully caused Palestine, Brittain, the US and other European countries all to refuse entry to the Jewish emigrants. Many ships were sent back to Germany from Palestine, the UK and the US for this reason.
Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, “Tel Aviv”, while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a “metaphysical absurdity”. Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Jews and Hitler’s Third Reich.
THE “FINAL SOLUTION”
Many Zionists of that era openly supported Nazism and encouraged Adolf Hitler to send his “Unwanted Jews” to British Palestine / Israel.
Adolf was delighted to cooperate. By encouraging Jewish emigration more than two-thirds of Germany’s Jews emigrated voluntarily in a peaceful process whereby they were permitted to take their wealth with them. Compared to previous pogroms against Jews this was relatively civilized and painless. What Germany considered their “Jewish Problem” was two-thirds solved - peacefully - by the time war broke out, but Jewish emigration to Israel was stopped by Britain who was having political trouble with different Jewish pressure groups.
Many Zionists were delighted with the German collaboration process and made suggestions to the Nazis to help speed up the process, such as forcing Jews in Germany to wear the Star of David - a Zionist innovation. The more pressure German Jews felt, the more would emigrate to Israel, so the theory went. The end result (and proposed “Final Solution”) was the resettlement of Jews in Palestine and elsewhere.
After other countries stopped accepting Jews from German held territories, Adolf had many of the remaining European Jews incarcerated and deported to the east, but continued to seek other destinations for them. Other countries, such as the US and Britain, were persuaded not to accept Jewish emigrants from Germany. International Jewish lobby groups had implemented this refusal policy throughout Allied and neutral countries.
Dear Plonker Plonie,
I have shown you a “picture” of Jewish Zionism & Its Love for Adolf Hitler. Now I want to show you the Person most Jews HATE:
JESUS CHRIST CLASSED AS A HATE CRIMINAL BY JEWS
If Jesus walked the earth today in Canada and most European countries, He would be an oft-convicted “hate criminal.” In some hate laws countries it is now an indictable offense to publicly criticize Jesus’ primary target: sinners in need of God’s love and salvation!
Because Jesus boldly, publicly reproved all sinners regardless of consequences to Himself, He would now suffer multiple arrests, imprisonments, and huge legal costs if He lived in most hate law countries. There is one hate crime for which He would suffer the most: being an “anti-Semite.” The Jewish Anti-Defamation League created hate laws. Anti-Christian Jewish-dominated attack-groups such as ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center, People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union are the spiritual and physical descendants of those Jesus excoriated: the Pharisees. ADL has made sure that in all of its hate law bureaucracies worldwide, any criticism of matters Jewish is deemed anti-Semitic and punished severely.
History of Jewish “Speech Criminals”
In ancient Israel, under leadership of false priests, prophets, and evil kings, it was as much a speech crime to criticize the Jewish people as it is in Europe, America & Canada today. One of Jesus’ first acts of public “anti-Semitism” occurred in his home synagogue of Nazareth. Standing before the congregation, He criticized the unworthiness of most Jews during the history of Israel. His listeners were so enraged they tried to throw him over a cliff! (Luke 6:16-30) Three years later their leaders finally succeeded in having him crucified. If these Jews lived today, they would surely have filed a hate crimes charge against Jesus for holding the Jewish people up to “hatred and contempt.” The Pharisees would have filed charges for each of His dozens of accusations against them. Each charge of Jewish hurt feelings would bring a $5,000 fine. Of course, Jesus would repeat the offense and face many contempt of court charges and years of imprisonment as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines and legal costs.
All the greatest Hebrew prophets would join Him in prison. Ahab accused Elijah of the “anti-Semitic” crime of troubling Israel. Ahab declared him to be Israel’s most wanted hate criminal for criticizing its sin and bringing three years of drought. Jeremiah was repeatedly accused by both laity and leaders of speaking against the Jewish people and their holy city. For this they threw him in a well to die. In almost every age, going back to Israel’s exodus from Egypt, evil Jewish leaders forbade criticism of God’s chosen people. During the Exodus the rebels of Korah said, “all the congregation is holy… and the Lord is among them.” (Deuteronomy 16:3) They denounced Moses as an enemy of the people for criticizing and judging evil Hebrews.
Since then history has recorded the rise of Pharisaism and enshrinement of their Talmud and Zohar as the highest religious guide to Jews of all time. Today Talmudic Jews still consider it very wrong, even blasphemous, for any Gentile to criticize the Chosen Race. In fact, ADL’s Office of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department says any “strong” criticism of Israel, including its leaders or military, is anti-Semitic
Sir,
I would like to validate Gerald Goldberg’s The Jews Who Loved Hitler:
THE PACT BETWEEN HITLER & THE ZIONISTS
Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, and on the 7th August 1933 he entered into a Pact with representatives of the World Jewish Agency, the future Leaders of Israel. The Pact was called the ‘Haavara’ Agreement. ‘Haavara in Hebrew means much like, ‘Moving house’. The Ha’avara Agreement, was an agreement between the Jews living in Germany and Germany specifically allowing Jews living in Germany, the privilege of taking their money with them, usually by a round about means, to Palestine. Hitler considered the Haavara Agreement to be a top priority for his administration and by November of 1933 it was in full swing and it kept functioning until at least 1942. The following Jewish banks were involved in the transfer of money: A.E. Wasserman in Berlin and Warburg &Co; in Hamburg. Yes, the same Warburg, from her New York based office, which was involved in financing the Jewish revolution in Russia.
The German Interior Ministry was made responsible for the logistics of the scheme; the Reichsbank and the German Treasury were responsible for financing the mass emigration.
According to the Jewish Author Tom Segev, the Haavara Agreement saved the World Jewish Agency from bankruptcy. While Jewish students were being evicted from German schools the Jewish Agency set up schools in Germany for Jewish students. Jewish Teachers were bought to Germany from Palestine and everything was paid for by the Nazis. Not only were these Schools and teachers paid for by the Nazis but there was absolutely no interference from the Nazis as to the teaching curriculum. As well as Jewish Schools the Nazis set up Adult training programmes to prepare the Jewish youth for life in Palestine . The first Kibbutz farm was set up in Germany.
The Jewish settlement in Palestine, was known to the Jews themselves as being Eretz Israel—the Jewish homeland (Eretz meaning greater Israel)—and it was this nation, in the early 1930’s by whatever name one cares to use, Jewish Palestine, or Eretz Israel, that desperately desired the financial assistance and Jewish immigration which were fundamentally assured by the Transfer Agreement. For the purposes expressed herein, the term, Eretz Israel, for want of a more generally recognised term, best describes the secretive Jewish nation dispersed amongst the nations of the Christian and Muslim Worlds, yet centred in Palestine, before the start of the Second World War. Most Jewish and stooge writers have not cared to describe the pre-Second World War Jewish people, as belonging to a secretive nation amongst the nations. Further, these same writers have been somewhat reluctant to publicise the secretive Transfer Agreement or its ramifications. If a nation is composed of a people having a common loyalty, than there is no doubt that the nation of Eretz Israel had materialized prior to WW2. Many of the attributes including various political bodies, agencies, and international treaties normally used by independent states were present in Eretz Israel prior to the establishment of the Israeli State. A good example of such an agency was the establishment of the Mossad in the 1930’s which right into the beginning of WW2 had offices in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and London, which were funded by and reported to the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv. (See the Kimchi Brothers book, the Secret Roads)
The signing of the Transfer Agreement with Germany was a really big indication that in reality, Eretz Israel from 1933 onward, was acting like and was effectively being treated like an independent although secretive nation by a significant part of the West. It is the position of this author that just as that nation within and amongst the nations had power domestically in Eretz Israel, far greater than the popular conception. It is also this author’s thought that various “host” nations to the Jews in the early 20th century, were considerably influenced, if not ruled by their Jewish “guests”.
HITLER AND THE JEWS
Hitler recognised that the Jews held sway with the Western World. It is further my opinion that Adolf Hitler wasn’t nearly as anti-Jewish, in fact, as both his detractors and he himself tried to make others believe. Granted, Hitler, said a lot of nasty things about the Jews in Mein Kamf and otherwise. I suggest that inquiring readers look to the writings of Ernst Hanfstaengl, Hennecke Kardel, and Hans Frank for remaining vestiges of the truth, which have been so long suppressed. It appears to this writer that Hitler favourably treated many Jews and that he used extreme anti-Jewish rhetoric to curry favour domestically. Hitler was faced early in his Chancellorship in 1933, with either reaching an accommodation with the Jews or facing an early foreign intervention in Germany itself. It also became apparent that the Jews did have the power to successfully boycott German products internationally, if Germany didn’t see to reason. See the Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black, published by Macmillan Co., 1984, especially chapter 12, entitled, Fear of Preventive War and page 373. Germany, in 1933, was next to defenceless and Poland and Czechoslovkia, and perhaps other countries were prepared to pounce, if the Jews weren’t satisfied. The accommodation reached with the Jews in August, 1933, was afterwards ratified by the next session of the World Zionist Congress, the 19th Congress, which was held in Lucerne, Switzerland, in late 1935. This accommodation or agreement, permitted the compensation of “German” Jews leaving for Palestine, by the indirect means of German product sales being deposited into special accounts. Pursuant to the granting of special recognition of Jewish nationality in the agreement, Germany passed it’s Nuremberg laws, basically eliminating the Jew from German citizenship, within days after the 1935, 19th World Zionist Congress ratification of the Transfer Agreement, which had been signed in August, 1933. A German Zionist delegation, with Adolf Eichmann, as a guest observer, attended the 19th World Zionist Congress, in Lucerne. Edwin Black intimates on page 374 of his above described book that the Nineteenth World Zionist Congress ratification of the Transfer Agreement, in 1935 presaged the end for the Jews of Germany. Black, also opined in a manner of speaking, that after ratification, German Jews only had a place in Palestine.
THE GESTAPO PAYS DAMAGES TO THE JEWS
The Jewish Youth Organisation in Germany was called the ‘BETAR’, (aka. Bethar) they wore brown uniforms and the Nazis allowed them to hold Meetings, Seminars, Summer Camps, Sportsmeetings, Go Sailing , Go Tramping in the countryside and hand out Patriotic leaflets about Zionism. The Betar was the Jewish/ Zionist Version of the HJ (Hitler Jugend). One day a small group of SS men attacked a Betar Summer Camp and the Camp Leader complained to the local Gestapo. A few days later the Gestapo called the Betar Camp Leader to inform him that the offending SS Men had been punished and would he (the Betar Camp Leader) please inform the Gestapo what would be an acceptable payment for damages.
Sounds incredible doesn’t it, that the Gestapo punished the SS for damaging Jewish property, and then paying for the damage.
WHAT DID ‘HAAVARA’ COST GERMANY?
Dr Werner Feilchenfeld who was General Manager for the Haavara Trust from 1936 until 1942 gives the pure monetary costs at 139,6 Million Reichsmark and this did not include the mass of material and equipment also sent to Palestine , this material included Coal, Iron and Metal products and machines for Desalinating Sea water. From 1933 – 1941 around 100 Jewish settlements were built in West Galilea.
Since the end of the war many Jews have called the Haavara Agreement a Pact with the Devil, but Nahum Goldman described the Agreement as being quote; ‘an indispensable factor in the creation of the state of Palestine.’
The Arabs however were so concerned, by the close co-operation between the Nazis and the Zionists that they became convinced that Hitler must be a Jew who was just trying to establish a Jewish State throughout the Middle East.
GOEBBELS HAS A SPECIAL COIN MINTED TO CELEBRATE ZIONISM
In 1933 and 1934 The SS Untersturmführer Leopold Itz von Mildenstein from the SS Office for Jewish Affairs, travelled to Palestine on fact finding missions and he was accompanied on these tours by a number of Zionist officials. Although his first tour was planned for five months, von Mildenstein stayed over 6 months. He became a welcome guest at many Kibbutz Farms. His PRO-Zionist report, later printed in the Reichspropaganda Ministry Official magazine ‘ANGRIFF’ with the title ‘A Nazi travels to Palestine’ (Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina ‘) was so filled with praise and compliments about the work being done by the German Jewish settlers in Palestine that Goebbels had a special coin minted in honour of the Co-operation. The coin had a Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other side. In recognition of this coin, Palestines largest fruit growing firm decorated its Placard Advertising signs for Jaffa Oranges, with a huge portrait of King David flanked by Swastika flags.
ZIONISTS THANK GOEBBELS FOR THE ‘RACE LAWS’ OF 1935
In 1935 Germany introduced strict race laws, regulating who was considered to be a German and who not.
Instead of being upset by these laws, the head of the German Jewish Community and Head of Germany’s Zionist Movement Mr Georg Kareski gave an interview to the SS magazine ‘ANGRIFF’ printed on the 23 December 1935 in which he said he had been trying for years to find a method to keep the two races (Germans & Jews) separate, and he considered the race laws from the 15th Sept 1935 supported the Jewish desires. The Jews had been struggling against assimilation for nearly 2000 years and they needed such laws to support them in their struggle.
RAMIFICATIONS OF THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT
Effectively, the Transfer Agreement was an acknowledgement to the right of “German” Jews to “return” to Palestine and to take their money with them. Whether formally part of the secretive agreement or not, the concomitant right of the German government to define German nationality by it’s own lights would have to be logically inferred as agreed too, by the nation which accepted the principles of Encouraged and Privileged Emigration of it’s nationals then resident in Germany.
The preferences accorded to the Jews were not minor. Long before Hitler became the Chancellor, Germany had found itself critically short of foreign exchange. To prevent national insolvency, the German Government of Chancellor Brüning radically regulated the amount of money people could take out of Germany for any reason, including immigration to another country. Germans of any religion, were only permitted to take with them the equivalent of just a few dollars upon leaving the country. These rules continued being in effect under Hitler—only they were radically changed to favour Jews after the implementation of the Transfer Agreement.
The Transfer Agreement was in a manner of speaking, wildly successful. It has been estimated that two thirds of the Jewish population of the Greater Reich had departed the country by 1940. Without the Transfer Agreement, had WW2 proceeded as it did, then the numbers of Jews killed by air terror attacks in German cities would have been dramatically increased. Edwin Black, author of The Transfer Agreement, mentioned above, who claims to be Jewish, attributed to the Transfer agreement—the successful establishment of the modern State of Israel. See page 380 of his book. Black estimated that 60,000 German Jews directly or indirectly immigrated to Palestine from 1933 to 1941 using the provisions of the Transfer Agreement. See page 379 of his book. Personally, I believe his estimate is far to modest, just as I believe his estimate of the total value of the money transferred to Palestine per the Agreement, was too modest. Black seems to think that over a $100 million was transferred by the Transfer Agreement and related agreements. See page 379 of said book. Whatever, the true financial ramifications were, certainly, the Transfer Agreement provided a great impetus for encouraging Jews to leave Germany.
THE END OF THE LOVE AFFAIR
Dr Feilchenfeld managed to get six further European countries to sign up to the Haavara Agreement but Gestapo Reports from 16th January 1937 reveal there was an enormous amount of growing opposition to the Haavara Agreement coming from powerful Jewish circles in the USA who were concerned that their own sphere of influence was dwindling with every Jew that emigrated or was deported from Europe. In other words American Jewish Power in Europe was dependant on having as many Jews in Europe as they could possibly have.
As well as the American Jews, not all Jews were Zionists and many of these had been doing well financially living in Europe and didn’t want to leave. Many of these Jews were extremely rich and powerful and they had started to use their influence to sabotage the Haavara Agreement. They set up armed resistance and agitator groups to fight against Hitler’s idea. They also spread fabricated ‘atrocity’ propaganda about how badly Jews were being treated in Germany. This propaganda was designed to swing world opinion against Hitlers Haavara Pact. From 1936 many thousands of German / Jewish men actually went to Spain to fight for the Bolsheviks against Gen Franco and found themselves facing members of Germany’s Condor Legion…the first time Germans and Jews had been in direct armed conflict.
Another source of resistance was coming from Hitler himself who was also having second thoughts about setting up a Jewish Nation State. He realised that by helping setup a Jewish Nation State, and sending thousands of Jews to that State, he was actually giving all those Jewish forces who were gathering themselves against him, Money, Manpower and a central gathering point. Although the Haavara Agreement continued right on into WW2, most of the Jews that were later allowed to leave Germany were not of military age.
Hitler had already made other plans for the Jews, and they were to;
a) Make young and healthy Jews work for their food and lodgings in factories and
b) Resettle all other Jews in Western Russia south of Minsk until after the war finished.
Gerald ‘Goldberg’ (Wanker)
I don’t always appreciate my quality of life but I apparently have more of one than you do, so I feel kind of good about that. Let’s note that you have shlepped all the way over to a website of a Jewish publication whistling in the dark about your fantasies. Now that you and your fellow obsessives have expended perhaps fifteen thousand more words devoted to intimating that the Jews come from nowhere, hopelessly screw up, belong nowhere, and are evil, let’s get real:
Although the Jews were the most recent of the ancient nations and cultures to be formed, they are at present THE most ancient nation and culture on the planet, with an unbroken documented presence. They have a gravitas and reality lacked by all of the rest put together.
Although numbering only a fifth of one percent of the population mostly on account of ongoing oppression and extermination, the Jews are THE most accomplished, successful, influentiual and productive demographic segment of humanity. This is entirely due to their posession and retention of the most advanced civilization on earth and in history.
As I have noted, most of what you paste in here are lies from hate websites, but to the minor extent that you are not lying, I know full well about the errors and wrong choices made by some Jews who had internalized some portion of the non-Jewish evil surrounding them, against the admonition of the Torah incidentally. This does discredits neither the faithful Jews nor the Jewish corporate entity, and does not serve to allow the enemies of the Jews to cop out. Accusing various Zionists disturbs me not at all. If there were no secular Zionists, there would be (as there are) religious Zionists who are more rooted in historic reality than the secular.
What confuses you with regard to National Socialism is mainly that N.S. was just one more doomed attempt to craft an ersatz Jew-substitute, complete with cobbling together some kind of tribal identity and pride and all that. Obviously it was a fraud with no positive program and mission to motivate anyone for long. The ‘Palestinian’ nationalism is the samne kind of thing and fated to go the way of Nazism.
So you can go on fooling yourself in your support group for Jew-haters, but just realize that you cannot make a dent in the reality and the destiny of the actual Jews. History will shrug you off like a crushed cockroach.
Oops, comments crossed in the mail.
To Gerald ‘Goldberg’ (Wanker)
Now that last bit is really ineffective, as it is not confirmed that Jesus ever existed. And while it is not nice to criticize the Jews, the main problem with it is that such critcism always occurs out of context of real-world conditions. In every such case whether in the days of Ahab or in the last century, the Jews were still better than the non-Jews. While it is a worthy goal to be perfect, it is irrational to criticize those who are better than everyone else.
As for Harry Woods, what you seem to be saying is that Hitler actually wanted to help the Jews in spite of other Jews who wanted to kill the first Jews, and despite the fact that yet other Jews were an armed threat to Germany. What a guy. Just one lonely man struggling against a pincer action by the Jew Roosevelt and the Jew-dominated Churchill and Stalin.
Hi Benny EDITOR (Plonker),
JESUS CHRIST A HATE CRIMINAL, SAY JEWISH JOURNAL & CO
If Jesus walked the earth today in Canada and most European countries, He would be an oft-convicted “hate criminal.” In some hate laws countries it is now an indictable offense to publicly criticize Jesus’ primary target: sinners in need of God’s love and salvation!
Because Jesus boldly, publicly reproved all sinners regardless of consequences to Himself, He would now suffer multiple arrests, imprisonments, and huge legal costs if He lived in most hate law countries. There is one hate crime for which He would suffer the most: being an “anti-Semite.” The Jewish Anti-Defamation League created hate laws. Anti-Christian Jewish-dominated attack-groups such as ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center, People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union are the spiritual and physical descendants of those Jesus excoriated: the Pharisees. ADL has made sure that in all of its hate law bureaucracies worldwide, any criticism of matters Jewish is deemed anti-Semitic and punished severely.
History of Jewish “Speech Criminals”
In ancient Israel, under leadership of false priests, prophets, and evil kings, it was as much a speech crime to criticize the Jewish people as it is in Europe, America & Canada today. One of Jesus’ first acts of public “anti-Semitism” occurred in his home synagogue of Nazareth. Standing before the congregation, He criticized the unworthiness of most Jews during the history of Israel. His listeners were so enraged they tried to throw him over a cliff! (Luke 6:16-30) Three years later their leaders finally succeeded in having him crucified. If these Jews lived today, they would surely have filed a hate crimes charge against Jesus for holding the Jewish people up to “hatred and contempt.” The Pharisees would have filed charges for each of His dozens of accusations against them. Each charge of Jewish hurt feelings would bring a $5,000 fine. Of course, Jesus would repeat the offense and face many contempt of court charges and years of imprisonment as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines and legal costs.
All the greatest Hebrew prophets would join Him in prison. Ahab accused Elijah of the “anti-Semitic” crime of troubling Israel. Ahab declared him to be Israel’s most wanted hate criminal for criticizing its sin and bringing three years of drought. Jeremiah was repeatedly accused by both laity and leaders of speaking against the Jewish people and their holy city. For this they threw him in a well to die. In almost every age, going back to Israel’s exodus from Egypt, evil Jewish leaders forbade criticism of God’s chosen people. During the Exodus the rebels of Korah said, “all the congregation is holy… and the Lord is among them.” (Deuteronomy 16:3) They denounced Moses as an enemy of the people for criticizing and judging evil Hebrews. Since then history has recorded the rise of Pharisaism and enshrinement of their Talmud and Zohar as the highest religious guide to Jews of all time. Today Talmudic Jews still consider it very wrong, even blasphemous, for any Gentile to criticize the Chosen Race. In fact, ADL’s Office of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department says any “strong” criticism of Israel, including its leaders or military, is anti-Semitic.
Dear Benny Editor,
If yous Jews are soooooo great & Israel is sooooooooo wonderful, why are ye all running away from it? Could it be that ye see the proverbial shit hitting the fan?
Any Jew who doesn’t live in Israel, is not a REAL Jew. They are PRETEND Jews. BULL SHITTING JEWS who make a laugh of that century old saying, “Next year in Jerusalem.”
Bar Refaeli to ditch Israel
It comes as no surprise that model Bar Refaeli, Leonardo DiCaprio’s year-long arm accessory, is leaving Israel and moving to Los Angeles. After all, she doesn’t think her native country is even worth fighting for, so why would she want to continue living there?
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported yesterday that Refaeli told Yediot Achronot, an Israeli newspaper, that she doesn’t regret marrying a friend in order to dodge Israel’s mandatory army service. Apparently, she considers defending her country a waste of time and would much rather be posing in swimsuits to advance her modeling career.
The anti-patriot explained her reasons for moving in the Yediot interview:
“Israel or Uganda, what difference does it make? It makes no difference to me. Why is it good to die for our country? What, isn’t it better to live in New York?”
Refaeli said she’ll be living in Los Angeles for a few years, but I don’t expect to see her at any community functions supporting Israel.
Yo Brad,
If Plonie questions the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, then he can say the same about all the “Rabbi ben Plonies” in the Talmud.
All the Caesars & all the Greek philosophers . He makes stupid statements to hide his ignorance. I always thought it was the Ostrich that supposedly buried his head in the sand, but now I find its Jews like Plonie. Was it his mother who made the famous statement:
“Everyone is out of step except my Plonie”.
Plonie must never have read Ezekiel, because if he did
he would never have made such an IGNORANT statement.
In Ezekiel we read that the Jews were worst then the Sodomites.
I think the biggest problem with Jews today is their IGNORANCE
of Torah/Tanach.
Brad, have you ever read Deuteronomy chapters 27, 28 & 29?
The Curses & Blessings that would come upon the Jews.
Now ask yourself. “Is this the reason why we as a people
have suffered so much down through the centuries”?
What about verse 19 of chapter 29? Is that modern Judaism?
Is it you, Brad? Verses 20 to 29 is the consequences of
disobedience.
Is their hope for the Jewish people? Yes! Read chapter 30.
Occupying the Promised Land is CONDITIONAL. If the Jews
refuse to obey the Laws & Commandments of God, they will
lose their right to the Land. Do you understand this, Brad?
Chapter 31:14-29 states that Moses knew what was going to
happen after he died. Verse 29:
“For I know that after my death you will become UTTERLY
corrupt, & turn aside from the way which I have commanded
you. And evil will befall you in the latter days, because you
will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger
through the work of your hands.”
Have you ever wondered why the Israelites had to spend 40
years in the Wilderness? In Amos 5:23-27 we read what they
done after the God of Israel brought them out of Egypt. They
offered up their children to the idol Moloch as human sacrifices.
And you know something, Brad, the Jewish Talmud teaches
Jews how to offer human sacrifices to Moloch TODAY. Yes,
in Sanhedrin 64a-64b you can read how its done.
Jews would want to remind themselves at Passover, what
they did for 40 years in the Wilderness & why is it that the
Jewish Talmud teaches Jews how to offer human sacrifices
to the idol Moloch TODAY?
Gerald Goldberg
To Gerald ‘Goldberg’ (Wanker)
Now that last bit is really ineffective, as it is not confirmed that Jesus
ever existed. And while it is not nice to criticize the Jews, the main
problem with it is that such criticism always occurs out of context of
real-world conditions. In every such case whether in the days of Ahab or in
the last century, the Jews were still better than the non-Jews. While it is
a worthy goal to be perfect, it is irrational to criticize those who are
better than everyone else.
If all the Jews ran away from it, you would have no reason for dwelling on their alleged faults and probably no reason for living. So I guess there is hope.
Your example of an Israeli airhead model as representative of the oldest and most advanced civilization on the planet is ludicrous. The REAL Jews are the ones like Ephraim Khantsis, fresh off his computer science degree and moving to hold the high ground in Judea against enemies foreign and domestic. God can get more done with a dozen Ephraim Khantsis’s than with ten thousand Bar Refaeli’s (see Jephtah).
As for Jesus, it makes not much difference whether he existed or not. Since neither he nor his alleged disciples ever wrote anything down it is all hearsay, unlike the rabbis in the Talmud. Speaking of which, you tried the Moloch thing earlier and made no more sense than now (, moron). The passage you allege says Moloch-worship is ok is merely defining the specific offense and its punishment. As in - ‘aggravated assult or reckless endangerment?’ Something like that.
But more important for anyone who thinks you speak from more than evil ignorance: the Jews are indeed punished for failing to reach God’s absolute standard. For those purposes God does not mark on a curve. On a relative basis however, when Jews sin do you think the non-Jews are righteous? No, on that basis they are always worse, and that fact is studiously ignored by all antisemites who feel entitled to stand in the place of God to criticize the Jews. I have put out that challenge numberless times - OK, the Jews aren’t perfect. Who is better? (crickets… ) ...
Hi Benny Plonie,
The Collected Writings of Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons”
THEODOR HERZL
Theodor Herzl, father of political Zionism and founder of the World Zionist Organisation was born in 1860. Following his general education, Herzl studied law in Vienna. However, a year after gaining his doctorate, he began a career in journalism.
The growth of anti-Semitism in France stirred Herzl’s interest in the Jewish problem and the Dreyfus case convinced him that the only solution was for the Jews to leave the various anti-Semitic countries in which they resided and be resettled in a country of their own. He therefore decided to apply himself to the realisation of this ideal.
Herzl’s Diaries
Herzl had kept a diary as a young lawyer in the 1880s, but in May 1895, he started keeping a diary devoted entirely to the Jewish cause.
On 12 June 1895, Herzl confided to his diary his programme for the removal of the indigenous non-Jewish population from the Jewish State and the expropriation of private property by the Jewish State.
In those days, countries consisted of the few rich landowners and the multitude of poor, and Herzl had plans for each of these classes of population. With regard to the landowners, Herzl wrote in his diary: “When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently, the private property on the estates assigned to us.”(1) For the remainder of the population, he wrote in his diary on the same day: “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries whilst denying it any employment in our own country.”(2) We can thus see that the means Herzl envisaged to transfer non-Jews out of the Jewish State, was to deny them sources of livelihood in the Jewish State, and find them employment elsewhere.
In the above extract, it is noticable that Herzl did not use the words “Palestine” or “Arabs”. As can be seen from his book “The Jewish State” (Der Judenstaat) which was also written (or at least drafted) in the summer of 1895, Herzl had not yet decided on the final location of the Jewish State. “Shall we choose Palestine or Argentina?” wrote Herzl, and listed the advantages of each of these two locations.(3) Although Herzl did not state this in his book, Argentina may have suggested itself to him, because of the then recent purchase by Baron Maurice de Hirsch of a very large tract of land in Argentina to resettle three million Jews. At that time, Herzl was trying to interest Hirsch in his ideas. However, we are mainly interested in Herzl’s plan “to spirit the penniless (indigenous) population across the border.”
Herzl was also vague about the “transit countries” to which the non-Jewish poor would be spirited. One of Herzl’s biographers, Desmond Stewart, analyses this term in connection with both Argentina and Palestine. In the case of the former, Stewart comments, “There are no transit countries, only an ocean between Western Europe (where Herzl envisaged the Jewish migration as starting) and the coast of Latin America.” With regard to Palestine, there would also be no “transit countries” since Herzl (from an entry in his diary) envisaged the settlers arriving at Jaffa by ship. Hence Stewart concludes, “All that is clear is that most of the natives will have to leave.”(4)
Herzl realised that secrecy and discretion were necessary to put these ideas into practice. His diary entry thus continues, “The property-owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly. Let the owners of immovable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.”(5)
Herzl described his methods of expropriation. “The voluntary expropriation will be accomplished through our secret agents. The Company would pay excessive prices.” Herzl was determined that once property had been acquired it would be retained in the hands of the Jews. “We shall then sell only to Jews, and all real estate will be traded only among Jews,” he said. As a qualified lawyer, Herzl realised that he would not be able to declare sales to non-Jews invalid. He therefore took precautions to avoid resale to non-Jews, as he wrote, “If the owner wants to sell the property, we shall have the right to buy it back at our original sale price.”(6)
Herzl realised that some property owners would, for sentimental reasons, be reluctant to part with their properties and in such cases these people “will be offered a complete transportation to any place they wish, like our own people. This offer will be made only when all others have been rejected.”(7)
The phrase “like our own people” is amplified by Herzl in his book “The Jewish State”, where he explains how the “Jewish Company” will arrange the exchange of non-transferable goods of Jews moving to the Jewish State. “For a house it will offer a house in the new country, and for land, land in the new country; everything being, if possible, transferred to the new soil in the same state as it was in the old.”(8) Thus we can see, that in Herzl’s programme, as propounded in his diary, “in the last instance” non-Jewish estate owners in the Jewish State would be offered equivalent housing and land outside the area of the Jewish State.
Herzl says that in the case of the estate owners not accepting this offer, no harm would be done to them. The Jewish State would “set the entire old world a wonderful example” since the Jewish leaders would “respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion.”(9)
However, on the same day that he wrote the above, Herzl also noted down in his diary, several unpleasant and dangerous tasks for “the natives” prior to their transfer: “If we move into a region where there are wild animals to which Jews are not accustomed - big snakes etc. - I shall use the natives, prior to giving them employment in the transit countries, for the extermination of these animals. High premiums for snake skins, etc, as well as their spawn.”(10)
During the subsequent days, Herzl wrote an “Address to the Rothschilds” (which was to be the first draft of his book “The Jewish State”). Here, however, he omitted to mention the tasks for “the natives”!(11) A few months later in January 1896, Herzl wrote an article in “The Jewish Chronicle” of London entitled a “Solution to the Jewish Question”(12) and in February his book was published. In neither of these works did Herzl suggest using the indigenous peoples to rid the country of its wild beasts! “Supposing, for example, we were obliged to clear a country of wild beasts”, wrote Herzl, “we should organise a large and lively hunting party, drive the animals together and throw a melinite bomb into their midst.”(13)
Even if it is suggested that Herzl’s diary entry proposing the use of “natives” to clear the country of snakes and wild beasts, was merely recognition of their superior skills at such tasks, the question remains as to why this solution was not proposed in his book, (which was written at about the same period), omitting, if desired, the phrase regarding “the natives’“ subsequent transfer.
Interpretations of Herzl’s Diary Entry
Up to the 1970s, the various biographers of Herzl had been unaware of (or had suppressed!) Herzl’s transfer plans. The first biographer to discuss them was Desmond Stewart, whose book entitled “Theodor Herzl” was published in 1974.
In attempting to analyse Herzl’s approach to the non-Jewish inhabitants of the proposed Jewish State, Stewart linked Herzl’s thoughts on “how to obtain the territorial basis for a (Jewish) state with British actions in Africa.”
It must be remembered that this was the period when European powers, especially Britain, were acquiring colonies in the African continent. Herzl had studied the methods used by Cecil Rhodes, the British Empire builder to separate certain African tribes from control of their land. Stewart considered that “Herzl’s stencil for obtaining a territory and clearing it for settlement was cut after the Rhodesian model” but added that “one problem - that of the native population - presented itself in a more urgent form to Herzl than to Rhodes.” He explained that this was due to Herzl’s envisaging the settling of “millions of Jews” in the Jewish State “all at once”, whereas the settlement of Rhodesia “would be limited and over a protracted period”, since Britain already had many “Homes”.(14)
Stewart is not completely accurate here, since Herzl had written in “The Jewish State” that the departure of the Jews from their countries of residence would not be sudden. “It will”, he said, “be gradual, continuous and will cover many decades.”(15) However, it is certainly correct, that whereas the Jews were to have only the one Home, the British already had many colonies.
Stewart considered that from the reference books, almost certainly available in his Paris newspaper office, Herzl was fully aware of the extent of the non-Jewish population in Palestine, when on 12 June 1895, he devoted many pages in his diary to his plans for the removal of the natives.(16)
The historian Joseph Nedava disagreed with Stewart, whom he described as a “hostile biographer” (of Herzl). In his study, “Herzl and the Arab Problem”, Nedava rejected Stewart’s suggestion that Herzl was basing his plan for the indigenous population on the African model. Instead, Nedava, in explaining the phrase “to spirit the penniless population across the border”, argued that Herzl realised that if he were to be faced with a “landless proleteriat in a newly developing colonising project” it would be “highly dangerous” and would “lead to catastrophe.” Herzl was therefore “not adverse to driving the principle to its logical conclusion and entertain the idea of evacuating the landless to another country after providing for their integration there.” The expropriation of private property was in order to “avoid ruinous speculation.”(17)
Stewart, however, had largely based his “Rhodesian Model” theory on the meeting between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1898.(18) Of this meeting, the Kaiser wrote (in his unpublished memoirs), that Herzl’s blueprints for large-scale settlement in Palestine would “culminate in a plan to create a ‘Jewish Chartered Company’ for Palestine patterned after the ‘British Chartered Company in South Africa’.”(19) Nedava made no attempt to explain the Kaiser’s remarks.
The “British Chartered Company in South Africa”, (British South Africa Company), governed part of south Central Africa and amongst its objects was “to encourage emigration and colonisation”. It received a Royal Charter from Queen Victoria in October 1889, at the instigation of Cecil Rhodes, who became its managing director.
Stewart pointed out that whereas Rhodes gained Royal support in legalising his colonisation methods in Africa, Herzl forsaw that the extreme measures he advocated in planning colonisation in the Jewish State would “temporarily alienate civilised opinion.”(20) He wrote in his diary, “At first, incidentally, people will avoid us. We are in bad odor.” Herzl realised however, that this unpleasantness would only be a transient phenomenon and was worth the price. He then added, “By the time of reshaping of world opinion in our favor has been completed, we shall be firmly established in our country, no longer fearing the influx of foreigners, and receiving our visitors with aristocratic benevolence and proud amicability.”(21)
In his book “The Jewish State”, Herzl had propounded a similar idea regarding the Jews from the Jewish State returning to their previous countries of residence. He wrote, “If some of them (Jews) return, they will receive the same favourable welcome and treatment at the hands of civilised nations as is accorded to all foreign visitors.”(22)
Stewart’s biography of Herzl was carefully researched and during the period 1971-72, he exchanged a considerable amount of correspondence with Mark Braham, a man who had written about Herzl in his book “Jews Don’t Hate”. A number of these letters dealt with Herzl’s plans for the transfer of the indigenous population from the proposed Jewish State.
Although Braham would describe himself as an “anti-Zionist”,(23) the Press Officer of the British Zionist Federation wrote to him giving a different assessment: “You certainly present our case extremely eloquently and as a Zionist I find there are only a very few trivial and minor points on which I would disagree with you.”(24)
This exchange of correspondence began in March 1971, when Stewart wrote to Braham telling him that Braham’s “interpretation of the character and motivation of Herzl was similar” to his, and Stewart thus wanted to consult with him whilst preparing his book. This put Braham in a quandary. On the one hand, since Stewart was not sympathetic towards Zionism, non-cooperation could lead to Stewart producing “a work that was bound to be slanted against Zionism and Israel.” On the other hand, cooperation might possibly “be an influence of moderation on what might otherwise become an unbalanced and dangerous work.” Braham chose the second alternative and when Stewart’s book was published realised that he had made the right choice.(25)
Stewart would send Braham typescript of the various chapters of his book when they were ready, which he would then read. However, Braham commented that after he had read the chapter dealing with Herzl’s transfer proposals, he read no more of the typescript. As Braham said, “I began to feel that my position was untenable. I found myself in the position where I became counsel for the defence for Herzl in a desperate search to explain the entries.”(26) As we shall see, in course of the following months Braham kept putting forward different reasons in his correspondence with Stewart, in order to try and play down or talk away Herzl’s transfer plans.
Stewart finished in “rough draft” the chapter dealing with Herzl’s transfer plans in early May 1972, and presumably immediately sent Braham a copy. On 18 May Braham gave Stewart the following answer to Herzl’s transfer plans: He felt that Herzl was “not concerned with shifting the Arabs as such; his concern is to shift the poor and he fully expects the ‘property owners’ to ‘come over to our side’. This fits neatly into his basic plan to destroy the Jew and create a new nation, a middle class paradise, liberal, secular and European. He had no use for the Arab tribesmen, not because they were Arabs, but because they were gypsies.”(27)
Just over a week later, (it seems that he had not yet received Braham’s letter), Stewart asked in a postscript, “Are there any Talmudic quotations ruling out the kind of policy of force & deception which Herzl assumed would be necessary for dealing with the ‘natives’ - whether in Argentina or Palestine?”(28) There is no record of Braham answering this question!
In early July 1972, Braham went to Jews’ College Library in London to look up Herzl’s diary, in particular the reference for 12 June 1895 - the date that Herzl had proposed transfer. He informed Stewart that the impression that he got from these diary entries was that “Herzl was simply setting down a formula in the abstract for setting up a state in a territory inhabited by ‘natives’,” and that his attitude towards non-Europeans was the typical 19th century European attitude with Herzl being a typical example.(29) In a paper presented by Braham to an Adult Jewish Study Circle in New South Wales, Australia in May 1974, he brought further evidence of this attitude, by mentioning a case in 1837, just a generation prior to Herzl, where “the Australian responsible for the Myall Creek murders had pleaded in court that they did not know it was against the law to shoot aborigines.”(30)
Stewart in his book had compared Herzl to Rhodes, but Braham held that Herzl had “an immense respect for the rule of law” and this fact set him above Rhodes.(31) However, support for this assessment by Stewart comes from the biography of Herzl by Jacob de Haas, who personally knew and worked with Herzl. In this biography we see that Herzl was in fact an admirer and supporter of Rhodes’s ideas.(32)
Later in his letter, Braham considered that Herzl’s “scheme to buy the land at excessive prices and in secrecy” was “the classic ploy of property developers and businesses whose stock in trade is to pay what appears to be a handsome price for a piece of land without disclosing its true potential. My conclusion is that Herzl was a coloniser, certainly; there is no doubt he intended to create a state over the heads of the indigenous population - but by stealth rather than force of arms.”(33)
In his reply to this letter, Stewart wrote that he agreed with almost everything Braham wrote on this subject in his letter, adding “but it is also very close to what I wrote!”(34)
Braham had realised his limitations and thus searched for a Jewish scholar who could advise him “about problems” beyond his “limited capacity”.(35) The scholar he found was Bruno Marmorstein,(36) who at that time was Chairman of the Board of Governors of Jews’ College, and a few weeks earlier with the “willing cooperation” of Stewart(37) had passed on to him the typescript for an opinion. Before reading Stewart’s draft, Marmorestein had “been ignorant of the existence of these entries (as 99 Jews out of every 100 undoubtedly are).”(38) Braham also commented that he himself did not really believe they existed until he had checked it out a few weeks earlier. He had in the past put down the rumours he had heard about such entries to the “propaganda of the kind one associates with anti-Semites.”(39)
In his reply, Stewart wrote that he was not surprised “that Bruno Marmorstein and 99% of Jews everywhere are ignorant of the passage about spiriting the poor across the frontiers.” He then went on to try and link Herzl’s transfer schemes with “the whole series of laws passed by the Zionist state immediately after the 1948 exodus. Laws by which even temporarily abandoned property was made over to Israel; laws by which whole areas were proclaimed military zones and the Arabs moved out ‘for security reasons’; you must read Sabri Jirjis for this; he is an Israeli Arab lawyer who gives all the details of operations which are in the spirit of Herzl’s diaries.”(40)
On receiving this letter from Stewart, Braham wrote to David Jacobs, Press Officer of the British Zionist Federation, bringing these quotes from Herzl’s diary and Stewart’s argument that “the Arab refugee problem has its origins in Herzl’s Diaries.”(41) He felt confident that Jacobs “had come across these entries in the Diaries and had some explanation - perhaps a mistranslation or ambiguity.”(42) Braham certainly did not expect the answer which Jacobs immediately sent him: “I feel it is very unlikely that these quotes [from Herzl’s diaries] are in fact genuine.”(43)
In a letter to Stewart, Braham reported on his correspondence with Jacobs adding, “His reply, enclosed, will astonish you as much as it did me, I am sure. When I said that 99 out of every 100 Jews would not be aware of this material it was a serious underestimate. Imagine, the PR officer of what is probably the second most important Zionist Federation in the world doubts the validity of the quotes. And this is perfectly genuine, quite obviously.” He then commented on the success of the suppression of these quotes from Herzl’s diary: “I really did not suspect that the efforts of the Zionist editors had been quite so successful: I once remarked, half jokingly ... that there certainly was a Zionist conspiracy - against the Jews! I begin to think so on this score.”(44)
Several months later, Braham reported to Jacobs how he was “approaching the problem of some of these outrageous entries in the Herzl Diaries.” He argued that modern Zionism began half a century before Herzl. Herzl’s grandfather Simon Loeb Herzl had been a member of Rabbi Alkalai’s congregation in Semlin and the source of his Zionism was in fact from his grandfather. When Theodor Herzl came on the scene, Zionism was already a worldwide movement. Braham argued that “Herzl was something of an irresponsible artist and much of his Diary contains illconsidered, almost idle, jottings. ... The Zionist movement should consider cutting Herzl down to size: the alternative is to risk having these entries thrown up as ‘inspired words of the prophet’.”(45)
In 1989, Shabtai Teveth came to a different conclusion from Braham regarding Herzl’s plans for Arab transfer: “In retrospect it appears perfectly logical that this notion of an allencompassing Jewish transfer in Herzl’s thinking would be accompanied - if only for the sake of symmetry - by a parallel and just as comprehensive a transfer or ‘evacuation’ of Arabs.”(46) If in fact Teveth’s reasoning is correct, Herzl “for the sake of symmetry” would have included Arab transfer in his published book “The Jewish State”, in the same way as he included Jewish transfer. However, as we know, Herzl “hid” his plans for Arab transfer in the pages of his private diary!
Herzl’s True Thoughts
Do Herzl’s diaries accurately reflect his thoughts? An article written by Harry Zohn, the English translator of his diaries, clearly gives a definite affirmative answer. Zohn writes that the Herzl diaries are a “remarkably frank record of the incorruptible, outspoken Herzl who detested dissimulation and self-deception and who noted on the very first pages that his diary entries would be valueless if he attempted to play the hypocrite with himself. The Diaries are therefore a voluminous and unblushing compendium of Herzl’s triumphs and tragedies, not merely in the arena of world politics but on a personal plane as well, presenting Herzl from within.”(47) Similar views are expressed by Alex Bein in his biography of Herzl.(48)
Unlike his books, Herzl’s diaries were not intended for publication during his lifetime. Soon after his death, the question of publishing his diaries arose.
David Wolffsohn, Herzl’s successor as President of the World Zionist Organisation, quoted Max Nordau, who, in emphatically opposing their publication, said, “You will ruin Herzl’s name if you publish his diaries. Whoever reads them is bound to believe that he was a fool and a swindler.”(49) This statement is not elaborated upon, but possibly relates to Herzl’s views, as propounded in his diary, on the appropriate treatment for the indigenous population of the proposed Jewish State, since Nordau was strongly against prominent Zionist figures putting forward transfer proposals in public.
We can see this from a letter which he wrote in 1919 to the Anglo-Jewish writer, Israel Zangwill, who was a strong supporter of transfer of the Arabs. Nordau described Zangwill’s stand on the Arab question as “regrettable”. He wrote, “It’s no use qualifying your scheme as your own individual idea - we have not to count on the good faith of our eternal enemies, and henceforward they will quote you as their authority for the accusation that, not you Israel Zangwill, but the Jews, all the Jews, are an intolerant lot dreaming only violence and high-handed dealings and expulsion of non-Jews.”(50)
The original letter of Nordau’s has not been traced, although from a number of postcards and letters exchanged between the two of them at that period,(51) we know that they were in regular contact.
We do however have the reply sent by Zangwill to Nordau on 28 January. In this letter, he pointed out that Nordau “somewhat misconceived my attitude on the Arab question”. He added that at the same time he had “received a similar castigation from my old friend, Judge Sulzberger, of America.” Zangwill was however so firm in his opinion on the Arab question that he wrote, “but not even both these stars in their courses fighting against me have altered my conviction that I am absolutely in the right.” He then asked Nordau for his “own solution of this vexing question, which, to my mind, is the destruction of Zionism.”(52)
When, a few years later, which was nineteen years after Herzl’s death, his diaries were first published, Joseph Bloch, the great fighter of anti-Semitism, was “appalled”.(53)
Herzl’s Letter to Al-Khalidi
Herzl’s public attitude (which is quite different from his private views!) towards the indigenous population is illustrated in a letter he wrote to Youssuf Zia Al-Khalidi, Mayor of Jerusalem, in 1899.
At the beginning of March 1899, Al-Khalidi had written to Zadok Kahn, Chief Rabbi of France, saying that the Zionists’ case was just but could not be implemented in Palestine due to the opposition of the Turks and the local population. Al-Khalidi suggested that the Jews would do better if they went elsewhere.(54) Rabbi Kahn forwarded the letter to Herzl and suggested that he make an authoritative reply.
On 19 March, Herzl replied to Al-Khalidi in a letter which was both meek and reassuring. “You see another difficulty, Excellency, in the existence of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. But who would think of sending them away?” wrote Herzl, “It is their well-being, their individual wealth which we increase by bringing in our own.” He went on to point out that Jewish colonisation would cause the value of Arab land to rise five or ten-fold in the course of a few months.(55)
Another example of Herzl’s public pronouncements on this subject arose in May 1903, during the course of a discussion on the question of the purchase of the Jezreel valley. Herzl is reported to have remarked, “One cannot displace these poor Arab farmers from the soil.”(56)
Herzl’s Charter
Amongst the Herzl papers at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, is Herzl’s Draft Charter.(57) This document is typewritten with some handwritten amendments. It is undated and is in German.
One of Herzl’s objectives was to gain a Charter for Palestine. He felt that this should preceed colonisation of the country. Until the British conquest, towards the end of the First World War, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Herzl considered that the Zionist movement’s diplomatic achievements depended on Turkey, which at that time was in chronic financial difficulties and Herzl’s strategy was therefore centred on a plan to gain the approval of the Sultan.
On 15 May 1901, a long-planned audience with the Sultan finally took place, but Herzl did not mention his proposed Charter at this meeting. However, at a meeting held a few days later with the Sultan’s representatives, Herzl “propounded the Charter ... for the first time” and he “contented” himself “with their listening to all these suggestions”. One of the Sultan’s representatives then went to inform the Sultan of Herzl’s proposals and he returned to inform Herzl that the Sultan expects to receive Herzl’s “definite proposals within a month”(58).
From Herzl’s diary, we can see that on 29 May 1901, which was two weeks after his meeting with the Sultan, Arminius Vambery, (a Hungarian Orientalist, who worked closely with Herzl), met with Herzl in Germany. After giving Vambery a report, Vambery responded that “we shall have the Charter this very year”. He informed Herzl that he planned to go to Constantinople that September and that “meanwhile he [Vambery] would like me [Herzl] to make a draft of the Charter which he intends to present to the Sultan and get it signed by him without any Secretary or Minister finding out about it”.(59)
The next mention of this Charter in Herzl’s diary is dated 21 August 1901 and is a copy of a letter Herzl sent to Vambery. He wrote: “I am herewith returning to you Draft I, which met with your approval, because I have a copy of it”. We can thus see that some time prior to this date, Herzl had sent Vambery a copy of his draft Charter and asked Vambery for his comments. Vambery had expressed satisfaction and returned this draft to Herzl. However, since Herzl already had a copy, he sent it back to Vambery.
The draft Charter was in German and it would seem that Vambery had suggested preparing a French translation, since Herzl continues his letter to Vambery: “Translating it into French is pointless, because it probably will not be practicable in this form”.
In order to implement his plan, Herzl wrote in his letter that “first of all he [the Sultan] must give the Charter, specifically, to the Jewish Colonial Trust for the formation of the Compagnie Ottomane-Juive pour l’Asie Mineure, la Palestine et la Syrie [Ottoman-Jewish Company for Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria]. To give the whole thing a financially sound character, the Jewish Colonial Trust could deposit a security of, say, one million francs as soon as the Charter is delivered to us, and this earnest would be forfeited to the Turkish treasury if the Company was not founded within a certain period of time”.
Herzl concluded by saying that “Draft I would therefore have to serve only as a preamble, and you will certainly know yourself the most appropriate manner in which it can be used”.(60)
Walid Khalidi, (a founder of the Institute for Palestine Studies and its General Secretary), concluded that the draft Charter was “drawn up sometime between the summer of 1901 and early 1902”.(61) However, from the above diary entry, it seems to have been written before August 1901. It is of course possible that the draft Charter in the Central Zionist Archives is a later draft, although there does not seem to be any evidence to support the existence of such a later draft.
The contents of Herzl’s Charter deal with the privileges, rights and obligations concerning the colonisation of Palestine and Syria.(62) [Until after the end of the First World War, there were no actual borders between the regions of Palestine and Syria - it was all part of the Ottoman Empire. “Palestine and Syria” was the term used when planning Jewish settlement during this period.]
Included in Herzl’s Charter were paragraphs dealing with the loan which the Company would make to the Sultan; the right of the Company to bring Jewish immigrants into the region; the option to acquire certain categories of lands in the region; autonomy; Jewish military defence units and the appointment of a Governor and a Chief Justice for the area.
Paragraph 3 of this Charter reads, “The right to exchange economic enclaves in the area - with the exception of the Holy Places or places of worship - by compensating the owners with equally large and equally qualitative plots in other provinces and lands throughout the Ottoman Empire. The emigration costs are to be paid to the owners and they are to receive an advance for building necessary housing and buying necessary utensils to be repaid in installments over a number of years, the security being the plots they received in exchange.”(63)
This paragraph in Herzl’s Charter conferred the right to acquire certain (Arab) lands in Palestine and Syria, giving in exchange comparative plots of land within the Ottoman Empire, while financially assisting the previous owners with emigration and resettlement. For example, under Herzl’s proposals, the Jews would have the right to transfer an Arab from Jaffa to Constantinople, provided they paid his transfer expenses and gave him an equivalent parcel of land at his new destination.
It is not absolutely clear whether Herzl was referring to a “right” to transfer Arabs compulsorily or merely assist their voluntary transfer. The wording in his Charter strongly indicates transfer of a compulsory nature. This opinion is also held by David Hirst in his book “The Gun and the Olive Branch” where he writes, “Article Three of the draft charter would have granted the Jews the right to deport the native population.”(64) An almost identical wording is used by the Dutch Orientalist, Van Der Hoeven Leonhard.(65) However, when assessing the weight to be attached to these opinions, it should be remembered that these two authors show an anti- Zionist bias. It is also just conceivable that this Charter refers to a voluntary transfer and the “right” is that granted by Turkey, (who in the past had put many obstacles in the way of Jewish settlement in Palestine), allowing the Jews to exchange land after its owners had agreed to move out of Palestine. However in January 1901, just a few months prior to Herzl writing this Charter, the Ottoman administration had removed many of the restrictions on Jews regarding the purchase of land and the building on it, in Palestine,(66) and this thus strengthens the argument that it was intended to be a compulsory transfer. Furthermore, restrictive expressions such as “equally large and equally qualitative plots” are used; were the exchange by agreement with the owners, they might have preferred monetary compensation, or a larger quantity of land of a lower quality. From all this we might conclude that the intentions of Herzl were for compulsory transfer.
Throughout his Zionist career, Herzl had strong feelings that the Holy Places must be given extraterritorial status and it is therefore fully understandable that he immediately excluded them from this “right”.(67)
This Charter was unrealised, since the Jewish bankers whom Herzl approached for the loan for the Sultan told him to return when he had an agreement with the Sultan and the Sultan told Herzl that he would only negotiate after he had the loan!
In conclusion, it is interesting to note that David Wolffsohn when composing a charter for Palestine in 1907, followed the points made by Herzl in his charter, except that he completely omitted the paragraph giving the right to transfer Arabs out of Palestine into some other part of the Ottoman Empire.(68) It is of course possible that Wolffsohn disagreed with this transfer plan of Herzl’s. On the other hand, he may of been influenced by Nordau’s appeal not to publish Herzl’s diaries, an appeal which we saw earlier, was quoted by Wolffsohn in his diary.
to continue
to references
to contents
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
to view “The Collected Writings of Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons” please click here
Hi Benny Plonie,
Now here’s Vladimir Jabotinsky speaking like a true Zionist about the situation of dealing with the Arabs & getting them off the land. No bullshitting with Val! “You got it, I want it”!
Vladimir Jabotinsky
The Iron Wall
(We and the Arabs)
(1923)
First published in Russian under the title O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet, 4 November 1923.
Published in English in Jewish Herald (South Africa), 26 November 1937..
Contrary to the excellent rule of getting to the point immediately, I must begin this article with a personal introduction. The author of these lines is considered to be an enemy of the Arabs, a proponent of their expulsion, etc. This is not true. My emotional relationship to the Arabs is the same as it is to all other peoples – polite indifference. My political relationship is characterized by two principles. First: the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine is absolutely impossible in any form. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. Second: I am proud to have been a member of that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This depends, not on our relationship with the Arabs, but exclusively on the Arabs’ relationship to Zionism.
After this introduction I can now get to the point. That the Arabs of the Land of Israel should willingly come to an agreement with us is beyond all hopes and dreams at present, and in the foreseeable future. This inner conviction of mine I express so categorically not because of any wish to dismay the moderate faction in the Zionist camp but, on the contrary, because I wish to save them from such dismay. Apart from those who have been virtually “blind” since childhood, all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to “Palestine” becoming a country with a Jewish majority.
Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers. But those “great explorers,” the English, Scots and Dutch who were the first real pioneers of North America were people possessed of a very high ethical standard; people who not only wished to leave the redskins at peace but could also pity a fly; people who in all sincerity and innocence believed that in those virgin forests and vast plains ample space was available for both the white and red man. But the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty.
Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.
This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.
That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”.
Some of us imagined that a misunderstanding had occurred, that because the Arabs did not understand our intentions, they opposed us, but, if we were to make clear to them how modest and limited our aspirations are, they would then stretch out their arms in peace. This too is a fallacy that has been proved so time and again. I need recall only one incident. Three years ago, during a visit here, Sokolow delivered a great speech about this very “misunderstanding,” employing trenchant language to prove how grossly mistaken the Arabs were in supposing that we intended to take away their property or expel them from the country, or to suppress them. This was definitely not so. Nor did we even want a Jewish state. All we wanted was a regime representative of the League of Nations. A reply to this speech was published in the Arab paper Al Carmel in an article whose content I give here from memory, but I am sure it is a faithful account.
Our Zionist grandees are unnecessarily perturbed, its author wrote. There is no misunderstanding. What Sokolow claims on behalf of Zionism is true. But the Arabs already know this. Obviously, Zionists today cannot dream of expelling or suppressing the Arabs, or even of setting up a Jewish state. Clearly, in this period they are interested in only one thing – that the Arabs not interfere with Jewish immigration. Further, the Zionists have pledged to control immigration in accordance with the country’s absorptive economic capacity. But the Arabs have no illusions, since no other conditions permit the possibility of immigration.
The editor of the paper is even willing to believe that the absorptive capacity of Eretz Israel is very great, and that it is possible to settle many Jews without affecting one Arab. “Just that is what the Zionists want, and what the Arabs do not want. In this way the Jews will, little by little, become a majority and, ipso facto, a Jewish state will be formed and the fate of the Arab minority will depend on the goodwill of the Jews. But was it not the Jews themselves who told us how ‘ pleasant’ being a minority was? No misunderstanding exists. Zionists desire one thing – freedom of immigration – and it is Jewish immigration that we do not want.”
The logic employed by this editor is so simple and clear that it should be learned by heart and be an essential part of our notion of the Arab question. It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or Herbert Samuel to justify our activities. Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible.
A plan that seems to attract many Zionists goes like this: If it is impossible to get an endorsement of Zionism by Palestine’s Arabs, then it must be obtained from the Arabs of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and perhaps of Egypt. Even if this were possible, it would not change the basic situation. It would not change the attitude of the Arabs in the Land of Israel towards us. Seventy years ago, the unification of Italy was achieved, with the retention by Austria of Trent and Trieste. However, the inhabitants of those towns not only refused to accept the situation, but they struggled against Austria with redoubled vigor. If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.
But an agreement with Arabs outside the Land of Israel is also a delusion. For nationalists in Baghdad, Mecca and Damascus to agree to such an expensive contribution (agreeing to forego preservation of the Arab character of a country located in the center of their future “federation”) we would have to offer them something just as valuable. We can offer only two things: either money or political assistance or both. But we can offer neither. Concerning money, it is ludicrous to think we could finance the development of Iraq or Saudi Arabia, when we do not have enough for the Land of Israel. Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be considered on any account.
Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.
All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion.
Two brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.
We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.
There is no other morality.
All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions. And only then will moderates offer suggestions for compromise on practical questions like a guarantee against expulsion, or equality and national autonomy.
I am optimistic that they will indeed be granted satisfactory assurances and that both peoples, like good neighbors, can then live in peace. But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an agreement now.
So what’s the problem? Maybe Woody Allen would be fearful of a Zionism that caused someone not to like him but not anyone with a brain. If the Arabs were a hundredth as nice as you think the Jews should be there would have been a peaceful Jewish State from the beginning. Let’s also understand that it was the Arabs and their stinking colonial Islamic conquest that disposessed the Jews from their ancient villages and expropriated their labor in the seventh century, not even talking about the unjust and criminal brutality in the intervening cenuries. I don’t see you crying in your beer over that.
What was known as Zionism was no more than a modern political expression by any other name of the eternal bond between the Jewish nation and their eternal God-given inheritance. It took until the nineteenth century for the entire world to recognize and admit that. Zionism was therefore a positive force in advancing the age-old justice of formalizing the Jewish state, and if we understand that as progress Zionism is therefore progressive, and anti-Zionism is reactionary. Reactionary forces need only bne recognized but not accomodated. Jabotinsky was simply calling a spade a spade, something the Jews in denial were unwilling to do.
I’m not going to research all of your allegations which are shot throuigh with lies and exaggerations. But even taking everything you have pasted in at face value, let’s recognize that neither Herzl not Jabotinsky ever achieved political leadership or control or policy-making roles in the Jewish administration. Jews paid excessive cash for every inch of the land they lived on and defended it with blood, sweat and tears, and with no arms or violence against anyone. You can say herzl diary this and Jabotinsky that and Ben Gurion the other, but diaries and pamphlets were not the cause of conflict. That was due to greedy and corrupt Arabs coveting the land once the Jews had elevated its value enough to steal it for a second time.
Hi Benny (Brad) Plonie,
“So what’s the problem”?
The problem is an IGNORANT JEW who wont do his homework!
(quote)
“I’m not going to research all of your allegations which are shot through with lies and exaggerations. But even taking everything you have pasted in at face value, let’s recognize that neither Herzl not Jabotinsky ever achieved political leadership or control or policy-making roles in the Jewish
administration.”
“What was known as Zionism was no more than a modern political expression by any other name of the eternal bond between the Jewish nation and their eternal God-given inheritance”.
Read the Torah/Tanach, you Plonker. The God-given Inheritance is CONDITIONAL. Read Deuteronomy chapters 27 to 31.
Regarding the Arabs & CO. When ye were told to get rid of them at the beginning, ye ignored God’s commandment. So don’t come to me today winging about your enemies kicking your ass, that’s your own fault. You cannot do what you are told!
If you EVER read Torah/Tanach, you would understand the story.
From something that was worthless, God raised up a people to do a Work for Him. He blessed them & enriched them & for thanks they SHIT in His Face. From time to time He raises up nations to chastise His people, but they still refuse to obey Him. He sends Messiah to them & they kill him. They were kicked off the land by the Romans on God’s authority & were scattered all over the world. Without God’s say so, they have returned to the Land & defend it with NUCLEAR POWER, thinking this will protect them from their enemies. But God knows different. The Mother of all Wars is coming & the SHIT is going to be kicked out of them, & ONLY THEN will they recognize the God & Messiah they rejected. It couldn’t be simpler, but if you have your head up your arse, you don’t see nothing but SHIT.
Gerald Goldberg
Dear Sir,
Can we go pack to the start of this blog & look at the case of Ultra-Orthodox Jews molesting children?
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth
Yebamoth 60b
but, surely, R. Simeon said, ‘He may defile himself for one who is fit for a High Priest, but may not defile himself for one who is not fit for a High Priest’!1 — There2 it is different, because the All Merciful has included her [by the expression] near.3 If so, the ‘wounded’ also should be included! — Near3 implies one and not two. And what [reason for this]4 do you see? — To the body of the one something had been done while to that of the other nothing had been done.
As to R. Jose, since his colleague5 had left him,6 it may be inferred that in respect of the ‘wounded’, he himself is of the same opinion as R. Meir.7 Whence, however, does he derive it? — From That hath had no man. But deduction,8 surely, had already been made9 from this text! — One8 is deduced from That hath had no and the other10 from man.11
‘“Unto him”, includes one who is adolescent’. But surely R. Simeon stated that ‘virgin’ implied a perfect virgin!12 — His reason there is also derived from here, because he makes the following exposition: since [the Scriptural text], ‘unto him’, was required to include one who is adolescent, it is to be inferred that ‘virgin’ implies a perfect virgin.
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest,13 for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14 and Phinehas15 surely was with them. And the Rabbis?16 — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen.17 If so,18 a proselyte whose age is three years and one day19 should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him,20 but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14 but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently21 it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit22 for cohabitation.23
It was also taught likewise: And every woman that hath known man;20 Scripture speaks of one who is fit23 for cohabitation. You say, ‘Of one who is fit for cohabitation’; perhaps it is not so but of one who had actual intercourse? — As Scripture stated, But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him,24 it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.23
Whence did they know?25 — R. Hana26 b. Bizna replied in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: They were made to pass before the frontplate.27 If the face of anyone turned pale28 it was known that she was fit for cohabitation; if it did not turn pale28 it was known that she was unfit for cohabitation.
R. Nahman said: Dropsy is a manifestation of lewdness.
Similarly, it is said, And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him;29 whence did they know it?30 R. Kahana replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated; through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been made to pass before the frontplate!31 — R. Kahana son of R. Nathan replied: It is written, for acceptance,32 for acceptance but not for punishment. If so, the same should have applied at Midian also!33 R. Ashi replied: It is written, ‘unto them’, implying unto them34 for acceptance but not for punishment; unto idolaters,35 however, even for punishment.36
R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.37 Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b. Idi: Did you hear this37 explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,38 and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.39 The other40 replied:41 I heard it explicitly. And what [matters it] if it42 was learned by deduction?43 — It is possible that there44 it was different; since the marriage had already taken place he sanctioned it; for, indeed, both Rab and R. Johanan stated: A priest may not marry one who is adolescent or ‘wounded’, but if already married, he may continue to live with her. How now! There it is quite correct [to sanction the marriage since in any case] she would ultimately become adolescent while she45 will be with him,46 and she would also ultimately become a be’ulah while with him;46 but here, would she ultimately become a harlot47 while with him?48 R. Safra taught [that he40 arrived at it]42 by deduction, and, having raised the difficulty,49 answered it in the same way.50
A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this?51 — The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that the halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.52 ‘Go’, the first said, ‘and arrange for her release, or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear’.53
It was taught: And so did R. Simeon b. Yohai state
________________________________________
1. One divorced is not fit for a High Priest!
2. Defilement by a common priest.
3. [H] sing.
4. To exclude the one and include the other.
5. R. Simeon who, in respect of the betrothed, expressed the same opinion as R. Jose (supra 60a).
6. So BaH. Cur. edd., ‘since he left his colleague’. R. Simeon only is mentioned in the case of the wounded.
7. That the priest may defile himself for her.
8. The exclusion of the betrothed.
9. By R. Jose.
10. Permission to marry the wounded.
11. Only when her condition was due to the action of a man is she forbidden.
12. Supra 59a. One who is adolescent is no more a perfect virgin.
13. She is not regarded as a harlot.
14. Num. XXXI, 18.
15. Who was a priest.
16. How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?
17. Not for matrimony.
18. That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony.
19. So long as she has ‘not known man’.
20. Num. XXXI, 17.
21. To reconcile the contradiction.
22. I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.
23. Not one who had actually experienced it.
24. Implying that any grown-up woman is not to be spared, even if she hath not known man.
25. Which of the Midianite women, referred to in the texts quoted, was, or was not fit for cohabitation.
26. Cur. [edd.], ‘Huna’.
27. [H] the gold plate which was worn by the High Priest on his forehead. V, Ex. XXVIII, 36ff.
28. Lit., ‘(sickly) green’.
29. Judges XXI, 12.
30. Cf. supra n. 1 mutatis mutandis.
31. As was done in the case of the Midianites (v. supra).
32. Ex. XXVIII, 38, referring to the front-plate.
33. Why then was the test there performed before the plate?
34. Israelites, as were the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead.
35. As were the Midianites.
36. By the front-plate.
37. That a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
38. And was married to a priest.
39. I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband.
40. R. Jacob b. Idi.
41. To R. Zera.
42. V. supra p. 403. n. 13.
43. From the incident in the Palestinian city. Why then was R. Zera anxious to ascertain the manner whereby the ruling was obtained?
44. The incident in Palestine.
45. Even if she were now virgo intacta.
46. The union is consequently allowed to remain.
47. Which is the prohibition under which a priest may not marry the proselyte mentioned.
48. Obviously not. Hence, it may well be concluded that were she not allowed to marry a priest, the union would have had to be dissolved even after marriage had taken place.
49. Mentioned supra. that an ex post facto may be different.
50. Had it not been permitted originally the marriage would have had to be annulled even ex post facto.
51. I.e., on what authority did you contract the marriage.
52. V. supra p. 403. n. 13.
53. He would place him under the ban and thus compel him to carry out his decision which is contrary to that of R. Jacob b. Idi.
Jewish apologists reject the accusation that the Talmud endorses pedophilia. They say the Talmud’s approval of child sex is ritualistic and “spiritual” in its connotation. Others say that whatever Talmudic rabbis may have sanctioned 1800 years ago is not practiced today.
Yet throughout the past decades, many instances of pedophilia have surfaced in Judaism, particularly among ultra-Orthodox (Haredim) Jews. A recent article in the Jewish daily Forward, “Haredim Begin Confronting Pedophilia,” Oct. 2, 2008, confirms that pedophilia does exist among ultra-Orthodox Judaism, to a degree that can no longer be concealed.
“After years in which the issue of pedophilia has been quietly dealt with among ultra-Orthodox Jews, a number of leaders in the community are speaking out publiclySexual abuse of children has periodically arisen in the ultra-Orthodox community through high-profile cases like that of Yehuda Kolko and Avrohom MondrowitzIn 2006 and 2007 Kolko was charged with several counts of sexual abuse,” yet received no prison time. Mondrowitz, a Brooklyn Jew, was indicted on five counts of sodomy and six counts of sexual abuse in 1985 but found asylum in Israel.”
Forward says Brooklyn assemblyman Dov Hikind “argued that the ultra-Orthodox community has become a haven for child molesters.”
“If you’re a child molester, the best community to come to is Borough Park, Flatbush, Lakewood or Monroe,” Hikind said, referring to areas that have large ultra-Orthodox populations. “Your chances of being arrested are much smaller because people don’t press charges.”
Why don’t they press charges?
Ultra-Orthodox rabbinic leadership knows the Talmud endorses child sex. Such awareness cannot help but deeply influence how they counsel Jewish victims to respond. Ultra-Orthodox, like all religious Jews, revere the Talmud as God’s highest revelation to the Jewish people. They believe His will is expressed through Judaism’s greatest spiritual lights: the Pharisees and their Sanhedrin. It must be difficult for Haredi literalists to believe pedophilia is truly wrong when the Talmud repeatedly says it is right. It is difficult for their leaders to sanction criminal prosecution when the greatest sages of the Talmud proclaim pedophilia to be “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. (Yebamoth 60B)
The Brooklyn assemblyman, Hikind, “said that lately, an ‘avalanche of people’ has come to his office to talk about cases of sexual abuse.” He wants to create a legislative task force to help control pedophilia in the ultra-Orthodox community. “In August, Rabbi Benzion Twerski, a psychologist and respected member of the community, was tapped to head Hikind’s task force.” Yet, “He resigned just days after his appointment, reportedly because of the overwhelming pressure and intimidation he received.”
This may remind some readers of the pedophilia epidemic discovered in the Catholic Church. There is no parallel between the two. Neither Catholic teaching nor the Bible ever authorizes such child abuse, or protection of it. Yet pedophilia and pederasty are repeatedly endorsed by Judaism’s highest authorities.
First, for Harry Woods.
I actually do know that you have no real interest in the subject at hand other than to malign the Jews, but I will play it straight and use this as a teaching moment for any interested observers who don’t realize that you are a slimeball.
The nature of law is to draw lines. Those lines are not the same everywhere as those you use as a standard, and you don’t know the contemporary laws if any on that topic in the culture surrounding the Jewish. All you can rely on is that the Jewish standard was the most progressive and enlightened in the world at any given time; a concept I will return to shortly. We have to know the absolute limits the law applies to, and a mention of a practice is not an endorsement of it.
I will give you two examples. The laws of your state contain language defining the limits of relationships that are considered abusive, exploitative and generally destructive to society. That does not mean they are endorsing that behavior.
More to the point, a few years ago a man died in Washington state as a result of penetration by a horse on a special ranch retreat run for perverts. The police moved to shut the ranch down, and discovered that there was no law in Washington state banning such activities and therefor no basis to shuit it down. I never learned how that turned out, but would you say that the people in Washington are more moral by the fact that there was no law?
As for the child-abuse cases, you gloss over the fact that the issue centers not on the abuse itself but on the peripheral issue of reporting. Your insistance that Judaism says pedophilia is right is ludicrous and offensive by design. I am going to say that not only is there less child abuse and sexual immorality per capita among Jews in general and ‘ultra’-Orthodox Jews in particular than in ANY other demographic, but that the Jew are leading and will continue to lead the way in raising awareness and addressing and solving the problem.
Gerald Gober,
Oh, I’m good. When I said you are a radical Christian of the Mel Gibson variety, I absolutely nailed it. At least one of your personalities is. “He sends Messiah to them & they kill him.” How do I do it?
I have News for you, stupid. If you think Messiah has arrived, then act like it. What is stopping you from walking around with a loving smiley face and leaving the Jews alone? By the way, according to you God sent the Messiah to you, not just us (and ‘you’ ae no longer ‘us’ if you ever were). The truth is you don’t need the Jews at all to live the good life and be redeeemed. Why don’t you just declare victory and go home, like Nixon in Vietnam? Or else, if you are inclined activism, go fix the entire world of slavery, terror, torture, warfare, brutality and so on unleashed by your moronic bestial culture. Or maybe you think that’s a good thing, being God’s will to chastise mankind for its evil ways. All humans are holy and subject to God’s will and laws after all.
Part of your problem is that you can’t prove anything at all since your central theme of discrediting the Jews always comes out. I admit to amusement watching you leave skid marks on the blog racing from Torah to Herzl to politicians to Hitler making mutually contradictory points. And meanwhile providing the Jews of Los Angeles with a demo tour of antisemitic hate websites.
This is very important; you are not God. You are not Jesus. You are not Amos and you are not Ezekiel. or Jeremiah or Isaiah. Their communications to us are personal messages from our father in heaven. Don’t expect to understand what they are saying in the way God meant it. The Jewish prophets wouldn’t wipe their asses with someone like you.
The eternal God’s eternal covenent with his eternal people is eternal. God’s covenant is not conditional. God’s treatment of us is condition but not the eternal unbreakable covenant. Every single Jewish prophet repeated that. For most of history, most of the people obeyed God most of the time. Even the incident of the Golden Calf and Korach rebellion, it was only several thousand who were killed out of millions. Most important, we already know the end of the story. The Jews are returning to the Holy Land, the Temple will be rebuilt, and full services to God in a Torah society will resume. That means anything that advances that goal is good, and everything that impedes it is bad.
I am going to reveal a great secret to you. When Jesus (if he existed) spoke in any way of God’s son, this was understood by him to refer to Israel as a whole, as to Pharoah “... “My son, My firstborn, Israel.” So that the expression that God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son” or whatever, that means the nation of Israel. So when you guys kill and demean and discredit and accuse us, you are doing what you accuse the Jews of. Yes, it is you who God blessed by creating the Jewish people and sending them among you and what have you done? That’s right - We are your Messiah and Savior! And look what you have done to us! But unlike the storybook ending hastily appended to the New Testament, we don’t pray for your forgiveness. Unfortunately for you, there is no redemption for you. Fry in hell.
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.” The mistake made by Jesus (if he existed) or his translaters and transmitters is of personalizing the message so that it was misunderstood. That whole chapter of John 14 is a pagan-eyed view of the idea that God sent the nation of Israel into the world to bring the world closer to him, by fulfilling the law for all and serving him in the place that he chooses to rest his name! It is said that if the Romans understood the significance of the Temple they would have ringed it with protectors rather than destroying it! And you, Gerald Gober, are of the crowd of instigators, plotters, mockers, flaggelators, and crucifiers of God’s only begotten Son (the nation of Israel).
Hi Benny Plonker,
I was sorry to hear about your pervert friend in Washington. Were you with him when he died or were you still playing “Jews & Horses”?
Now Benny a little sermon for you & all your “perfect” Friends:
Ezekiel
Chapter 23
23:1 The word of Yahweh came again to me, saying,
23:2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
23:3 and they played the prostitute in Egypt; they played the prostitute in their youth; there were their breasts pressed, and there was handled the bosom of their virginity.
23:4 The names of them were Oholah the elder, and Oholibah her sister: and they became mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem Oholibah.
23:5 Oholah played the prostitute when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbors,
23:6 who were clothed with blue, governors and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses.
23:7 She bestowed her prostitution on them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them; and on whoever she doted, with all their idols she defiled herself.
23:8 Neither has she left her prostitution since the days of Egypt; for in her youth they lay with her, and they handled the bosom of her virginity; and they poured out their prostitution on her.
23:9 Therefore I delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, on whom she doted.
23:10 These uncovered her nakedness; they took her sons and her daughters; and her they killed with the sword: and she became a byword among women; for they executed judgments on her.
23:11 Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet was she more corrupt in her doting than she, and in her prostitution which were more than the prostitution of her sister.
23:12 She doted on the Assyrians, governors and rulers, her neighbors, clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding on horses, all of them desirable young men.
23:13 I saw that she was defiled; they both took one way.
23:14 She increased her prostitution; for she saw men portrayed on the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion,
23:15 girded with girdles on their loins, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them princes to look on, after the likeness of the Babylonians in Chaldea, the land of their birth.
23:16 As soon as she saw them she doted on them, and sent messengers to them into Chaldea.
23:17 The Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their prostitution, and she was polluted with them, and her soul was alienated from them.
23:18 So she uncovered her prostitution, and uncovered her nakedness: then my soul was alienated from her, like as my soul was alienated from her sister.
23:19 Yet she multiplied her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth, in which she had played the prostitute in the land of Egypt.
23:20 She doted on their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
23:21 Thus you called to memory the lewdness of your youth, in the handling of your bosom by the Egyptians for the breasts of your youth.
23:22 Therefore, Oholibah, thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold, I will raise up your lovers against you, from whom your soul is alienated, and I will bring them against you on every side:
23:23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them; desirable young men, governors and rulers all of them, princes and men of renown, all of them riding on horses.
23:24 They shall come against you with weapons, chariots, and wagons, and with a company of peoples; they shall set themselves against you with buckler and shield and helmet round about; and I will commit the judgment to them, and they shall judge you according to their judgments.
23:25 I will set my jealousy against you, and they shall deal with you in fury; they shall take away your nose and your ears; and your residue shall fall by the sword: they shall take your sons and your daughters; and your residue shall be devoured by the fire.
23:26 They shall also strip you of your clothes, and take away your beautiful jewels.
23:27 Thus will I make your lewdness to cease from you, and your prostitution brought from the land of Egypt; so that you shall not lift up your eyes to them, nor remember Egypt any more.
23:28 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold, I will deliver you into the hand of them whom you hate, into the hand of them from whom your soul is alienated;
23:29 and they shall deal with you in hatred, and shall take away all your labor, and shall leave you naked and bare; and the nakedness of your prostitution shall be uncovered, both your lewdness and your prostitution.
23:30 These things shall be done to you, because you have played the prostitute after the nations, and because you are polluted with their idols.
23:31 You have walked in the way of your sister; therefore will I give her cup into your hand.
23:32 Thus says the Lord Yahweh: You shall drink of your sister’s cup, which is deep and large; you shall ridiculed and had in derision; it contains much.
23:33 You shall be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of astonishment and desolation, with the cup of your sister Samaria.
23:34 You shall even drink it and drain it out, and you shall gnaw the broken pieces of it, and shall tear your breasts; for I have spoken it, says the Lord Yahweh.
23:35 Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: Because you have forgotten me, and cast me behind your back, therefore bear you also your lewdness and your prostitution.
23:36 Yahweh said moreover to me: Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? then declare to them their abominations.
23:37 For they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands; and with their idols have they committed adultery; and they have also caused their sons, whom they bore to me, to pass through the fire to them to be devoured.
23:38 Moreover this they have done to me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths.
23:39 For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, behold, thus have they done in the midst of my house.
23:40 Furthermore you have sent for men who come from far, to whom a messenger was sent, and, behold, they came; for whom you did wash yourself, paint your eyes, and deck yourself with ornaments,
23:41 and sit on a stately bed, with a table prepared before it, whereupon you did set my incense and my oil.
23:42 The voice of a multitude being at ease was with her: and with men of the common sort were brought drunkards from the wilderness; and they put bracelets on the hands of them twain, and beautiful crowns on their heads.
23:43 Then said I of her who was old in adulteries, Now will they play the prostitute with her, and she with them.
23:44 They went in to her, as they go in to a prostitute: so went they in to Oholah and to Oholibah, the lewd women.
23:45 Righteous men, they shall judge them with the judgment of adulteresses, and with the judgment of women who shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands.
23:46 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will bring up a company against them, and will give them to be tossed back and forth and robbed.
23:47 The company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall kill their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
23:48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
23:49 They shall recompense your lewdness on you, and you shall bear the sins of your idols; and you shall know that I am the Lord Yahweh.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible
CHAPTER 23
Ezekiel 23:1-49. ISRAEL’S AND JUDAH’S SIN AND PUNISHMENT ARE PARABOLICALLY PORTRAYED UNDER THE NAMES AHOLAH AND AHOLIBAH.
The imagery is similar to that in the sixteenth chapter; but here the reference is not as there so much to the breach of the spiritual marriage covenant with God by the people’s idolatries, as by their worldly spirit, and their trusting to alliances with the heathen for safety, rather than to God.
2. two . . . of one mother—Israel and Judah, one nation by birth from the same ancestress, Sarah.
3. Even so early in their history as their Egyptian sojourn, they Joshua 24:14).
in their youth—an aggravation of their sin. It was at the very time of their receiving extraordinary favors from God (Ezekiel 16:6,22).
they bruised—namely, the Egyptians.
4. Aholah—that is, “Her tent” (put for worship, as the first worship of God in Israel was in a tent or tabernacle), as contrasted with Aholibah, that is, “My tent in her.” The Beth-el worship of Samaria was of her own devising, not of God’s appointment; the temple-worship of Jerusalem was expressly appointed by Jehovah, who “dwelt” there, “setting up His tabernacle among the people as His” (Exodus 25:8, Leviticus 26:11,12, Joshua 22:19, Psalms 76:2).
the elder—Samaria is called “the elder” because she preceded Judah in her apostasy and its punishment.
they were mine—Previous to apostasy under Jeroboam, Samaria (Israel, or the ten tribes), equally with Judah, worshipped the true God. God therefore never renounced the right over Israel, but sent prophets, as Elijah and Elisha, to declare His will to them.
5. when . . . mine—literally, “under Me,” that is, subject to Me as her lawful husband.
neighbours—On the northeast the kingdom of Israel bordered on that of Assyria; for the latter had occupied much of Syria. Their neighborhood in locality was emblematical of their being near in corruption of morals and worship. The alliances of Israel with Assyria, which are the chief subject of reprobation here, tended to this (2 Kings 15:19, 16:7,9, 17:3, Hosea 8:9).
6. blue—rather, “purple” [FAIRBAIRN]. As a lustful woman’s passions are fired by showy dress and youthful appearance in men, so Israel was seduced by the pomp and power of Assyria (compare Isaiah 10:8).
horsemen—cavaliers.
7. all their idols—There was nothing that she refused to her lovers.
8. whoredoms brought from Egypt—the calves set up in Dan and Beth-el by Jeroboam, answering to the Egyptian bull-formed idol Apis. Her alliances with Egypt politically are also meant (Isaiah 30:2,3, 31:1). The ten tribes probably resumed the Egyptian rites, in order to enlist the Egyptians against Judah (2 Chronicles 12:2-4).
9. God, in righteous retribution, turned their objects of trust into the instruments of their punishment: Pul, Tiglath-pileser, Esar-haddon, and Shalmaneser (2 Kings 15:19,29, 17:3,6,24, Ezra 4:2,10). “It was their sin to have sought after such lovers, and it was to be their punishment that these lovers should become their destroyers” [FAIRBAIRN].
10. became famous—literally, “she became a name,” that is, as notorious by her punishment as she had been by her sins, so as to be quoted as a warning to others.
women—that is, neighboring peoples.
11. Judah, the southern kingdom, though having the “warning” instead of profiting by it, went to even greater lengths in corruption than Israel. Her greater spiritual privileges made her guilt the greater (Ezekiel 16:47,51, Jeremiah 3:11).
12. (Ezekiel 23:6,23).
most gorgeously—literally, “to perfection.” GROTIUS translates, “wearing a crown,” or “chaplet,” such as lovers wore in visiting their mistresses.
13. one way—both alike forsaking God for heathen confidences.
14. vermilion—the peculiar color of the Chaldeans, as purple was of the Assyrians. In striking agreement with this verse is the fact that the Assyrian sculptures lately discovered have painted and colored bas-reliefs in red, blue, and black. The Jews (for instance Jehoiakim, Jeremiah 22:14) copied these (compare Ezekiel 8:10).
15. exceeding in dyed attire—rather, “in ample dyed turbans”; literally, “redundant with dyed turbans.” The Assyrians delighted in ample, flowing, and richly colored tunics, scarfs, girdles, and head-dresses or turbans, varying in ornaments according to the rank.
Chaldea, . . . land of their nativity—between the Black and Caspian
princes—literally, a first-rate military class that fought by threes in the chariots, one guiding the horses, the other two fighting.
16. sent messengers . . . into Chaldea—(Ezekiel 16:29). It was she that solicited the Chaldeans, not they her. Probably the occasion was when Judah sought to strengthen herself by a Chaldean alliance against a menaced attack by Egypt (compare 2 Kings 23:29-35, 24:1-7). God made the object of their sinful desire the instrument of their punishment. Jehoiakim, probably by a stipulation of tribute, enlisted Nebuchadnezzar against Pharaoh, whose tributary he previously had been; failing to keep his stipulation, he brought on himself Nebuchadnezzar’s vengeance.
17. alienated from them—namely, from the Chaldeans: turning again to the Egyptians (Ezekiel 23:19), trying by their help to throw off her solemn engagements to Babylon (compare Jeremiah 37:5,7, 2 Kings 24:7).
18. my mind was alienated from her—literally, “was broken off from her.” Just retribution for “her mind being alienated (broken off) from the Chaldeans” (Ezekiel 23:17), to whom she had sworn fealty (Ezekiel 17:12-19). “Discovered” implies the open shamelessness of her apostasy.
19. Israel first “called” her lusts, practised when in Egypt, “to her (fond) remembrance,” and then actually returned to them. Mark the danger of suffering the memory to dwell on the pleasure felt in past sins.
20. their paramours—that is, her paramours among them (the Egyptians); she doted upon their persons as her paramours (Ezekiel 23:5,12,16).
flesh—the membrum virile (very large in the ass). Compare Leviticus 15:2, Margin; Ezekiel 16:26.
issue of horses—the seminal issue. The horse was made by the Egyptians the hieroglyphic for a lustful person.
21. calledst to remembrance—“didst repeat” [MAURER].
in bruising—in suffering . . . to be bruised.
22. lovers . . . alienated—(Ezekiel 23:17). Illicit love, soon or late, ends in open hatred (2 Samuel 13:15). The Babylonians, the objects formerly of their God-forgetting love, but now, with characteristic fickleness, objects of their hatred, shall be made by God the instruments of their punishment.
23. Pekod, &c.—(Jeremiah 50:21). Not a geographical name, but descriptive of Babylon. “Visitation,” peculiarly the land of “judgment”; in a double sense: actively, the inflicter of judgment on Judah; passively, as about to be afterwards herself the object of judgment.
Shoa . . . Koa—“rich . . . noble”; descriptive of Babylon in her prosperity, having all the world’s wealth and dignity at her disposal. MAURER suggests that, as descriptive appellatives are subjoined to the proper name, “all the Assyrians” in the second hemistich of the verse (as the verse ought to be divided at “Koa”), so Pekod, Shoa, and Koa must be appellatives descriptive of “The Babylonians and . . . Chaldeans” in the first hemistich; “Pekod” meaning “prefects”; Shoa . . . Koa, “rich . . . princely.”
desirable young men—strong irony. Alluding to Ezekiel 23:12, these “desirable young men” whom thou didst so “dote upon” for their manly vigor of appearance, shall by that very vigor be the better able to chastise thee.
24. with chariots—or, “with armaments”; so the Septuagint; “axes” [MAURER]; or, joining it with “wagons,” translate, “with scythe-armed wagons,” or “chariots” [GROTIUS].
weels—The unusual height of these increased their formidable appearance (Ezekiel 1:16-20).
their judgments—which awarded barbarously severe punishments (Jeremiah 52:9, 29:22).
25. take away thy nose . . . ears—Adulteresses were punished so among the Egyptians and Chaldeans. Oriental beauties wore ornaments in the ear and nose. How just the retribution, that the features most bejewelled should be mutilated! So, allegorically as to Judah, the spiritual adulteress.
26. strip . . . of . . . clothes—whereby she attracted her paramours (Ezekiel 16:39).
27. Thus . . . make . . . lewdness to cease—The captivity has made the Jews ever since abhor idolatry, not only on their return from Babylon, but for the last nineteen centuries of their dispersion, as foretold (Hosea 3:4).
28. (Ezekiel 23:17,18, 16:37).
29. take away . . . thy labour—that is, the fruits of thy labor.
leave thee naked—as captive females are treated.
31. her cup—of punishment (Psalms 11:6, 75:8, Jeremiah 25:15, &c.). Thy guilt and that of Israel being alike, your punishment shall be alike.
34. break . . . sherds—So greedily shalt thou suck out every drop like one drinking to madness (the effect invariably ascribed to drinking God’s cup of wrath, Jeremiah 51:7, Habakkuk 2:16) that thou shalt crunch the very shreds of it; that is, there shall be no evil left which thou shalt not taste.
pluck off thine own breasts—enraged against them as the ministers to thine adultery.
35. forgotten me—(Jeremiah 2:32, 13:25).
cast me behind thy back—(1 Kings 14:9, Nehemiah 9:26).
bear . . . thy lewdness—that is, its penal consequences (Proverbs 1:31).
36-44. A summing up of the sins of the two sisters, especially those of Judah.
wilt thou judge—Wilt thou (not) judge
38. the same day—On the very day that they had burned their children to Molech in the valley of Gehenna, they shamelessly and hypocritically presented themselves as worshippers in Jehovah’s temple (Jeremiah 7:9,10).
40. messenger was sent—namely, by Judah (Ezekiel 23:16, Isaiah 57:9).
paintedst . . . eyes—(2 Kings 9:30, Margin; Jeremiah 4:30). Black paint was spread on the eyelids of beauties to make the white of the eye more attractive by the contrast, so Judah left no seductive art untried.
41. bed—divan. While men reclined at table, women sat, as it seemed indelicate for them to lie down (Amos 6:4) [GROTIUS].
table—that is, the idolatrous altar.
mine incense—which I had given thee, and which thou oughtest to have offered to Me (Ezekiel 16:18,19, Hosea 2:8; compare Proverbs 7:17).
42. Sabeans—Not content with the princely, handsome Assyrians, the sisters brought to themselves the rude robber hordes of Sabeans (Job 1:15). The Keri, or Margin, reads “drunkards.”
upon their hands—upon the hands of the sisters, that is, they allured Samaria and Judah to worship their gods.
43. Will they, &c.—Is it possible that paramours will desire any longer to commit whoredoms with so worn-out an old adulteress?
45. the righteous men—the Chaldeans; the executioners of God’s righteous vengeance (Ezekiel 16:38), not that they were “righteous” in themselves (Habakkuk 1:3,12,13).
46. a company—properly, “a council of judges” passing sentence on a criminal [GROTIUS]. The “removal” and “spoiling” by the Chaldean army is the execution of the judicial sentence of God.
47. stones—the legal penalty of the adulteress (Ezekiel 16:40,41, John 8:5). Answering to the stones hurled by the Babylonians from engines in besieging Jerusalem.
houses . . . fire—fulfilled (2 Chronicles 36:17,19).
48. (Ezekiel 23:27).
that all . . . may be taught not to do, &c.—(Deuteronomy 13:11).
49. bear the sins of your idols—that is, the punishment of your idolatry.
know that I am the Lord God—that is, know it to your cost . . . by bitter suffering.
Yo Benny Plonker,
I like Benny Sales. You could learn a lot from him.
An Open Letter to the Money-Grubbing Jews
July 24th, 2009 by Ben Sales
Thanks, crooked ultra-Orthodox.
You, with your flowing white beards, black velvet kippot, black coats and blacker hats, have shown the world that we Jews love laundering money through corrupt charities. You, who present yourself to the world as the platinum standard of our religion and culture, have branded us all with the stereotype we’ve been fighting for over a millennium: the greedy Jew, the money-loving Jew, the cheating Jew. Stop complaining about Muslim charities that may funnel money to terrorists (though that is reprehensible). Clean your own house first. Live up to your own moral standards. Doubtless there are other Jews who cheat, Jews who lie and steal, giving no thought to ethics or the lives of others. Doubtless there are plenty of gentiles who do so as well. I’ll criticize them but they matter to me less than you, who make Judaism ostentatious, you whose appearance screams “Jewish!” more than anything else.
Because you make me look bad, me and everyone else who wears a kippah, a long skirt and long sleeves, a black hat, a t-shirt with Hebrew writing on it, a necklace with a silver chai. Every kid who goes to Jewish school and Jewish camp, every college student who attends Hillel, every Zionist and post-Zionist, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, Reform, Sephardi, Ashkenazi, Hasidic, secular must now bear the brunt of those who read of your exploits and think: there’s another Shylock, another Madoff, another Jew for whom the bottom line is more important than his own community. This concept, as I would think you know, is called a chillul hashem, a desecration of God’s name. The basic idea, as you learned and taught in your yeshivot and synagogues, is that we as Jews, especially those of us who manifest it in our appearance, represent more than our own persons. We represent our community, our culture, our people and, in the end, our God. If you take tradition at its word (as it seems you would, given your religious affiliation), the same God you pray to three times a day, the same God who gave you 613 ways to serve Him, has been defiled by this scandal. You have defiled Him, Him and the rest of the Jews you profess to love and help.
I thank God that we live in the United States, a country where Anti-Semitism is the exception rather than the norm, a country where a vast portion of the populace has learned to look past its prejudices and understand that what one criminal Jew does is not a reflection on the rest (and indeed it isn’t: no one in my Jewish community, to the best of my knowledge, steals from tzedaka). I’m grateful that I don’t live in an age of pogroms and expulsions, that you may have hurt the Jews of America but that the rest of us won’t suffer the aftereffects of what you have wrought; as we would have had we lived in another time or place. As you rot in prison (as I hope you will), know that we have no sympathy for you. We will not pray for you nor will we blame the goyim for your crimes. We, as a Jewish community, will stand up and condemn you: You are wrong. You deserve punishment. You do not represent us.
I don’t think it is generally effective to cut and paste large quantities of text, so let’s skip to the Ezekiel Chapter 43, which you will note is after Chapter 23
7 And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, this is the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name, neither they, nor their kings, by their harlotry, and by the carcasses of their kings in their high places;
9 Now let them put away their harlotry, and the carcasses of their kings, far from Me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.
Hear that? Forever. That includes today. That includes the land claimed by Arabs and advocated for by leftists and Nazis both. All of the prophets say similar things.
To repeat my earlier points: do you think the gentiles were busy being holy during that time? What do you think Ezekiel would say about you, whoring after gods that your fathers knew not?
Now, I don’t know Ben Sales, but he sounds immature. Wait a minute, here he is in the National Jewish Student magazine. What a jerk.
any relation to Soupy ? Look, no need for people to get defensive, there is plenty of jewish guilt to go around for the rest of us
~L~
How does any “Jew” (if there is really a definitive definition of “jew” ) claim to be a Semite? How does ANYONE claim to be a Semite ? How can you or anyone possibly prove they are “Semetic” ? How can the Arabs prove they are Semites too ?
There was reason God gave you a foreskin. For man to desecrate and genitally mutilate a baby, is to go against God. Its not that they circumsize, which is bad enough in its self, its HOW they do it, as it is no secret anymore of this so called rite. It is so strange and beyond perverse. Nobody can convince me this is normal.
The answers to both of your non-challenges are Incredibly simple, but then so are you. I don’t really get the import of your question, other than a wacky new way to indirectly discredit the Jews as much as the Arabs are discredited. Being a Semite is not that meaningful these days anyway, not even to antisemites who have no problem with the Arabs.
We are Semites because we descend from Abraham and Sarah, Isaac an Rebeccah, Jacob and Rachel and Leah (and Bilhah and Zilpah from whom we get some diversity and natural rhythm.) Close to four thousand years ago there were many fewer people on earth, and everyone knew exactly who they were and where they came from. Moreover, Shem the son of Noah was still alive, under the title of Melchzedek king of Shalem (later called Jerusalem), birthplace of Adam. The Torah records the incident in which Shem acknowledges Abraham his descendant as the inheritor of kingship and pristhood, passing on the torch as it were, in spite of Abraham having killed his eldest son in wartime, thus in a manner of speaking becoming the pre-eminent Semite in the world. Going on down from father to son, etc. is how we know we are Semites. In fact, in spite of there havbing been seventy primordial nations, only the nation personally created by God himself is the only nation in the world to really know our ancestry with such precision. Think about it. Yhe Arabs certainly cannot prove they are Semites, and even if they could they would not be entitled to a grain of sand in Israel/Palestine.
As far as circumcision, we do it because God told us to and we have confidence in God’s opinion, period. I am not sure we would have invented it otherwise. It goes without saying that we don’t have confidence in your moronic non-Semitic opinion.
As with so many of God’s commandments, it pleasntly turns out that this is the one and only bodily modification that is beneficial to personal and social health and hygiene, but that’s not why we do it. But nobody else should be circumsized, and they can (and do) perform all the body modifications they want because they are not a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
Hi Benny,
Just a question?
Are you saying Jerusalem was the birth place of Adam our father?
Moreover, Shem the son of Noah was still alive, under the title of Melchzedek king of Shalem (later called Jerusalem), birthplace of Adam.
Bullshit Ben. You cant PROVE any of this idiotic mythology. Prove it. Even IF Noah and Shem were real, you are not racially a semite. By being a “Semite” you may actually have claim to Palestine, which you are not.
But what you are Ben, is an imposter who has himself charmed in fantasy. You dont follow God’s law, you follow the laws of men; rabbis of a fallen nature. Your messiah is Satan.
Ben states - “The answers to both of your non-challenges are Incredibly simple, but then so are you. I don’t really get the import of your question”
Simple yet you dont get it. Its so simple its profound. Like I said you have yourself charmed into the corner, you are a sociopath, Balonie.
Hi Benny,
Thought you might like to read this article.
ARMILUS:
By : Kaufmann Kohler Louis Ginzberg
In later Jewish eschatology and legend, a king who will arise at the end of time against the Messiah, and will be conquered by him after having brought much distress upon Israel. The origin of this Jewish Antichrist (as he can well be styled in view of his relation to the Messiah) is as much involved in doubt as the different phases of his development, and his relation to the Christian legend and doctrine.
Saadia’s Tradition of Armilus.
Saadia (born 892; died 942) is the earliest trustworthy authority that speaks of Armilus. He mentions the following as a tradition of the ancients, hence of the eighth century at the latest: If the Jews do not prove themselves worthy of Messianic salvation, God will force them to repentance by terrible persecutions. In consequence of these persecutions, a scion of the tribe of Joseph will arise and wrest Jerusalem from the hands of the Edomites, that is, from the Christians; the Arabic text of Landauer, p. 239, has correctly “Jerusalem,” and not “Temple,” as in the Hebrew translation, which has it owing to an erroneous interpretation of the Arabic “al bait al muḳaddas.” Thereupon the king, Armilus, will conquer and sack the Holy City, kill the inhabitants together with “the man [Messiah] of the tribe of Joseph,” and then begin a general campaign against the Jews, forcing them to flee into the desert, where they will suffer untold misery. When they have been purified by sorrow and pain, the Messiah will appear, wrest Jerusalem from Armilus, slay him, and thereby bring the true salvation.
Armilus in the Apocalyptic Midrashim.
Armilus is for Saadia, or rather for Saadia’s sources, nothing more or less than the last powerful anti-Jewish king, the Gog of the prophets under another name (compare “Emunot we-De’ot,” ed. Fischel, viii. 152-154; ed. Landauer, pp. 239-241). The same thing is said of Gog that Saadia says of Armilus in “Aggadot MashiaḦ” in Jellinek, “B. H.” iii. 141; but the rôle ascribed there to the Messiah, son of Joseph, shows that this Midrash is not Saadia’s source.
Armilus and Satan.
However, an entirely different shape and meaning are given to Armilus in some smaller Midrashim dealing with the “latter days.” In the “Midrash wa-Yosha’”—which comes nearest to Saadia’s conception—Armilus is taken to be Gog’s successor; but is represented as a monstrosity, bald-headed, with one large and one small eye, deaf in the right ear and maimed in the right arm, while the left arm is two and one-half ells long. His battle with and his defeat by the Messiah, son of Joseph, correspond with Saadia’s account (Jellinek, “B. H.” i. 56; Targ. on Isa. xi. 4; but see Steinschneider, “Hebr. Bibl.” xiv. 45). A similar description of Armilus is found in “Nistarot R. Simon b. YoḦai” (Secrets of Simon b. YoḦai), a pseudepigraph, the latest redaction of which can not antedate the first crusade (Steinschneider, “Z. D. M. G.” xxviii. 646). (See Apocalyptic Literature, Neo-Hebraic, 10.) The statement found there that Armilus is the son of Satan and of a stone (Jellinek, “B. H.” iii. 80) is an interpolation from another source, written in Aramaic, while the book itself is in Hebrew; nor is this curious origin of Armilus mentioned anywhere else in the book. An entirely different conception of Armilus is found in the pseudepigraphs: “Zerubbabel,” “Otot ha-MashiaḦ” (Signs of the Messiah) and “Tefillat R. Simon b. YoḦai” (Prayer of R. Simon b. YoḦai). Aside from a few unimportant variants in these three versions—the Zerubbabel seems to show the earlier, shorter form—they agree in the following description of Armilus: In Rome there is a splendid marble statue of a beautiful girl which God Himself made in the beginning of the world (), according to the version given in “Tefillat R. Simon.” Through sexual intercourse of evil men, or even of Satan himself, with this statue, a terrible creature in human form was produced, whose dimensions as well as shape were equally monstrous. This creature, Armilus by name—the Gentiles called him Antichrist, says the “Otot”—will set himself up as Messiah, even as God Himself, being recognized as such by the sons of Esau, that is, by the Christians. He agrees to accept as his doctrine the Gospels, which the Christians lay before him (“B. H.” ii. 60; tiflatam—not tefillotam—signifying something offensive, morally as well as religiously, whereas tefillotam signifies their prayers). Then he turns to the Jews, especially to their leader, Nehemiah b. Ḥushiel, saying, “Bring your Torah and acknowledge that I am God.” Nehemiah and his followers open the Torah and read to Armilus, “I am the Lord, thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me.” But as Armilus nevertheless insists upon being recognized as God by the Jews, and they cry out to him that he is Satan and not God, a bitter battle breaks out between Armilus with an immense heathen army on the one side, and Nehemiah with 30,000 Jewish heroes on the other. This unequal combat ends in the death of the “Ephraimite Messiah” and a million Jews. After an interval of forty-five days, during which the Jews unworthy of the Messianic glory die out (compare the similar statement in reference to the liberation from Egypt found already in the old Haggadah, Mekilta, BeshallaḦ, i., ed. Weiss, p. 29), and the remnant have shown their true worth in sore trials and bitter sufferings in the desert whither they will have fled, Michael will blow his trumpet; then the Messiah and Elijah will appear, gather the dispersed of Israel, and proceed to Jerusalem. Armilus, inflamed against the Jews, will march against the Messiah. But now God Himself will war against Armilus and his army and destroy them; or the Messiah, as one version has it, will slay Armilus by the breath of his mouth (Jellinek, “B. H.” ii. 51, line 3, where the text is probably corrupt; compare II Thess. ii. 8). According to a Roman legend (see Eusebius, “Chronicon,” I. xlvi. 7, ed. Migne, pp. 283, 284, and Book II. anno 1145), it was an Armilus who presumed to war with Jupiter, and was slain by the latter’s thunderbolt. In the Armilus legend the Messiah takes the place of Jupiter, and here also Armilus is slain by fire and sulphur from heaven (Jellinek, “B. H.” ii. 62).
The Later Armilus Legend.
The alleged descent of Armilus from a stone is a Jewish version of the wide-spread legend connected with the name of Virgil and referring to a statue that became a courtezan among the Romans (Güdemann, “Gesch. des Erziehungswesens . . . der Juden in Italien,” pp. 221 et seq., 332, 333). It is indeed not improbable that this borrowing from the Virgil legend was due to Christian influence. The antithesis, Christ and Antichrist, which is the distinctive feature in the Christian legend of the Antichrist, led already in the tenth century to the opinion that Antichrist also would be the offspring of a virgin and, of course, of Satan (see Bousset,“Antichrist,” p. 92, and the description of St. Hildegarde, lib. iii., visio xi., ed. Migne, pp. 716 et seq.).As to the origin of the name Armilus, whether it is derived from Romulus, the founder of Rome, or from Ahriman, the evil principle of the Persians, Arimainyus = Armalgus (Targ. Isa. xi. 4 and Targ. Yer. Deut. xxxiv. 3), see under Ahriman and Antichrist.
Bibliography:
Bousset, Der Antichrist, especially pp. 66-70, 88-99; English translation by A. H. Keane, pp. 104-112 and 138-146; Brüll, in Kobak’s Jeschurun, vii. 11; Fränkel, in Z. D. M. G. lii. 295; Grätz, in Wertheimer’s Jahrb. für Israeliten, 1864, p. 239; and Geschichte, 3d ed., iv. 412; Grünbaum, in Z. D. M. G. xxxi. 300; Güdemann, Gesch. des Erziehungswesens der Juden in Italien, pp. 221 et seq., 332-333; Horowitz, Bet ‘Eḳed ha-Aggadot, p. 25; D. Kaufmann, in Monatsschrift, xl. 135, 136; Kohler, in Z. D. M. G. xxiii. 693; Kohut, Aruch Completum, i. 291-292; Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter, i. 241-243; Jellinek, Introduction to Bet ha-Midrash, ii. 21-23, iii. 17-20; Schürer, Geschichte, 3d ed., ii. 532, 533; Vogelstein and Rieger, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, i. 155 et seq.; Zunz, G. V. 2d ed., p. 295.K. L. G.
WOE TO THE RABBIS WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PLEASE THEIR LISTENERS
In the book kav ha Yashar it is written: It is a common occurrence in today’s day and age, that people give public lectures with false and misled ideas. Their words are not pure and true, and they confuse people for the sake of receiving praise for their talents. These people have exchanged the everlasting world for this temporary world. They bring about evil decrees, as we have explained above. Anyone who has fear of G-d should consider well the terrible loss that he is incurring by choosing money or honor in this world, rather than the eternal life of the World to Come. The honor that people may give him for his speech or lecture is but a thorn in his soul. Very suddenly he shall find himself overcome by a terrible fear and darkness. Woe unto the shame and humiliation that he will suffer when the time for him to die will come.
Since the Reform and conservative Rabbis love the prophets so much because they speak of ethical behavior, let these Rabbis apply to them the following words of the Prophet Yeshayahu
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! 22 Woe to those who are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mix strong drink; 23 Who justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! (Isaiah 5:20 -23)
EVEN IF THE REFORM AND CONSERVATIVE WANT TO LIVE LIKE THE GENTILES, HASHEM WILL NOT LET THEM LIVE LIKE THEY WISH TO
32 And that which comes into your mind shall never come about, that you say, We will be as the nations, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone. 33 As I live, says the Lord G-d, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you; 34 And I will bring you out from the peoples, and will gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. (EZEKIEL 20:32-34)
Rambam writes on Mishne Torah Hilchot Deot 2:1
Those who are sick in the body taste the bitter as sweet and the sweet as bitter, and among the sick there are those who desire foods that are not fit to eat, such as earth and charcoal, and hate healthful foods such as bread and meat - all depending on how serious the sickness is.
Similarly, those who are morally ill desire and love bad traits, hate the good path, and are lazy to follow it. Depending on how sick they are, they find it exceedingly burdensome.
Isaiah [5:20] speaks of such people in a like manner: “Woe to those who call the bad good, and the good bad, who take darkness to be light and light to be darkness, who take bitter to be sweet and sweet to be bitter.” Concerning them, [Proverbs 2:13] states: “Those who leave the upright paths to walk in the ways of darkness.” What is the remedy for the morally ill? They should go to the wise, for they are the healers of souls. They wil.l heal them by teaching them [how to acquire proper] traits, until they return them to the good path.
GREAT ATHEISM IS COMING INTO THE WORLD
Rebbe Nachman said, ‘‘Great atheism is coming to the world.’’ Many times he told us that the world’s many sins are resulting in great disbelief. Happy is he who is strong in his faith. The Rebbe said, that the fact that he is predicting this will not prevent this G-dlessness and confusion from increasing. Thousands of years ago, Daniel the prophet and others predicted that this would happen in the days before the Messiah. They said (Dan. 12:10), ‘‘Many will purify themselves and be refined, and make themselves shining white. The wicked will be evil, and only the wise shall understand.” It has already been predicted that there will be great temptations before the Messiah’s coming, where “many will purify themselves and be refined, and make themselves shining white’’ in faith. Fortunate indeed is one who resists these temptations and remains firm in his belief. He will be worthy of all the good promised to us by the prophets and sages of old. Knowing full well that this has already been predicted, it would seem ridiculous for one to succumb to any temptation to abandon his beliefs. It would seem obvious that every Jew would have enough intelligence to remain firm. But still it is a great trial. Many will fall away, and for this reason it is written that ‘‘the wicked will be evil.’’The Rebbe said, ‘‘Still, I am revealing this for the sake of the few faithful who will remain strong in their belief. They will certainly have great conflicts. But when they see that this has already been predicted, it will give them additional strength and encouragement.’’ (Rebbe Nachman’s wisdom 35)
DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE FURTHER PEOPLE ARE FROM THE TRUTH THE MORE THEY CONSIDER SOMEONE WHO TURNS AWAY FROM EVIL TO BE A FOOL?
REBBE NACHMAN, SEFER HA MIDDOT, EMET
DO YOU WANT TO BE LIKE THE NATIONS?
In the prophet Ezekiel (20:32) it is brought, the footsetps of Mashiach people will hold the idea of “We will be like the nations”, this prophecy started to materialize before 150 years [To the year 1940] through the hands of the leaders of the Enlightment from Berlin. They justified this idea with the motto “Be a Jew in your house and a person in the street”. Not many days went by until we saw the fruits of this ideology where the Jews ceased to behave like Jews and abandoned their religion.
This ideology had as its goal to uproot the foundations of the Torah. The Torah warned the Jews about the neeed for extreme separation in all walks of life from the nations around them “And I will separate you from the nations to be unto Me” (Vayikra 20:26, Rambam Hilchot Avoda Zara 1:1) But the enlightened held steady to their ways, to be like all the nations. The Holy One Blessed be He said: “What you say, we will be like the nations, will not be so, for with a strong hand and an outstretched arm and an outpoured anger I will rule over you” (Ezekiel 20:32) The Holy One Blessed be He will start with a strong arm, and if the people will prolong their deceipt, then the outstretched arm will come, and if the Jews will still treat Hashem with lightness then the outpoured anger will come. We do not know in which of the three stages we are today, and the future will soon show us where we are ...
Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman (Killed by the Nazis in the Shoa), May his Blood be avenged
THERE ARE 8000 GATES TO GEHINOMM
(YALKUT SHIMONI 2:429)
The wicked think, “How many people can Gehinom accommodate? Two million? Three million? How many evildoers are there in every generation? Gehinom assuredly must run out of space and cease to accept new candidates.” Responds Hashem, “As many evil men as there may be in the world, Gehinom expands to accommodate you.” This is enunciated by the prophet Isaiah (30:33), “Gehinom is prepared from the previous day; it is ready for kings, too; it is deepened; it is broadened; its furnace is full of fire and much fuel; Hashem’s breath is like a river of sulfur burning in it.”(Yalkut Shimani 2:436)
From the Book Continents in Motion: The New Earth Debate:
We may note that one of the world’s most active volcanoes, Kilauea in Hawaii, constantly exudes gas with the distinct smell of sulfur.’ Writes Walter Sullivan, “Geothermal plants are not necessarily pollution free. The first thing that strikes a visitor to Big Sulfur Canyon in the Geysers steam field is the powerful smell of hydrogen sulfide… that smells like rotten eggs.”
AN UNDERGROUND WATER SOURCE IS ADJACENT TO GEHINOMM WHICH FEEDS THE WORLD’S HOT SPRINGS FOR THE PLEASURE OF MANKIND (PIRKE DE RABBI ELIEZER 5)
Many years before the Nazi rise to power, R. Meir Simcha Hakohen, in his Meshech Chochmah, alluded to this future development when he commented upon the verse, “I will not cast them away, nor will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly” (Vayikra 26:44):
The Jew will forget his origin and true identity and consider himself a full-fledged citizen of the country of his exile. He will abandon his study of Torah for the study of languages and culture foreign to him. He will, choose to learn from the depraved and not from the upright. He will consider Berlin to be his new Jerusalem and follow the example of the more degenerate of the Gentiles and not of the decent ones. Do not rejoice, 0 Israel, do not exult like the nations, lest a stormy wind brew and viciously uproot you from the trunk and deposit you in a distant country whose language you know not. Then you will know that you are a stranger.
SOME SINS ARE SO GREAT…
Some sins are so great that those who commit them are not afforded Divine assistance to repent. Included among them is one who was able to rebuke others, be it a group or individuals, and did not do so but left them in their backsliding. (Rambam Hilchos Teshuva 4:1)
Those who rebuke the people sweeten the heavenly decrees and increase peace on the world. But when the wickedness of the people overules and spoils the rebuke and admonition, the peace on this world is ruined and this causes an expulsion and strife (Likute Etzot, Erech Tochacha)
If a Rabbi of a congregation is liked by his congregants (It is not so because they are so good but rather) it is a sign that he does not admonish them on matters pertaining to heaven (Ketuvot 105)
THE EREV RAV BUILD GREAT SYNAGOGUES ONLY TO
BECOME FAMOUS AND NOT FOR HASHEM’S SAKE
This is what the Zohar ha Kaddosh (1, 25-26) says about the types of Erev Rav: There are five types among the Erev Rav “mixed multitude”, Nefilim, Gibborim, Anakim, Refaim, and Amalekim…
THE GIBBORIM BUILD SYNAGOGUES FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT BUT CLAIM THEY DO IT ONLY FOR G-D’S SAKE
The Gibborim (mighty ones) are those of whom it is written: “They are the mighty ones…men of name” (Genesis 6, 4). They come from the side of those who said: “Come, let us build a city and make a name for ourselves” (Bereshit 11,4). These men build synagogues and Yeshivot and place in them Torah Scrolls with rich ornaments, but they do it not for the sake of G-d, but only to make themselves a name, and as a result of this the powers of evil rule over Israel (who must be humble like the dust of the earth), according to the verse “And the waters prevailed greatly upon the earth” (Bereshit 7:19).
THERE WILL BE A FLOOD OF IMMORALITY BEFORE THE COMING OF MASHIACH
Rabbi Nachman concluded by saying that it is said that before the Mashiach comes, there will be a flood. (People will be flooded with atheism.) It will not be a flood of water, but of immorality. It will cover all the high mountains, even in the Holy Land, where the original flood did not reach. But this time, it will come with such strength that the water will splash over the land. This means that it will have an effect even in virtuous hearts. There will be no way to combat this with sophistication. All the royal ministers will be scattered, and the entire kingdom will not be firm on its foundation. The only ones who will uphold it will be the simple Jews who recite Psalms in simplicity. Therefore, when the Mashiach comes, they will be the ones to place the crown on his head”. (Rabbi Nachman’s Stories #21)
“It will be very difficult to remain firm in faith, and not be misled by everyone’s mistaken beliefs in the pre Messianic era. At that time, many who call themselves religious leaders will preach falsehood. A group like ours, where people gather together, thirsting for G-d’s word, will no longer exist. There will be some truly religious individuals, but they will be very few and far between. Rabbi Nachman then quoted the verse: “Write this as a record in a book” (Exodus 17:14). In days to come let people know that there was someone who already predicted this. Then they will know and be encouraged in their faith”
(Rabbi Nachman of Bresslov [1772-1810], Sichot Ha Ran 126)
THOSE WHO FEAR HASHEM NEED STRENGTH NOT TO FOLLOW THE PATH OF DECEPTION OF THE MAJORITY
The prophet Malachi already spoke about the great hiding of the face of Hashem and the great confusion of minds and ideas before the arrival of Mashiach because the evildoers and the actions of the Satan will be successful and the trials and the strength needed will be great, and there will be no possibility of talking about the truth and about faith in front of the multitudes…Therefore the prophet said: “Then those who fear Hashem spoke each one to his fellow” that those who fear Hashem will have to strengthen themselves that they should not err and go after the mistaken people and after the majority, and one should help his fellow man and strengthen him and tell him: “Be strong” and the Holy One blessed is He who searches the heart and kidneys, will test their words.
(Maskil el Dal)
“A brutish man knows not, neither does a fool understand this” When the wicked spring up like grass and all workers of iniquity flourish, it is so that they will be exterminated forever” (Psalms 92:6-7)
Some time after, Rabbi Abba, as he was on his way to Rabbi Shimon, went into the town where this man lived. He found him expounding the verse: “A brutish man knows not, neither does a fool understand this” (Psalms 92, 6). ‘How foolish’, he said, ‘are mankind that they take no pains to know the ways of the Almighty by which the world is maintained. ‘What prevents them? Their stupidity, because they do not study the Torah; for if they were to study the Torah they would know the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He. “A fool does not understand this”: meaning [76a] the ways of “this” (zot is the Shechinah), in the world, how it judges the world. For they only see the punishments of this zot falling on the righteous and not falling on the wicked who transgress the precepts of the Torah, and who inherit this world in every direction, as it is written, “the wicked spring as the grass”. And so that we should know better, did not King David enlighten us in the second part of the verse, saying, “It is that they shall be destroyed for ever”; that is, to be destroyed in the other world, where they shall be dust under the feet of the Tzaddikim.’ He further discoursed on the verse: “My leanness rises up against me, it testifies to my face” (Job 16, 8). ‘Observe’, he said, ‘that if a man transgresses the precepts of the Law, the Torah itself goes up and down and makes marks on that man’s face so that all both above and below look at him and heap curses on his head. We have learnt that all the eyes of Hashem which go to and from in the world to observe the ways of mankind look well at the face of that man and exclaim: Alas, alas, Alas for him in this world, alas for him in the world to come. Keep away from So-and-so because his face testifies against him that an unclean spirit rests upon him.
ZOHAR HA KADDOSH ACHARE MOT 75B 76A
BE WARY OF ALL NEW CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES
The holy Sefer ha Brit (Part 1, Chapter 3) states: “Be wary of all new customs and groups that do not follow the ways our forefathers knew. Even if these people are Torah scholars and doers of acts of kindness, if they deviate even an inch from the Shulchan Aruch do not follow them. If they conduct themselves contrary to the Shulchan Aruch, distance yourselves from their ways and don’t go near their homes. Because also among the followers of Shabetai Tzvi [may his name be blotted out] there were many Torah scholars with great Torah knowledge. And there is nothing new that will be good and won’t bring sin in its wake. Therefore, be very careful about new things. And this rule should always be in front of you: “The one who turns his face away from the Shulchan Aruch, even a little has no portion in the G-d of Yaakov and in his congregation.” [See also Chovot ha Levavot, Shaar ha Yichud ha Maase, chapter 5 – See also Likute Amarim Tanya, Chapter 1 and 24 - Talmud Eruvin 21b]
EVEN THE GOOD THINGS THAT THE EREV RAV DO, HAVE TO BE TREATED WITH CONTEMPT
The root of our deficiency comes from what the Erev Rav do to us. As it is written in the Zohar: “They (The Erev Rav) damage Israel more than all the nations”.
And one has to strengthen oneself with great faith (EMUNA), because Israel were redeemed from Mitzrayim only in the merit of faith, and so it will be with the future redemption, that we will need great faith because we will see how the ways of evildoers succeed… and even if we see in them (The Erev Rav) good things like Torah and tradition and good manners and in particular they make peace with everybody and peace is the foundation of everything, and it is a very good trait, even so, as in the case of a sick person that needs to have his blood extracted even though the soul is in the blood, so it will be in the days prior to Mashiach, we must reject all these people even when they have good aspects in their behavior because then will be time of Clarification and selection and this will be the trial and choice in those days
(Divre Simcha by Rabbi Simcha Ysachar Ber Chalberstam, zt’l).
And they are called Erev Rav, because they are the heads (leaders - Rabbis) of the Jews in the exile and therefore they are called RAV.”
(Likutim Ha GRA)
FIVE TYPES OF LEADERS OF THE EREV RAV
This is what the Zohar ha Kaddosh (1, 25-26) says about the types of Erev Rav: There are five types among the Erev Rav “mixed multitude”, Nefilim, Gibborim, Anakim, Refaim, and Amalekites.
The Amalekites are those who are left from the time of the Flood, from those of whom it is written, “and he blotted out all living substance”; those who have been left from this class in this fourth exile of Israel make themselves leaders by force, and are scourges to Israel; of them it is written, “for the earth was full of violence because of them”. These are the Amalekites.
THE REFAIM ABANDON ISRAEL WHEN THEY ARE IN TROUBLE
The Refaim (lit. weak ones), the fourth section of the “mixed multitude - EREV RAV” are those who if they see Israel in trouble, abandon them even though they are in a position to help them, and they also neglect the Torah and its students in order to ingratiate themselves with the non-Jews. Of them it is said, “They are Refaim (shades), they shall not arise” (Is. 26, 14); When redemption shall come to Israel, “all their memory shall perish” (Ibid.). (Zohar ha Kaddosh 1, 25-26)
THE EREV RAV CARRY WEAPONS TO WOUND ISRAEL
In “Bnei Yisachar” (articles of Chodesh Adar) it is written, “the groups of the Erev Rav who sit among us, are heretics, informers, Apikorsim, they are from the root of Amalek, the Sitra Achra, as you may see in these generations, that on account of our myriad sins, the heresy has increased. And there are those who carry weapons on them to wound Israel with bad advice and faulty laws.”
And in the Zohar Chai Parashat Bereshit (4, pg. 96) it says: “And the Erev Rav is the bad side of Moshe, and Moshe wanted to correct them…And Moshe himself comes in every generation (in the ARIZAL, afterwards in the BAAL SHEM TOV) and he will reincarnate in the last generation among the Erev Rav…And now most of the generation with their leaders are from the Erev Rav…And Moshe comes to prevent the Erev Rav from derailing the people of Israel”.
THE EREV RAV ARE THE ONES WHO BUILT THE GOLDEN CALF AND MIXED GOOD WITH EVIL
My son even with all this the letter HEI stood before man. After the EREV RAV came and made the golden calf, they caused the HEI to go up to the VAV and the YUD and the word HOI was made. And who caused this? “HOI GOI CHOTE” “Oh a sinful nation” (Isaiah 1:4) And the final HE stood alone and this is what is written: “How lonely sits” (Eicha 1:1)…And they mixed the good with the evil which the Holy One had separated as it is written: “And Hashem separated the night from the day” (Bereshit 1:4)” They caused the Shechinah to be exiled and be mixed among the nations of the world…
Tikkune Zohar Tikkun 19
THE RESHAIM ARE THE EREV RAV THEY ALL RISE AND DOMINATE ISRAEL DURING THE EXILE
And the RESHAIM, the evil ones, these are the EREV RAV, and they are called SOF PASUK (The end of the sentence) for they come from the seed of AMALEK about whom it is written KI YAD AL KES YA (Shemot 17:15). And there are 5 types AMALEKIM, GIBBORIM, NEFILIM, ANAKIM and REFAIM. For they all rise and dominate ISRAEL during the exile and this is what is written (Bereshit 7:18) “And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth” Four times it is written VAYIGBERU - VEGABRU (Prevailed) corresponding to the four exiles. And they are called SOF PASUK for the Holy One Blessed be He will POSEK [Cease them to be] at the end of days from the world.
Tikkune Zohar Tikkun 21
The materialist philosophers, who claim that everything operates only by virtue of the laws of nature, are a breed of wild animals who have made terrible inroads into our people and caught many of our sons in their clutches. Many Jewish souls are sunk in this like birds caught in a snare. If you love your soul, keep well away from these wild beasts, who would otherwise snatch your soul and consume it. Keep well away from books of speculative science, even those written by our own great Sages. There is no greater evil (Likutey Moharan II 46)
This is why a person has to be so careful to guard his mind and his thoughts and make sure that he never admits alien ideas or ways of looking at things. All our problems and defects and sins come from abusing the sanctity of the mind, G-d forbid, by admitting alien thoughts, and ideologies. To achieve true repentance and to make amends for all one’s sins, one must cleanse the mind of all these alien ideas. Wisdom and intelligence actually are the soul. By clearing the mind of alien ideologies the faculty of thought is elevated to its source. This is the essence of returning to G-d (Rebbe Nachman’s wisdom ).
People who make fun of the words of the Sages are punished with boiling excremehts (Gittin 56a). Stinking vapors rise up to their brains, leaving them twisted and confused. No matter how much they may study Torah, they will never be able to derive true guidance from it about the way to lead their lives. Their hearts are as filthy as a privy. They never have a clear idea how to live at all. This kind of cynicism leads in the end to severe decrees being passed against the Jewish people. They are expelled from the countries they were living in, and the end result of the upheavals is that whole areas of Torah wisdom become lost to us (Rebbe Nachman’sLikkute Moharan 6 ).
SAMA-EL AND HIS COHORTS HUMILIATE
AND MISTREAT THE JEWS IN EXILE
BERESHIT YIRA BOSHET. Woe to SAMA-EL when the Holy One Blessed be HE will come to redeem the Shechina and Israel her son. And will avenge from him and from the 70 nations together with their angels who control them, all the suffering that they inflicted upon the Jews during their Exile. Because before Israel was exiled, the Holy One Blessed be He revealed to them, that the Jews were destined to be under their yoke, and He showed them the reward if they treated the Jews with kindness while they would be in exile, this is what is written (Bereshit 39:5) “And G-d blessed the house of the Egyptian because of Joseph”. And SAMA-EL and his cohorts don’t give honor to the Jews but on the contrary they denigrate the Shechina and the Jews, for they say to them every day: “Where is your G-d?”…
Tikkune Zohar, Tikkun 7
The Origins of Reform Judaism
(Or how to scrap a 3,000 year old tradition in order to copy the ways of Esav)
Reform Judaism was born at the time of the French Revolution, a time when European Jews were recognized for the first time as citizens of the countries in which they lived. Ghettos were being abolished, special badges were no more, people could settle where they pleased, dress as they liked and follow the occupations that they wanted.
Many Jews settled outside of Jewish districts, and began to live like their neighbors and speak the language of the land. They went to public schools and universities, began to neglect Jewish studies and to disregard the Shulchan Aruch.
In 1815, after Napoleon’s defeat, Jews lost the rights of citizenship in several countries. Many Jews became Christian to retain those rights. Thoughtful Jews were concerned about this. They realized that many of these changes took place not because of a dislike of Judaism, but to obtain better treatment. Many rabbis believed the way to address this was to force Jews to keep away from Christians and give up public schools and universities. This didn’t work.
Leopold Zunz proposed something else. He suggested that Jews study their history and learn of the great achievements of the past. While Zunz was implementing his ideas, a movement began to make religious services better understood, by incorporating music and the local language. Local Rabbis, however, persuaded the government to close the test synagogue.
Shortly after the closing, Rabbi Abraham Geiger suggested that observance might also be changed to appeal to modern people. Geiger, a skilled scholar in both Tanach and German studies, investigated Jewish history. He discovered that Jewish life had continually changed. Every now and then, old practices were changed and new ones introduced, resulting in a Jewish life that was quite different from that lived 4,000 or even 2,000 years before. He noticed these changes often made it easier for Jews to live in accordance with Judaism. Geiger concluded that this process of change needed to continue to make Judaism attractive to all Jews.
Between 1810 and 1820, congregations in Seesen, Hamburg and Berlin instituted fundamental changes in traditional Jewish practices and beliefs, such as mixed seating, singleday observance of festivals and the use of a cantor/choir. Many leaders of the Reform movement took a very “rejectionist” view of Jewish practice and discarded traditions and rituals. For example:
* Circumcision was not practiced, and was decried as barbaric.
* The Hebrew language was removed from the liturgy and replaced with German.
* The hope for a restoration of the Jews in Israel was officially renounced, and it was officially stated that Germany was to be the new Zion.
* The ceremony in which a child celebrated becoming Bar Mitzvah was replaced with a “confirmation” ceremony.
* The laws of Kashrut and family purity were officially declared “repugnant” to modern thinking people, and were not observed.
* Shabbat was observed on Sunday.
* Traditional restrictions on Shabbat behavior were not followed.
Reform Comes to America
American Reform Judaism began as these German “reformers” immigrated to American in the mid1800s. The first “Reform” group was formed by a number of individuals that split from Congregation Beth Elohim in Charleston, South Carolina. Reform rapidly became the dominant belief system of American Jews of the time. It was a national phenomenon.
Reform Judaism in American benefitted from the lack of a central religious authority. It also was molded by Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise. Rabbi Wise came to the United States in 1846 from Bohemia, spent eight years in Albany, NY, and then moved to Cincinnati on the edge of the frontier. He then proceeded to:
1. Write the first siddur edited for American worshipers, Minhag American (1857).
2. Found the Union of American Hebrew Congregations in 1873.
3. Found Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati in 1875.
4. Found the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) in 1889.
Reform Jews also pioneered a number of organizations, such as the Educational Alliance on the Lower East Side of New York, the Young Men’s Hebrew Association, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith.
By 1880, more than 90 percent of American synagogues were Reform. This was the time of the major Eastern European immigration, which was heavily Orthodox and nonGerman, as contrasted with the strongly German Reform movement. Many Reform congregations of this time were difficult to distinguish from neighboring Protestant churches, with preachers in robes, pews with mixed seating, choirs, organs and hymnals. Like their counterparts in Germany, American Reform rabbis, such as David Einhorn, Samuel Holdheim, Bernard Felsenthal and Kaufmann Kohler, adopted a radical approach to observance.
Although early American Reform rabbis dropped quite a bit of traditional prayers and rituals, there was still a “bottom line.” In 1909, the CCAR formally declared its opposition to intermarriage. And, although decried as “archaic” and “barbarian,” the practice of circumcision remained a central rite.
This early radicalism was mentioned in the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform, which dismisses “such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity and dress” as anachronisms that only obstruct spirituality in the modern age. The platform stressed that Reform Jews must only be accepting of laws that they feel “elevate and sanctify our lives” and must reject those customs and laws that are “not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.”
Early Reform Judaism was also antiZionist, believing the Diaspora was necessary for Jews to be “light unto the nations.” Nevertheless, a number of Reform rabbis were pioneers in establishing Zionism in America, including Gustav and Richard Gottheil, Rabbi Steven S. Wise (founder of the American Jewish Congress) and Justice Louis Brandeis. Following the Balfour Declaration, the Reform movement began to support Jewish settlements in Palestine, as well as institutions such as Hadassah Hospital and the Hebrew University.
As the years passed, a reevaluation took place in which many members of the Reform movement began to question the “reforms” that were made. By 1935, the movement had begun to return to a more traditional approach to Judaism-distinctly Jewish and distinctly American, but also distinctively nonChristian. Starting with the Columbus Platform in 1937, many of the discarded practices were reincorporated into the Reform canon, and constitute what is now called “Modern” Reform Judaism, or more succinctly, Reform Judaism. The platform also formally shifted the movement’s position on Zionism by affirming “the obligation of all Jewry to aid in building a Jewish homeland….”
THE VILNA GAON ON HERETICS
It is the way of the wicked (’‘Rashah’‘) who is wicked in matters between Man and G-d, to have a natural disposition to be good in matters between Man and his fellowman. Yet despite looking good, the truth is that in his heart the wicked yearns for evil like that which evil people do (’‘Hara-im’‘) - like robbery and violence - commentary on Prov. 12:12.
Most of the minim (missionaries are an example of ‘‘minim’‘) are good people by nature… but just the righteous who are always engaged in performing G-d’s precepts, know the ways of G-d, and they understand that there is in this,(the good of the heretics) only an enticement- commentary on Prov. 11:9; 12:12.
Our Sages explain: Do not befriend an evil person (Avot 1), and added: even if your object is to bring him closer to Torah (Avot d’R. Nathan, the end of chapter 9, according to the Gaon’s version). The Gaon added: Leave the fools, even if your object is to reprimand them to straighten their ways, lest they influence you to be like them - commentary on Prov. 9:6.
“In other words, that the Torah told him to go by himself and not in the way of the wicked, even if his object is to reprimand them, so that he may always remain in continual separation. This is the meaning of `if you are smart’, i.e., if you stay alone and learn, you will enjoy the learning and its reward. But if you stay among the sons of man - `your mockery you shall bear alone’ - even of their mockery, you shall bear their sin” - commentary on Proverbs 9:12.
Most of the minim (missionaries are an example of ‘‘minim’‘) are good by nature, for they steal the heart of their fellowman and corrupt it. This is the meaning of a flattering mouth - commentary on Proverbs 11:9 (see also on 12:12).
EXAMPLES OF FALSEHOOD
REFORM JEWISH LEADER PRAISES FEDERAL COURT RULING DECLARING ABORTION BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Saperstein: Today’s decision affirms our strong belief that sensitive medical decisions should remain in the hands of women, in consultation with their doctors and on the basis of their own beliefs, without interference from those with political agendas in opposition to established rights.
WASHINGTON, June 1, 2004 - In response to today’s ruling by Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton that the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 is unconstitutional, Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:
The Reform Jewish Movement welcomes the ruling by United States District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton recognizing that the Ban on Safe Abortions, misleadingly referred to as the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban,” is an unconstitutional infringement of a woman’s right to reproductive choice. Today’s decision affirms our strong belief that sensitive medical decisions should remain in the hands of women, in consultation with their doctors and on the basis of their own beliefs, without interference from those with political agendas in opposition to established rights.
Jewish tradition emphasizes the sacredness of life, of healing, and of freedom of choice. The Reform Jewish Movement opposes any law that would prevent women from choosing to access safe and potentially life-saving medical treatment. We applaud Judge Hamilton’s ruling, which affirms that the well-being of women is too precious to be subject to political whims.
###
The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism is the Washington office of the Union for Reform Judaism, whose more than 900 congregations across North America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis(CCAR) whose membership includes more than 1800 Reform rabbis.
July 15, 2004
Attention Rabbis and Cantors:
We need your help to defeat a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in America
Many lawmakers mistakenly believe that a significant majority of America’s faith communities support a Constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage in the United States. We need to let them know that this is not true. They need to know that millions of religious Americans from all different traditions are very concerned about this effort to write discrimination and religious intolerance into our Constitution. Your signature on this letter to senators will help set the record straight.
>Sign on now to our interfaith clergy letter urging U.S. Senators to oppose the amendment
IS THAT WHAT REFORM CANTORS ARE FOR?:
TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGES ????
Ever since that momentous occasion, when Hashem brought us near to His service and unified us as His nation, thereby elevating us above the other nations of the world, the Gentiles have greatly envied us and our religion. Chazal thus state, ‘‘Why was it called Mt. Sinai? Because the hatred (sinah) of the nations of the world emanated from there” (Shabbat 89a). Their leaders and rulers girded their loins to arouse hatred and resentment against us because of Sinai. “From the moment the Torah was given until the present, there has never been a time that an oppressive gentile ruler or a powerful despot did not try, as his first objective, to destroy our Torah and forcibly abolish our religion by means of the sword. For example: Amalek, Sisera, Sancheriv, Nevuchadnetzar, Haman, Titus, Hadrian, and many others like them.
This is one of the two methods devised to foil the divine plan. However, the second method is used by the more clever rulers and wiser nations, such as the Edomites, the Persians, and the Greeks. They, too, set as their goal the destruction of our religion and the nullification of our Torah. [But, instead of accomplishing this by way of the sword, they attempt to do so] by means of arguments and questions aimed at refuting the Torah. Their purpose is to destroy the Torah and erase all traces of it through their writings, just as the tyrants intend to do through war.”
Hence, we have two types of persecutors: those who use chariots, swords, and spears; and those who employ deceptive arguments and cunning speech. Neither of these shall succeed, for the Holy One Blessed be He has assured us, through Yeshayahu, that the weapons of any oppressor who attempts to physically destroy our Torah and abolish our religion will be broken and rendered ineffective. This metaphor means that his scheme will never succeed. The same holds true for anyone who tries to abrogate our heritage by means of arguments; he will be found “guilty,” and his claims will be proven null and void.
This is the meaning of the verse “Any weapon that is formed against you will not prosper, and any tongue that will rise against you in judgment, you will condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and the recompense of their righteousness appointed by Me, says the Lord” (Yeshayah 54:17)
This means that neither of these two enemies will succeed “in destroying the foundations of our religion that are so deeply rooted… The edifice will stand firm. The truth will ridicule them and laugh. That is to say, the Holy One Blessed be He, Who is Truth, sits and scoffs at them. He laughs at the fact that they plot, with their limited intellect, a scheme that is doomed to failure. Similarly, King David said with his Ruach HaKodesh, Let us cut their cords and cast away their ropes from us. He who sits in heaven will laugh, the Lord will mock them (Tehillim 2:3-4). We have been continually tried and tested by these two groups, both in the days of our sovereignty and, in part, during the period of exile.” This concludes the relevant passages from the Rambam.
RABBI YSACHAR SHLOMO TEICHTEL
SEFER EM HA BANNIM SEMECHA
In Rabbi Kook’s book, Orot HaKodesh, he writes: “Secular morality is superficial; it does not penetrate the inner recesses of the soul. Although it may lead one to be good out of an appreciation for the correctness of its logic, its guidance cannot withstand the assault of man’s many passions when they erupt in full force. And certainly this weak morality cannot guide the collective community of man in all of its depth and breadth, nor can it penetrate the depth of the soul…” The Torah, Rabbi Kook writes, has the unique power to refine and uplift the nature of man. All other disciplines, whether religious, scientific, philosophical, or literary can add to man’ s quantitative knowledge, but they do not effect any inner change. In contrast, the Torah penetrates man’s inner being to heal and perfect human character. This inner purification is not merely lip service to some heavenly ideal, but hard, diligent work mandated by the ethics of Judaism, constant study, and faithful adherence to the code of Jewish law.
...What distinguishes us from other nations? In Galut, where we are downtrodden and disgraced, forced to adopt foreign manners and ways, our inner qualities are hidden. But now, as the winter of the Exile passes the lifeless branches of the nation return to life, and a national consciousness begins to flower and bear fruit.
“And among these nations you will find no ease, neither will the soul of your foot find rest; but the L-rd will give you a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and despair of mind, and your life will hang in doubt before you; and you will fear day and night, and have no assurance of your life (Deut., 28:65-66)
This nightmare is the norm of Galut. Our life is a struggle of survival which we can never win, an existence of worry, and a sycophantic fear of the goyim. Periods of calm appear now and then, times of assimilation, material success, and social acceptance by the gentiles, but the cloud of anti-Semitism is never far away, reminding us that foreign lands can never be our home.
WAR AND PEACE, BASED ON THE WRITINGS OF RABBI AVRAHAM YTZCHAK HAKOHEN KOOK ZTKL, FIRST CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL
Our Sages describe the day when our material needs, and even our work force, will be provided by the gentiles - so that Israel will be free to leam Torah. But first, we must know ourselves; know who we truly are and what our destiny is, in order to filter out the evil of the nations from the good. We must come to understand that not everything glorified by the gentile is necessarily beneficial to us. Values such as honor, fame, vanity, physical prowess, and material wealth, so cherished in the West, are not true Jewish values. Our Sages exhort us to flee from honor and fame. Success is to be sought after in Torah. While we are commanded to work to provide for our needs, we are to not be obsessively driven toward profit. We are to look to G-d for security, and not to transient riches. And while physical strength is important, the truly strong man is the one who conquers his lusts.(Avot) When we come to truly know ourselves; when we purify ourselves both inwardly and outwardly from the impurities of gentile cultures, values, and lands, then, from self-recognition, our light will shine forth to all of the nations on earth.
The sin of the murderers is imbedded with stain, (Jeremiah, 2:22) the evil kings of the land, and all those who bring terror to the earth. ‘The land will not be atoned for the blood which has been spilled upon it except through the blood of those who spilled it;’ (Numbers, 35:33) and the atonement is sure to come - the total annulment of all of today’s cultural machinations, with all of their lies and deceit, with all of their evil pollutions, and their venomous poisons. The entire culture which praises itself with melodious lies must be erased from the world, and in its stead will be established the kingdom of the high holy ones (Daniel, 7:18. 2ohar, Vayishlach, 170A)
The light of Israel will appear, to establish a world whose nations are possessed of a new spirit, nations who will no longer speak emptiness, and will no longer act contemptuously against G-d and against His Mashiach, against the light of the life of the world, and against the perfection and the belief embodied in the eternal covenant.
Israel will see with its own eyes the retribution of the wicked, and will march upon the destruction of those who boast of new forms of paganism, just as we trampled upon the remains of Babylon and ancient Syria. Then it will be known and proven that only in Him, in the G-d of Israel, is there salvation. And the salvation of G-d will certainly come.
Then, the present-day culture will be totally annulled, with all of its foundations, with all of its libraries, with all of its theaters, and all of its institutions. And all of the laws that are founded on vanity and cruelty, and all of the evil and sinful customs of life will all pass away to oblivion. And G-d alone will be exalted above all in that day.
From the beginning of its foundation, and throughout its entire development, it is nothing else but the counsel of lies and the falsification of intricate evil, which are bound with the psychological and physiological tendencies that have gained power through the architectural structure of nationhood of our time - forgetters of G-d in their innards, and carrying His Name on their lips, upon their mouths and their tongues.
When the day comes for Israel to radiate its full power, there will be no room for usurpers who try to push the Jewish people aside. In the blinding light of Israel’s Kedusha, all imitators will be of no account whatsoever. All of the masqueraders who claimed to possess a monopoly on truth, whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, communism, capitalism, and all of the rest, will be exposed as empty flasks. When Judaism reaches its historical maturity with the return of the Kingdom of Israel, its holy culture will dominate the entire world psyche, as it is written: “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of the L-rd, to serve Him with one consent”.
The reason why there can be no room for competing ideologies is because the Jews hold the true monopoly on the word of Hashem in the world. This is the Divine selection of Israel. The nation of Israel, and only the nation of Israel, was chosen by G-d to bear His truth and declare His Oneness. Just as there is only one G-d, there is only one way to serve Him, through the law which He gave to the Jewish people at Sinai. (Kuzari, 1:99-101) Everything else is fantasy, falsehood, and illusion. In the exalted light of the renewed Kingdom of Israel, the treachery of all other doctrines will be universally exposed. The Rambam writes: “When the Messianic King will truly arise and be successful and uplifted and exalted, they (the nations) will all immediately repent and realize that their ancestral heritage is falsehood, and that their prophets and ancestors caused them to err (Rambam, Laws of Kings and Their Wars, 11:4, uncensored edition)
WAR AND PEACE, BASED ON THE WRITINGS OF RABBI AVRAHAM YTZCHAK HAKOHEN KOOK ZTKL, FIRST CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL
The essence of Judaism is the acceptance by the Jews of the yoke of the heavenly kingdom, the yoke of the mitzvot. It is his obeying the commandments because they were commanded, not because he agrees with them or their rationale. Torah is not a nice or ethical thing, since those are value judgments that emerge from our own standards. Torah is first and last the Law of the Almighty, to be obeyed whether we agree with the concepts or not. Torah is the standard by which we judge all other ethics and morals and when it contradicts liberalism or conservatism, humanism or barbarism, socialism or capitalism, it stands alone, and to its precepts and concepts we bend the knee.
Torah is the law and its concepts are the truths regardless of our personal views and, clearly, regardless of the ethical and moral perceptions of the gentile and secular society that we live in and that does so much to shape our views and concepts.
R MDK ZTKL
Not only must individual tyrants be destroyed, but the philosophies, religions, and “cultural machinations” which lead to such international evil must come to an end. All too often, the very people who have been preaching universal peace for 2000 years have been the world’s most zealous spillers of blood. All over the globe, anyone who did not agree with the Christian doctrine of love and salvation was slaughtered. Present-day culture spouts civilized words from its lips and has murder engraved in its heart. It is a charade, hiding a rancid interior. History is proof. Throughout this last century, all of the world’s civilized countries; France, England, America, Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, have been engaged in vicious, murderous wars. For the world to be improved, the foundations of this unG-dly culture must be uprooted and destroyed.
All of man’s philosophies, religions, and systems of government are man-made inventions, the imposition of human will and ego on the world, rather than a submission to the true word of G-d. And it is obvious that the American culture, exported to every port, shopping center, and television set in the world, exalts, under its wholesome exterior, a world of money, power, violence and sex - a far cry from the holy existence which the Almighty expects from His creatures.
WAR AND PEACE, BASED ON THE WRITINGS OF RABBI AVRAHAM YTZCHAK HAKOHEN KOOK ZTKL, FIRST CHIEF RABBI OF ISRAEL
AVRAHAM GEIGER Y SH
GEIGER ON BRIT MILAH: The fact remains that it is a barbaric, gory rite which fills
the infant’s father with fear and subjects the new mother to harmful emotional strain
The Maggid of Kelm a great Rabbi talked about the new laws of the reform movement that disregarded completely all the traditions of the Jewish people for thousands of years. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 the Maggid of Kelm said:
The German does not persecute the Jew arbitrarily. He does not just tyrannize the Jewish People when he comes to power. Rather, he acts out of anti-Semitism as if prescribed by some Code of Law, Heaven help us. Because of the sin of the Geiger (Reform) Shulchan Aruch (Code of Law), this new German-style shulchan aruch will be enacted against us, and its underlying principle will be “Kill even the best of the Jews; kill even the best of the Jewsl” May G-d preserve us!
Quoted by The Sefer Zichronot of K. Maze of Moscow
TO THE RABBIS OF REFORM AND CONSERVATIVE
WHAT SYNAGOGUE ARE YOU LEADING? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CIRCUS THAT YOU PERFORM? THAT’S NOT A SYNAGOGUE, THAT’S A TEMPLE OF FALSEHOOD, THAT’ A CHEAP IMITATON OF A CHURCH. YOUR CROWD GETS BORED BECAUSE YOU AND ALL THE RABBIS IN YOUR MOVEMENT PREACH LIES. WHY DON’T YOU TELL PEOPLE THE TRUTH AND THEN MAYBE THEY WILL NOT FEEL THE SERVICES ARE EMPTY AND BORING?
IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE REAL TORAH THEN YOU SHOULD ALL BECOME STOCKBROKERS OR FITNESS TRAINERS. AT LEAST IN THAT WAY YOU WOULDN’T MESS SO MUCH WITH G-D.
YOU SAY: JUDAISM WITHOUT G-D, TORAH AND MITZVAH CAN NOT SURVIVE. SO THEN ACT ON IT. EMBRACE THE TORAH AS WE RECEIVED IT FROM OUR FOREFATHERS, NOT LIKE THEY FASHIONED IT IN 19th CENTURY EUROPE.
FOR WHAT YOU DO NOW IS NO TORAH AND NO MITZVAH AND ACCORDING TO YOUR ACTIONS YOU SHOW YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN G-D NOR TORAH NOR MITZVAH.
IN JUDAISM WE LISTEN TO G-D AND NOT TO MONEY OR PERSONAL COMFORT AND WE CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT FASHION OUR RELIGION BY COPYING THOSE WHO DON’T LIKE US (THE EUROPEANS).
“We have been asked ... if it is allowed to participate in and to take part in the New York Board of Rabbis or similar organizations in other cities that combine Reform and Conservative ‘rabbis.’
“And as we have gathered to clarify this point, it is decreed by us that it is forbidden by the laws of the Torah to be a member in or participate in any such group.
“Similarly we were asked (concerning) the Synagogue Council of America which combines Reform and Conservative organizations and we have de creed that it is forbidden ...to participate either as an individual or in the role of a communal organization.
Signed…this 18 Adar 5716, here in New York:
(Rabbis) A. Yaffen, A. Kalmanowitz, A. Kotler, G. Shorr, D. Lifshitz, C. M. Katz, Y. Kaminetsky, Y. Y. Ruderman, Y. Hutner, M. Y. Zaks, M. Feinstein.”
Following this prohibition, similar interdictions were issued by the late Brisker Rav, Rabbi Velvel Soloveichik, zt"l, and by other leading Gedolei HaTorah in Israel, inc1uding: Rabbis Z. P. Frank (Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem), Z. Sorotzkin, D. Weidenfeld (Chubiner Rav), R. Katz (Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikva), A. Sofer (Pressburger Rav), and B. Marcus (Chief Rabbi of Haifa).
The signers of the prohibition did so not out of malice or hatred towards non-Orthodox elements. They and we - and indeed all Orthodoxy - feel in our hearts naught but love, sympathy, and compassion for all brother Jews. It was not hate, but a terrible fear for the future of Torah that drove the leading authorities to ban these groups. For the rabbis understood that by our sitting with these groups, by our according them status as rabbis and as representatives of the Jewish religion we were digging the grave of Torah.
For if we ourselves call them rabbis, then surely the layman can too. Then surely the average Jew can rely on them for weddings and divorce and kashrus and authority to rule on any matter of law. When we place the other “wings” of Judaism on an equal footing, when we even accord them recognition, we are in effect acquiescing to their arguments that there are three separate but equally legitimate versions of Judaism and any Jew can quite properly choose the one he feels is most suitable to him.
And on the day that we admit this hypothesis to be true - we are undone. It is only our insistence on our sole legitimacy and our indictment of the others as frauds, that can keep the light and darkness separate in the minds of the people, that can still cause them pangs of conscience, that can render our battle meaningful. To all Jews - as individuals - we grant everything: as self-proc1aimed religious leaders - nothing.
This then is why the Gedolim - in their wisdom and vision - issued their decree. And the many, many rabbis - INCLUDING NOT INCONSEQUENTIAL NAMES - who have defied them, and remained within the banned groups in order to savor a whiff of “prestige” or lick a bit of “kavod” have done a far greater harm to Judaism than that of helping to legitimize the Reform and Conservative. They have done much, much, much worse.
R MDK ZTKL
THE DISASTER OF REFORM AND CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENTS
I state categorically that the Conservative and Reform movements are a disaster for the American Jew (and let it be immediately understood that there are no Conservative and Reform Jews, since neither Reform nor Conservatism has any meaningful definition that any ten “ideologicians” could agree upon; there are only Reform and Conservative rabbis and temples). I move on to state that I stood in front of a Reform temple one Friday in 1969 prepared to defend it against an anti-Semite and would do so for any temple. I add that I see not the slightest difference between any Jew - each one is as precious to me as any other and when I fought for Soviet Jewry, I never asked whether they were Orthodox or atheist. I believe that every Jew who is observant and does not aid others because of their differences is a Jew who transgresses the Law - and having said all that, I repeat that Reform and Conservatism are disasters for the Jewish people and the Berkowitz fiasco touches on only one aspect of Jewish life that has be en perverted and twisted by the non-Orthodox so that countless gentiles now pass as Jews because of them. 1 refer to adoptions.
In the anarchy that is the American separation of Church and State, there is no kehilla, organized community, that would guarantee that conversions are only according to Halacha so that gentiles do not go through the sorry travesty that is today’s Conservative and Reform “conversion.” There is nothing to stop the marriages not according to Halacha that lead to tens of thousands (at least) of mamzerim due to Reform and Conservative leniency and ignorance; and there is nothing to prevent Jews from adopting gentile children and calling them “Jewish.”
...These conservative and reform Rabbis, They call black white and darkness light and gentile Jewish. They do it with adoption, they do it with conversions, they do it with marriage and divorce. These are not things that we can look at with equanimity, saying: Well, perhaps next week or next year we will correct the situation. One cannot correct a false conversion that passes through three generations so that no one knows that the original convert was a gentile and her children and grandchildren are all gentiles, too. One cannot “correct” a mamzer. One can only threaten a literal split in the Jewish people with one part not able to marry the members of the other parto This is what is already happening in the United States, despite the unwillingness of anyone to admit that there is a desperate need for a communal register to ascertain the Jewishness and Halachic fitness of individuals. It is the Reform and Conservative leniency and ignoring of Halacha that threatens the unity of the Jewish people in the United States.
R MDK ZTKL
Rabbi Yochanan further said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: It is permitted to fight the evildoers in this world. For it says, “Those who forsake the Torah praise the evildoer, but those who keep the Torah fight them” (Proverbs 28:4). We also learned in a Baraita: R. Dosta’i b. R. Mattun says: It is permitted to fight with the wicked in this world. For it says, “Those who forsake the Torah praise the wicked… ” And if a person should whisper in your ear and tell you: But it says, “Do not fight with evildoers, and don’t be envious of wrongdoers” (Psalms 37:1), then you should tell him: A timid person interprets the verse that way, but the real meaning of this verse is: “Don’t compete with the evildoers and strive to be like them, and don’t be envious of wrongdoers, trying to be like them.” And so it says, “Do not envy sinners in your heart, but only G-d-fearing men, at all times (Proverbs 23:17).
Talmud Massechet Berachot 7b
SALOMON SHECHTER (HIS NAME MEANS SLAUGHTERER,
WHICH HE WAS INDEED, HE SLAUGHTERED INNOCENT
JEWS WHOM HE LED TO HERESY)
THE LIES OF THE REFORM/ CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT
NOTE: LETTERS IN RED ARE OUR COMMENTARIES
TO THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES (ALL COMMENTS APPLY TO
REFORM AS WELL AS CONSERVATIVE BRANCHES, FOR INDEED THEY
ARE ONE AND THE SAME, THEY BOTH REJECT
Lucifer
Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, you don’t seem to realize that you are arguing with yourself, not me. Instead of stating your point plainly you pretend it is obvious. What I don’t get is your insistance that the Jews do not inherit Israel because they are not Semites. But where is it stated that Israel belongs to the Semites? We say that it belongs to God and He gives it to whom He pleases.
Also, it turns out that I have already answered you but I’ll do it again. God promised the land of Israel (at that time known as Canaan) to Abraham and the inheritors (Isaac, Jacob, the Israelites/Jews) of his covenant with God. Not to the other Semites. Abraham was a Semite of course but that identity was made subordinate to his identity in relation to God. In any case the Jews are the only nation that can reliably be identified as Semites, if that’s important to you.
Incidentally the Canaanites were not Semites; they were Hamites like the Egyptians. They arrived only about 300 years earlier than Abraham displacing the Hurrians (Khurrites) who were Semites.
Gober (Wanker)
Of course Adam was formed in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah, on the spot later known as the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple. That’s what this whole thing is about.
When humans sinned and angered God, and Abraham alone among humans brought people back to God, Melchizedek (Shem himself) meaning ‘Righteous King’, king of Shalem (Jerusalem), priest of the Most High, guarding the sacred location of the origin of humanity for centuries gave Abaraham his blessing to carry on the mission. Abraham began the task of elevating humanity back to the Adamic state befor his original sin. When God initiated the virtual sacrifice of Isaac, it was on Mount Moriah on that very spot. The virtual sacrifice of Isaac was in fact the merit by which Israel could later become God’s own new and chosen nation, and this was the prototype and role model for the Jesus naarative. But never mind that. The fact is that the Temple enclosed that ancient spot; the Byzantines built a church on the spot they (Constantine’s mother) said was the location of the Temple; the Muslims built their mosque on the foundations of the Byzantine Temple; and we will know that Israel has the confidence of its position when it gets rid of the mosque.
By the way, I have no intention of reading twenty or thirty pages of pasted-in garbage. I have no idea what the hell it is supposed to prove. Next time just make a statement instead of calling your Mommy in to fight for you.
Shalom Benny,
The essence of Judaism is the acceptance by the Jews of the yoke of the heavenly kingdom, the yoke of the mitzvot. It is his obeying the commandments because they were commanded, not because he agrees with them or their rationale. Torah is not a nice or ethical thing, since those are value judgments that emerge from our own standards. Torah is first and last the Law of the Almighty, to be obeyed whether we agree with the concepts or not. Torah is the standard by which we judge all other ethics and morals and when it contradicts liberalism or conservatism, humanism or barbarism, socialism or capitalism, it stands alone, and to its precepts and concepts we bend the knee.Torah is the law and its concepts are the truths regardless of our personal views and, clearly, regardless of the ethical and moral perceptions of the gentile and secular society that we live in and that does so much to shape our views and concepts. Not only must individual tyrants be destroyed, but the philosophies, religions, and “cultural machinations” which lead to such international evil must come to an end. All too often, the very people who have been preaching universal peace for 2000 years have been the world’s most zealous spillers of blood. All over the globe, anyone who did not agree with the Christian doctrine of love and salvation was slaughtered. Present-day culture spouts civilized words from its lips and has murder engraved in its heart. It is a charade, hiding a rancid interior. History is proof. Throughout this last century, all of the world’s civilized countries; France, England, America, Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, have been engaged in vicious, murderous wars. For the world to be improved, the foundations of this unGodly culture must be uprooted and destroyed. All of man’s philosophies, religions, and systems of government are man-made inventions, the imposition of human will and ego on the world, rather than a submission to the true word of G-d. And it is obvious that the American culture, exported to every port, shopping center, and television set in the world, exalts, under its wholesome exterior, a world of money, power, violence and sex - a far cry from the holy existence which the Almighty expects from His creatures.
Those are not your words, and I am not sure what you are trying to prove. There is something in that passage, but it obviously taken way out of context. There is a long way to go before being able to take that at face value. I will do what you cannot and will not do, which is to respond in my own words.
We have faith, but it not a blind faith. Unlike every other system Judaism fully employs the brain and fears no questioning. It is trust and confidence in our ancestors and God himself and His messengers and the message which is the Torah and prohetic and inspired writings; and the associated eternal discussions of them.
We understand as per Adam and Noah that there is an absolute reality albeit inaccessable to even the highest limited intelligence, and that it is conscious and willful and takes a stated moral position. That the covenant of Noah which is really a slight expansion of the covenant of Adam remains in force and that humanity depends on observing it. It is not that hard but it is being continuously violated on a mass scale.
We understand as per Abraham that in spite of Dawkins and Hitchens and others’ attempts to obscure the fact, it is impossibly nonsensical for things to be as they are without intelligent and benevolent intervention. We understand that Abraham stood alone and rerouted history to begin the reconstruction of the Adamic state of being.
We understand that in Egypt we were lost and doomed in the world of men and nothing happened until we cried out to the god of our fathers as one, and were heard and saved by open and direct divine intervention and transformed from a clan and ethnicity to a new nation under law at Sinai. God thus paid cash in advance for the Israelite nation.
We understand that the only people we can influence personally is ourselves, and the only society we can construct is our own, and the only place we can control nationally is Israel (that’s right, Greater Israel in its Biblical extent). We are not God’s policemen; God can take care of his own business. If we are a nation of priests as stated in the Torah, than the laity is the non-Jewish world. If they exercise their free will so as not to accept the message, then they will live in the natural material world without divine presence.
We understand that the Jewish Trinity is that God/Torah/Israel are one, in the sense of being a coherent working system. God states his will in the Torah which is in turn actuated and realized in Israelite conduct.
I suspect that person who wrote that piece understands those things as well, and either said it elsewhere or wrote it for an audience that considers them so obvious as to need no repetition. Perhaps people like you should stick to the bunny slope.
Shalom Benny,
I found where you got your information on Adam:
“As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,
so is the land of Israel the navel of the world…
situated in the centre of the world,
and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,
and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,
and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,
and the ark in the centre of the holy place,
and the foundation stone before the holy place,
because from it the world was founded.”
Midrash Tanchuma, Qedoshim.
That is a nice summation but not the primal source. Unlike Harry Potter who came into existence within a few years, the Midrash Tanchuma expressed traditions and teachings ancient even then. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone
Just throwing more on this in there:
- The Salt (‘Dead’) Sea just below Jerusalem is the lowest spot on the planet
- In the era in which there was a single land mass as yet unbroken into continents, Israel was pretty much at the center of the land mass.
- Israel is the only place on the planet in which the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon (Adam and us) species co-existed and predumably interacted before the Neanderthals went extinct. Is that experiece the source of racial memories preserved in the Torah and perhaps other distorted epics and tales?
Shalom Benny,
More information on Mount Moriah
*Re’eih: Searching for the Temple Site*: *The Hidden Location*
It is surprising, but the Torah never spells out exactly where to build the *Beit* *HaMikdash*. Rather we are instructed to build the Temple in the place that God will choose:
“But only to the place that the Eternal your God will choose from all your
tribes to set His Name there - you shall seek His dwelling place and go
there.” [Deut. 12:5]
Where is “*the place that God will choose*” for His Divine Presence? And what does it mean to “*seek out His dwelling place*”? According to the Sifri, this is a command to discover where to build the * Beit* *HaMikdash* using the guidance of a prophet. The spiritual search for this holy site was a mission that King David undertook, with the help of the prophet Samuel. Why didn’t the Torah explicitly indicate the location where to build the Temple? Moses certainly knew that the *Akeidah* took place on Mount Moriah, and that Abraham had prophesied that this would be the site of the *Beit* * HaMikdash* [see Gen. 22:14].
Maimonides in his *Guide to the Perplexed* III:45 suggested that Moses wisely chose not to mention Jerusalem. Had he done so, the non-Jewish nations would have realized Jerusalem’s singular importance to the Jewish people, and they would have fought fiercely to prevent it from falling into Israel’s hands. Even worse, knowledge of Jerusalem’s spiritual importance could have led to infighting among the tribes, as each tribe would have demanded the *Beit* * HaMikdash* to be located in its territory, similar to the rebellion against the priesthood that was instigated by Korach. Maimonides reasoned that this is why the Torah commands that a king be appointed before building the *Beit * *HaMikdash* - so that the decision regarding the Temple’s location would be in the hands of a strong central government, and not subject to tribal conflict and rivalry.
*“Between His Shoulders”*
David, in any case, did not know where the *Beit* *HaMikdash* was to be built. According to the Talmud in Zevachim 54b, his initial choice fell on Ein Eitam, a spring located to the south of Jerusalem. Ein Eitam appeared to be an obvious choice since it has the highest altitude in the entire region. This feature corresponds to the Torah’s description that “*You shall rise and ascend to the place that the Eternal your God will choose*” [Deut.17:8]. However, David subsequently meditated on another verse that alludes to the Temple’s location. At the end of his life, Moses hinted at the place of
God’s Divine Presence - “*He dwells between his shoulders*” [Deut. 33:12]. This allegoric description suggests that the Temple’s location was meant to be not at the highest point, but a little below it, just as the shoulders are below the head. Accordingly he determined that Jerusalem, located slightly lower than Ein Eitam, was the site where the *Beit* *HaMikdash* was meant to be built.
Doeg, head of the high court, disagreed with David; he supported the original choice of Ein Eitam as the place to build the Temple. The Sages related that Doeg’s jealousy of David was due to the latter’s success in discovering the Temple’s true location. The story of David’s search for the site of the *Beit* *HaMikdash* is intimated in one of David’s ‘songs of ascents’ - chapter 132 of Psalms. The psalm opens with a plea, “*Remember David for all his trouble*” [Psalm. 132:1]. What was this trouble that David felt was a unique merit, a significant life-achievement for which he wanted to be remembered? The psalm continues by recounting David’s intense efforts to uncover the place of the Temple.
David vowed,
“That I will not enter the tent of my house, nor will I go up to the bed
that was spread for me; I will not give sleep to my eyes nor rest to my
eyelids - until I find the place of God, the dwellings of the Mighty One of
Jacob.” [Psalm. 132: 3-5]
*David and Doeg*
What was the source of the disagreement between David and Doeg? Why was Doeg
of the opinion that Ein Eitam was the correct choice? Doeg reasoned that the most suitable site for the Temple is the highest point. Such heights are only accessible to the select few, those who are able to truly grasp the purest levels of elevated enlightenment - the * kohanim* and the spiritual elite. David, on the other hand, understood that the Temple and its holiness need to be the inheritance of the entire people of Israel. The *kohanim* are not privy to special knowledge; they are merely messengers who extend the Temple’s holiness to the people and elevate them. The entire nation of Israel is described in the Torah as a “*kingdom of priests*” [Exedus. 19:6].
*The Waters of Ein Eitam*
Even though Ein Eitam was never sanctified, it still retained a special connection to the *Beit* *HaMikdash*: its springs supplied water for the * Beit* *HaMikdash*. The Talmud relates that on Yom Kippur, the high priest would immerse himself in a *mikveh* on the roof of the Beit HaParvah chamber in the Temple complex. In order for the water to reach this roof, which was 23 amot higher than the ground-floor of the Temple courtyard, water was diverted from the springs of Ein Eitam, which were at the same exact height. What is the significance of this connection between Ein Eitam and the high priest’s purification on Yom Kippur? Rav Kook explained that while the *Beit
* *HaMikdash* itself needs to be accessible to all people, the preparation of the high priest and his purification must emanate from the highest possible source. The purity and atonement of Yom Kippur originates in the loftiest realms, corresponding to the elevated springs of Ein Eitam.
[Adapted from *Shemu’ot HaRe’iyah* (*Beha’alotecha*), quoted in *Peninei
HaRe’iyah* pp. 273-274,350-351; *Shemonah Kevatzim* I:745]
HITLER’S TEARS
One man’s tears stain the pillow
Where he used to lay his head
She’s left him for another man
So how come they’re both sleeping in his bed?
He can hardly sleep for misery
You can hear him catch his breath
And he grinds his teeth into the night
And god says “hey, Adolf, are you alright?”
One boy’s tears stain the paper
Where he writes his Christmas list
And he inks in broken German
“I wanna be a fine artist”
Then he wipes out half a continent
With one flick of his wrist
He’s so lonely, so misunderstanding
As he pulls his blanket across the landing
You can hear them falling every day (Hitler’s tears)
Just open up the newspaper (Hitler’s tears)
You can hide, there’s no escape from Hitler’s tears—
Just what makes the fucker cry?
He’s crying for you
One man’s tears—he was a fascist
Before it was cool
‘cos now it’s so expected
Just accept it that power is cruel
So he’ll apply for reinstatement
By new reincarnation rules
‘cos he’s the only man, most certainly
Who could claim to have learned from history
Hitler cries himself to sleep, alone in brazil, no-one calls
How must it feel to be the biggest loser of them all?
One man’s tears—saltwater salutes the final trip
A thousand naughty Nazis
A frau
A lullaby of über alles
A shaking upper lip
It’s all become a Whitehall farce
That’s how we tear our fears apart
But you shouldn’t take it straight to heart
So the rest of us can get some sleep tonight
You can hear them falling everyday.
Not to get pesonal, Harry, but are you any more than thirteen years old?
Shalom Benny,
I would like & try to raise the standard of input, so I’ve placed this article for fellow readers of the Blog:
A PHARISEE’S HEART
“Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly [ritually] wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’
Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban” (that is, an offering to God)— then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’
Then he called the crowd again and said to them, ‘Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.’
When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Mark 7:1-23
This is an interesting passage, because Yeshua is talking about human traditions that obscure or are used to override the commandments of God. The tradition of the elders, to which Jesus refers in vs. 3, is an oral tradition handed down by the scribes and the Pharisees. It is an interpretation of Mosaic Law to which they clung as if it were equally authoritative. So, according to this tradition of the elders, washing oneself by an outward ritual of purification was the way to purify oneself from contact with Gentiles or sinners. There was also included in this tradition of the elders the idea that money or possessions could be given over to God, reserved for God, so to speak, through a promise: this was called “Corban.” In this way, property and possessions could continue to be used, and one’s parents or other relations were not allowed to share in them. So, in this sense, these traditions - raised up as equal to the written Laws of Moses - could be used to override the Mosaic command of “honor thy father and mother.” My study bible points out that the Mosaic command to honor father and mother is the first command that deals with human relationships - so, in this sense, the tradition is used in order to disrupt human relatedness. The implication is that right relatedness to others is a core value of spiritual law; if human tradition obscures law that is understood to be a part of the wisdom of God, then it is overriding the true spirit in which the law is to be given, and tradition upheld. This does nothing to bring people closer to God.
Furthermore, Yeshua points out something of essential importance here, and that is our own awareness of our weaknesses. He says on the one hand that all the things God has made are good: in essence the ritual cleansing of foods has nothing to do with what truly defiles us. The over-emphasis on the physical purification is really not compatible with an understanding of what sin is and where it comes from. We run the risk of such “contamination” from our own hearts. We freely choose to do evil or good, to harbor greed or selfishness or envy or the myriad of other things that truly “pollute” us spiritually. These are the things which we choose to guide ourselves in our own hearts - whatever it is that we choose to make our treasure, so to speak. So, the follower of Yeshua understanding of sin or defilement really has to do with what it is that we put our faith into, what we choose to keep as our own possession of the heart, because there we are the keepers of whatever “law” we choose.
So, from this passage we are given some significant teachings about Messianic spirituality. Our “defilement” does not come from the things we do on the outside, but from what we guard as our treasure on the inside. This doesn’t mean that one doesn’t take care of physical health - but that this is not a substitute for spiritually understanding what it is that makes one a “good” or “bad” person in spiritual terms. An outward appearance may simply mask hidden greed or other values that defy the true nature of the spirituality that comes from the true wisdom of grace. Right relatedness is one of the teachings we understand to be a gift of God. Should I steal from my relatives and promise it to the church? Would this make me a sainted or holy person? No, it is a guarding of the heart that is essential that is taught here: an emphasis on the internal reality of the person. This is one reason to turn to God in prayer - an acknowledgment of the fallibility of our human person, an understanding that we turn over whatever we are to grace. Repentance is the necessary willingness to change, to “cleanse the inside of the cup”
All tradition is useful when properly practiced with this understanding in mind. It is when tradition or human practices meant to uphold true spiritual or religious values become instruments of obscuring this understanding of spirituality that they do harm. If we do not practice whatever tradition we follow - be it forms of charity or good works, religious devotional practices, it doesn’t matter what we’re talking about - with this understanding of the internal dynamic of personal spiritual choice, this notion of guarding of the heart and humility before God, an awareness of how we are constructed exactly as beings capable of choosing for evil or good, then we may be blinding ourselves to what we do. Right-relatedness in this sense means first being “right-related” to God, establishing the understanding that this comes from the place of our hearts, and not the outward appearance we make to the world.
I see this teaching as establishing the “Great Commandment” first: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with your entire mind, and all your strength.” And the second: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” It examines the primacy of choice that is within us, the heart as the center of where it is that we choose for good or evil. When we practice spirituality, it is with the understanding that we seek in our hearts to establish a right-relatedness first to God, to grace, in order to choose wisely - because in our heart is where we keep our treasure, for “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Repeatedly, Yeshua asks us to examine our inner lives. He withdraws into solitude for prayer himself at regular intervals, he always asks for guidance himself even as he teaches and establishes himself as a holy person in the eyes of his fellows, those he helps and teaches. The necessary humility to understand our own fallibility is the first necessity on this road of spiritual choices. What is your treasure?
This is why after thousands of years of violent coercion, Jews can’t stomach converting to Christianity. The logic expressed in this passage wouldn’t yield a ‘D’ on a Talmud exam, which is why Hebrew Christians prefer to take an ‘Incomplete’ rather than face the Final Exam.
Shalom Benny,
The History of the Jew & Christian is one of disobedience. Both are sinners before the Holy One. But the practice of blaming one another won’t get them right with Him.
THE SON OF MAN
Daniel 7:13-14
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
1 Enoch 46
1 And there I saw One who had a head of days,
And His head was white like wool,
And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man,
And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
2 And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me:
This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness,
With whom dwelleth righteousness,
And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever.
4 And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen
Shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats,
[And the strong from their thrones]
And shall loosen the reins of the strong,
And break the teeth of the sinners.
5 [And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms]
Because they do not extol and praise Him,
Nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them.
6 And he shall put down the countenance of the strong,
And shall fill them with shame.
And darkness shall be their dwelling,
And worms shall be their bed,
And they shall have no hope of rising from their beds,
Because they do not extol the name of the Lord of Spirits.
7 And these are they who judge the stars of heaven,
[And raise their hands against the Most High],
And tread upon the earth and dwell upon it.
And all their deeds manifest unrighteousness,
And their power rests upon their riches,
And their faith is in the gods which they have made with their hands,
And they deny the name of the Lord of Spirits,
8 And they persecute the houses of His congregations,
And the faithful who hang upon the name of the Lord of Spirits.
1 Enoch 48
1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom,
And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect.
2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.
3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.
5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.
6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.
7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,
Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness,
And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits:
For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.
8 In these days downcast in countenance shall the kings of the earth have become,
And the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands,
For on the day of their anguish and affliction they shall not (be able to) save themselves.
And I will give them over into the hands of Mine elect:
As straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy:
As lead in the water shall they sink before the face of the righteous,
And no trace of them shall any more be found.
10 And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth,
And before them they shall fall and not rise again:
And there shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them:
For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed.
The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed.
1 Enoch 62:6-16
6 And the kings and the mighty and all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol him who rules over all, who was hidden.
7 For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
And revealed him to the elect.
8 And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,
And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.
9 And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth
Shall fall down before him on their faces,
And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,
And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.
10 Nevertheless that Lord of Spirits will so press them
That they shall hastily go forth from His presence,
And their faces shall be filled with shame,
And the darkness grow deeper on their faces.
11 And He will deliver them to the angels for punishment,
To execute vengeance on them because they have oppressed His children and His elect
12 And they shall be a spectacle for the righteous and for His elect:
They shall rejoice over them,
Because the wrath of the Lord of Spirits resteth upon them,
And His sword is drunk with their blood.
13 And the righteous and elect shall be saved on that day,
And they shall never thenceforward see the face of the sinners and unrighteous.
14 And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them,
And with that Son of Man shall they eat
And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.
15 And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth,
And ceased to be of downcast countenance.
And they shall have been clothed with garments of glory,
16 And these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits:
And your garments shall not grow old,
Nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits.
1 Enoch 69:26-29
26 And there was great joy amongst them,
And they blessed and glorified and extolled
Because the name of that Son of Man had been revealed unto them.
27 And he sat on the throne of his glory,
And the sum of judgment was given unto the Son of Man,
And he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth,
And those who have led the world astray.
28 With chains shall they be bound,
And in their assemblage-place of destruction shall they be imprisoned,
And all their works vanish from the face of the earth.
29 And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible;
For that Son of Man has appeared,
And has seated himself on the throne of his glory,
And all evil shall pass away before his face,
And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth
And be strong before the Lord of Spirits.
Luke 9:58
57 As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” 58 Yeshua replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
Matt 11:16-19
16 “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17 “`We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, `He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, `Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”
Matt 12:32
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Mark 8:38 =Luke 9:26
Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.
Luke 9:26
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
Mark 13:26-27 = Matt 24:30-31 = Luke 21:27
Mark 13
26 At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
Matthew 24
30 At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Mark 14:62 = Matt 26:64 = Luke 22:69
Mark 14
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Yeshua, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?”
61 But Yeshua remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Yeshua. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Luke 17:22-24
22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 Men will tell you, `There he is!’ or `Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.
Matthew 24:27
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Matthew 24:37-41
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.
That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.
Matthew 9:6
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”
Luke 6:5
Then Yeshua said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.
Luke 22:48
But Yeshua asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?
Nice try there, Gober, but been there, done that if you gte my drift. First of all, anything outside of the God-given and inpired O.T. (Only Testament) will be ignored in these quarters: Enoch, Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, whatever. So the point you are making becomes obscure. That leaves the verse in Daniel you are attempting to hijack to be explained to you, and it is rather simple. In this messianic passage, your translation says “...nations and men of every language worshiped him”. Mine says “... that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.”
The difference between worshipped and served makes all the difference, especially since the expression ‘son of man’ means nothing more than ‘[male] human being’ which is important information in this context.
That is why I say ‘learn Hebrew’ (although this particular passage is more Aramaic than Hebrew but then agian Daniel wrote in Babylon where they spoke Aramaic).
Shalom Benny,
This chapter of Gil Student’s book tells of the coming war in Israel foretold in the New Testament. When Messiah returns, He will save His people when they accept Him as Messiah.
Can the Rebbe be Moshiach?
Copyright © 2002 Gil Student – http://www.MoshiachTalk.com
9 Chapter 1:
What is Moshiach?
One need not be a particularly astute observer to notice that the world is full of personal and communal tragedy. There are many people whose lives are filled with difficulties and
history tells us of the seemingly continuous travails of the Jewish people. At the time of this writing, Jews all over the world and particularly in Israel are in distinct danger. Is this
the best G-d could do? Certainly not. This world is not intended to be one of simplicity and serenity. However, there will be a time when this will be the case. We have been promised in the Torah and by the prophets that there will be a time of worldwide
peace and tranquility. A time when war will cease and humanity will gather together to worship G-d in unity. This is called Yemos HaMoshiach – the Messianic Era. The
prophets gave us much information about the events leading up to and during Yemos HaMoshiach, as did the sages of the Talmud. However, there are a number of points that are unclear. The exact chronology of events – what will happen first – are sometimes a matter of debate. We will attempt to present a basic outline of the events, with full knowledge that it is not inclusive of every opinion.
Gog and Magog
Yechezkel tells us in chapters 38 and 39 about a battle that will occur in Israel between the forces of Gog, king of Magog, and the Jewish people. This will be a terrible war and, at first, the Jews will lose many battles. But not only the people of Magog will wage this war against Israel; many nations of the world, even enemies, will join together in this
effort. Yechezkel 38:5-6 lists the nations of Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer, and Assyria. Tehillim 83:7-9 adds Edom, Ishmael, Moav, Hagrim, Geval, Ammon, Amalek, Philistia,
Tyre, and Assyria. Exactly to whom these nations currently refer is unknown but they seem to represent the nations ranging from North Africa to the Mediterranean and across
the Middle East. While it is tempting to speculate about the identity of this conglomerate of nations, particularly while listening to news reports about Arab League summits, we
will not try guessing regarding such an important topic. The effects of this united battle against Jerusalem will be very serious. Daniel 12:1 describes it as “a time of anguish,
such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.” After two unsuccessful attempts to capture Jerusalem the enemy will finally succeed in a devastating way. “I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses looted and the women raped; half the city shall go into exile…” (Zechariah 14:2; cf. Malbim). During this period the leader of the Jewish people will be killed. Who is this leader?
Moshiach ben Yosef
Rav Saadia Gaon in his Emunos VeDeyos 8:5 tells us that Moshiach ben Yosef will be from the Galilee, as Rabbi Yochanan says in Rosh HaShanah 31b – “From there [Tiberias] redemption will begin.” Moshiach ben Yosef will be a descendant of Yosef who will ascend to the military leadership of the Jewish people and will gather an army to
fully conquer Jerusalem before the war of Gog and Magog. This original capture of Jerusalem is referred to in Ovadiah 1:21 – “The saviors shall go up to Mount Zion to rule Mount Eisav.” Similarly, an earlier verse (1:18) says “The house of Yaakov shall be a fire, the house of Yosef a flame, and the house of Eisav stubble; they shall burn them and consume them.”
However, when Gog and his allies subsequently battle against Jerusalem they will kill Moshiach ben Yosef. Zechariah 12:10 says “They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.” This defeat will be crushing in both a physical and emotional sense. The devastation over the loss of this leader will be widespread as the Gemara in Sukkah 52b tells us. While, as the Maharsha there points out, the redemption at that time will not yet be complete. The final redeemer – Moshiach ben David – will appear soon after.
Moshiach ben David
Literally, Moshiach means someone who has been anointed. It is used in Tanach to refer to a number of people including priests, kings, and even the Persian king Koresh (in
Yishayahu 45:1). But when the Jews speak of Moshiach they generally mean the royal descendant of David who will lead the Jewish people, and indeed the whole world, into
Yemos HaMoshiach. Some time after Moshiach ben Yosef is killed, Eliyahu the
prophet will come to tell the world that Moshiach (ben David) will imminently arrive. The Gemara in Eiruvin 43b says that Moshiach cannot come on Shabbos or Yom Tov
because that means that Eliyahu would have to come on the day before; the Jewish people were promised that Eliyahu will not come on those days and interfere with the Shabbos and holiday preparations. In other words, Eliyahu will come at least one day before Moshiach. Moshiach will be a wise and charismatic man. He will be a
brilliant scholar and a great prophet, inspired in all his endeavors. With these talents and divine assistance he will bring about Yemos HaMoshiach. After recapturing
Jerusalem, he will rule as a king over Israel. But his wisdom will be so widely recognized that all people – both Jew and non-Jew – will look to him for guidance. The miracles that
occur at this time will bring the entire world to appreciate G-d and His plan for humanity.
This will lead to world peace. “He [Moshiach] shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Yishayahu 2:4). Yishayahu further describes Moshiach as follows:
A shoot shall come out from the
stump of Yishai, and a branch shall
grow out of his roots. The spirit of
the Lord shall rest on him, the spirit
of wisdom and understanding, the
spirit of counsel and might, the spirit
of knowledge and the fear of the
Lord. His delight shall be in the fear
of the Lord. He shall not judge by
what his eyes see, or decide by what
his ears hear; but with righteousness
he shall judge the poor, and decide
with equity for the meek of the
earth; he shall strike the earth with
the rod of his mouth, and with the
breath of his lips he shall kill the
wicked. Righteousness shall be the
belt around his waist, and
faithfulness the belt around his
loins.
(Yishayahu 11:1-5)
ויצא חטר מגזע ישי ונצר
משרשיו יפרה. ונחה עליו
רוח ידוד רוח חכמה ובינה
רוח עצה וגבורה רוח
דעת ויראת ידוד. והריחו
ביראת ידוד ולא למראה
עיניו ישפוט ולא למשמע
אזניו יוכיח. ושפט בצדק
דלים והוכיח במישור לענוי
ארץ והכה ארץ בשבט פיו
וברוח שפתיו ימית רשע.
והיה צדק אזור מתניו
והאמונה אזור חלציו.
Jews from all over the world will return to the land of Israel. Indeed, non-Jews will kindly assist Jews in returning. The righteous Jews of the past will be resurrected to enjoy this spiritual period in history. The Temple will also be returned and the sacrificial service reestablished. All this will happen during the reign of Moshiach. However, as we said above, the chronology of these events is not entirely clear. For example, Rambam says that resurrection might happen before Moshiach’s appearance or long after (Maamar T’chiyas HaMeisim, ed. Kafah p. 86). Additionally, there is the possibility that some of the above events will not occur.
Two Ways for Moshiach to Come
R’ Alexandri said: R’ Yehoshua ben
Levy said: It says “In its time” and
“I will hasten it” (Yishayahu 60:22).
If [Israel] merits, I will hasten it. If
not, in its time… It says “Behold!
With the clouds of heaven” (Daniel
7:13) and “A humble man riding on
a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). If
[Israel] merits, with the clouds of
heaven. If not, a humble man riding
on a donkey.
(Sanhedrin 98a)
אמר רבי אלכסנדרי רבי
יהושע בן לוי רמי כתיב
בעתה וכתיב אחישנה. זכו
אחישנה לא זכו בעתה...
כתיב וארו עם ענני שמיא
וכתיב עני ורכב על חמור.
זכו עם ענני שמיא לא זכו
עני ורכב על חמור.
The Gemara points out contradictory descriptions of the time and nature of Moshiach’s arrival. To explain this discrepancy, the Gemara utilizes an important concept. G-d
has planned out world history and established a predetermined time when Moshiach will come. However, if the entire Jewish people repent and become righteous then Moshiach will come immediately and triumphantly, even in advance of the predetermined time. This concept is advanced by the rabbis. Rav Saadia Gaon (Emunos VeDeyos 8:6) says that if the Jewish people repent then Moshiach ben Yosef will not come. Rather, Moshiach (ben David) will immediately come. Similarly, Rav Yonason Eybeshutz in his Kreisi uPleisi (end of 110) writes that this applies to Eliyahu as well. If the Jewish people repent then, without prior announcement, Moshiach will immediately inaugurate Yemos Hamoshiach – may it happen speedily in our day. Thus, the buildup until the coming of Moshiach is part of the natural order of events that G-d has programmed into history. All else being equal, the world will proceed through a slow process of war and upheaval, including the drama of Moshiach ben Yosef’s victory and defeat, leading up to Yemos HaMoshiach. However, the Jewish people have the ability to bypass the natural order of history by returning to G-d with all of their heart. If they accomplish this then history is stopped mid-course and ended. Immediately, G-d will miraculously change history and reveal Moshiach, who will inaugurate the new world order. Because this is a deviation from history, it must be miraculous and immediate.
However, the normal course of history that leads to Moshiach in his time need not be miraculous because it is part of G-d’s plan in nature. What this implies, and what is said explicitly by R’ Ovadiah Bartenura in his commentary on Rus (in the back of the
standard Mikraos Gedolos on Bamidbar) and others, is that every generation has a potential Moshiach who, if and when the generation should merit it, will immediately become the actual Moshiach. For example, it is claimed by many that the Arizal was the potential Moshiach of his generation and, if every Jew had truly repented and become righteous, he would have immediately been crowned by G-d as the King Moshiach and initiated Yemos HaMoshiach. Because this would have been a coming of the Moshiach that was merited, there would have been no need for Moshiach ben Yosef and Eliyahu to precede Moshiach (ben David). Rather, the Arizal would have become the Moshiach immediately and miraculously.
Similarly, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 98a tells us that R’ Yehoshua ben Levy met Eliyahu near the entrance to the tomb of R’ Shimon ben Yochai. R’ Yehoshua ben Levy asked when Moshiach will come and Eliyahu told him to ask Moshiach, who lives near Rome. R’ Yehoshua ben Levy went to Rome and asked Moshiach when he will come and
Moshiach responded, “Today”. R’ Yehoshua ben Levy told this to Eliyahu who explained that Moshiach meant, “Today – if you listen to His voice” (Tehillim 95:7). Based on what
we said above, this is perfectly understandable. The Moshiach with whom R’ Yehoshua ben Levy spoke was the potential Moshiach of that generation. Had the generation
repented and merited immediate redemption then he would have been Moshiach. Now, almost 2000 years later, that man is no longer alive and is not Moshiach. However, then
he was because he was the potential Moshiach of his time.
As is probably evident by now, this concept of a potential Moshiach in every generation will become very important in our later discussions.
When Will Moshiach Come?
As we said above, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 98a says that there are two times when Moshiach can come. If we merit Yemos HaMoshiach, if the Jewish people is entirely
righteous, then Moshiach can come at any time. Otherwise, there is a set time for Moshiach to come. There are many hints in the Bible that enable us to calculate exactly when this set time will be however the biblical references are often obscure. It is frequently difficult to decipher their precise meaning. In Sanhedrin 97a we are told in very strong terms that it is improper to calculate the year of Moshiach’s arrival because
if one is wrong, and that time comes and passes without Moshiach coming, then some people will stop believing in Moshiach.
However, we find that the greatest among our sages did just that. For example, Rashi in his commentary to Daniel 7:25 calculated that Moshiach would come in the year 1405.
Ramban in his commentary to B’reishis 2:3 calculated that he would come in 1357. Rav Saadia Gaon in his Emunos VeDeyos (8:3) said it would be in the year 980. Rambam, in
his Iggeres Teiman (ch. 3 p. 41), wrote that a tradition in his family held it would be in the year 1210. More recently, the Chasam Sofer (Tshuvos, 6:61) calculated that Moshiach would arrive in 1890 and Malbim (Daniel 12:11-12) calculated 1925. All of these years passed and Moshiach did not come. Why these great scholars were permitted to calculate the year of the coming of Moshiach is for another time. However, we can say with certainty that we do not know when Moshiach will come. We just hope it is soon.
Even in the times of the Gemara they lived with a constant anticipation of the Moshiach. In Avodah Zarah 9b, Rabbi Chanina says that subsequent to 400 years after the Churban
one should not buy a field in Israel because when Moshiach comes the field will return to its tribal owner. Similarly, in Eiruvin 43a we are taught that someone who vows to be a
Nazir starting on the day that Moshiach comes is forbidden to drink wine like a Nazir on regular days just in case Moshiach has come on that day.
Due to the long and difficult exile, scarcely a century has gone by in which people have not thought that they were experiencing the “birth pangs of Moshiach” – the suffering
that will precede his revelation. The massacres in Spain during the 15th century leading up to the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492 was widely seen as a sign that Moshiach’s arrival was imminent. The devastating pogroms of 1648-9 (Tach VeTat) that so disrupted Jewish settlements in Eastern Europe were also seen as sure signs that Moshiach was on his way. Unfortunately, their hopes for Yemos HaMoshiach did not come true in their day.
May it come soon in our time!
Dear Mr Plonie,
Why Are Jews Liberals?
A symposium
by Jeff Jacoby
Commentary
September 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6174/why-are-jews-liberals
To mark the publication of Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberals?, Commentary invited six American Jewish writers to reflect on its themes. My contribution is below. To read those of David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol, and David Gelernter, please visit commentarymagazine.com.
LIKE NORMAN PODHORETZ, I am often asked by non-Jewish conservatives why American Jews cling so tenaciously to the left and vote so consistently for Democrats, and like him I believe the answer to that question is theological: Liberalism has superseded Judaism as the religion of most American Jews.
Unlike Podhoretz, however, I cannot personally remember a time when this ardent liberalism seemed a sensible response to American Jewish life. Nor did I take it in with my mother’s milk. One of my earliest political memories is of accompanying my father to the polls early on Election Day in November 1968. It was the first time I had seen the inside of a voting booth, and my father let me pull the lever for Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic presidential candidate.
When I described this adventure to my mother after returning home, she told me that she would be going later that day to cast her own vote—for Richard Nixon. At a young age, therefore, I absorbed the lesson that Jews need not vote in lockstep, and that voting for a Republican was as normal as voting for a Democrat.
Most American Jews, on the other hand, seem to have learned from an early age that to be Jewish is to be a liberal Democrat, no matter what. No matter that anti-Semitism today makes its home primarily on the Left, while in most quarters of the Right, hostility toward Jews has been anathematized. No matter that Israel’s worst enemies congregate with leftists, while its staunchest defenders tend to be resolute conservatives. No matter that Republicans support the Jewish state by far larger margins than Democrats do. No matter that on a host of issues—homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment, racial preferences, public prayer—the “Torah” of contemporary liberalism, as Podhoretz calls it, diverges sharply from the Torah of Judaism. As Why Are Jews Liberals? convincingly and depressingly demonstrates, the loyalty of American Jews to the left has been unaffected by the failure of the left to reciprocate that loyalty.
The Jewish predilection for ill-advised political choices isn’t new. The Bible describes the yearning of the ancient Israelites for a king, and God’s warning that monarchy would bring them despotism and misery. Appoint a king, God has the prophet Samuel tell the people, and he will seize your sons and daughters, your fields and vineyards. “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
His warning fell on deaf ears. “Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations.’” (1 Samuel 8:17-20)
The longing to “be like all the nations” is a recurring motif in Jewish history. Baal-worshipers in the time of the prophets, Judean Hellenists in the Chanukah story, 19th-century assimilationist maskilim, Jewish socialists enthralled by Marx’s classless utopia, modern post-Zionists in quest of a non-Jewish Israel—down through the ages, in one way or another, innumerable Jews have fought or fled from Jewish “otherness” and embraced lifestyles or beliefs that promised to make them less distinctive. Given the cruelty and violence to which Jews were so often subjected, it is not surprising that many would seek to shed or neutralize their Jewishness.
Even in America, a haven of security and prosperity without parallel in the long Jewish Diaspora, many Jews wanted nothing to do with the old Jewish identity. There are stories, perhaps apocryphal, of Jewish men throwing their tefillin into the ocean as the ship bringing them to America came within sight of New York Harbor. “Because tefillin were something for the Old World,” explains a character in Dara Horn’s acclaimed 2002 novel, In the Image, “and here in the New World, they didn’t need them any more.”
Apocryphal or not, there is no disputing that countless European Jewish immigrants to the goldene medina—the “golden land”—took advantage of their new circumstances to cast off the old faith. Or their children did. Or their grandchildren. As a result, Jews today are the least religious community in the United States. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, only 16 percent attend religious services at least once a week, compared with 39 percent of Americans generally. Just 31 percent say religion is “very important” in their lives (vs. 56 percent of Americans).
Such data lead Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, to quote a comment made by the late hasidic troubadour Shlomo Carlebach after a lifetime of visiting American campuses: “I ask students what they are. If someone gets up and says, I’m a Catholic, I know that’s a Catholic. If someone says, I’m a Protestant; I know that’s a Protestant. If someone gets up and says, I’m just a human being, I know that’s a Jew.”
“Just-a-human-being” liberalism, secular and universalist—there is the dead end into which the flight from Jewish separateness has led so many American Jews. To call it a dead end is not to deny its allure. Much of liberalism’s appeal lay in making Jews feel good about themselves, secure in the conviction that they were part of a broad and enlightened mainstream. Liberalism freed them from the charge of parochial self-interest that had so often been leveled against Jews. It replaced the ancient, sometimes-difficult burden of chosenness—the Jewish mission to live by God’s law and bring the world to ethical monotheism—with a more palatable and popular commitment to equality, tolerance, and “social justice.”
To be sure, loyalty to the Democratic Party came naturally to Jews, with their inherited memories of a Europe in which emancipation had been a project of the left, and where reactionary anti-Semites had (usually) attacked from the right. As Norman Podhoretz writes, that loyalty understandably intensified during World War II, when the most lethal enemy in Jewish history was ultimately destroyed by an alliance led by a liberal Democrat named Franklin Roosevelt.
But liberal Democrats no longer lead such alliances, and they heatedly oppose those who do. The Soviet Union was defeated not by Jimmy Carter, who urged his countrymen to shed their “inordinate fear of communism,” but by Ronald Reagan, who labeled the USSR an “Evil Empire” and was denounced by the left as a warmonger. Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, but it was George W. Bush who carried out that liberation in the face of scathing liberal hostility. Republicans are the party that sees the current conflict against global jihadists as the decisive struggle of our time, while the few Democrats who express that view—as Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman can testify—are scorned by their party’s liberal base.
FDR and Harry Truman are long gone, and so too is the muscular Democratic liberalism that defeated Adolf Hitler and brought the Holocaust to an end. To deal with the would-be Hitlers of our era—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Jew-hating mullahs in Iran—today’s Democrats counsel pacifism and appeasement and endless negotiation. These days it is the right that calls for strong and decisive action against the enemies of the free world. Today the beleaguered Jewish state’s most unshakable American allies are Republican and conservative. Yet American Jews remain what they have been for so long: unshakably Democratic and liberal.
This liberalism isn’t rational. It isn’t sensible. It certainly isn’t good for the Jews.
But it is, as religions often are, deeply reassuring.
It is reassuring for liberal Jews to believe that all people are fundamentally decent and reasonable, and that all disputes can be settled through compromise and conciliation. It is reassuring to believe in a world in which nothing is ever solved by war, so that military force is unnecessary and expensive weapons systems are wasteful. It is reassuring to believe that America is a secular nation, that God and religion have no place in the public square, and that no debt of gratitude is owed to the Christians who created the extraordinary society in which American Jews have thrived. It is reassuring to believe that crime is caused by guns that academia is the seat of wisdom, and that humanity’s biggest problem is global warming. It is reassuring to believe that compassion can be achieved by passing the right laws and that big government can create prosperity. It is reassuring to believe that tikkun olam is a synonym for the liberal agenda, and that the liberal agenda flows directly from the teachings of Judaism.
Above all it is reassuring to believe that Jews are no different from anyone else, that they are not called to a unique role in human events, and that the best way to be a good Jew is to be a conscientious citizen of the world. To be liberal, in short, is to be “like all the nations.” It is a seductive and comforting belief, and American Jews are far from the first to embrace it.
Shalom Benny,
Now you will be able to understand better about Messiah:
The Two-Messiah Theory
When one studies rabbinic views of the Messiah one finds something very interesting. Many ancient rabbis spoke of two Messiahs, one who was the “Son of David” and another who was the “Son of Joseph.” Though one can find the sufferings of Messiah attributed to the sufferings of the Davidic Messiah in many rabbinic writings, often a second Messiah is posited, the “Son of Joseph” or “Son of Ephraim,” who is the one who suffers while the Davidic Messiah conquers. The rabbis struggled with Biblical portraits of a suffering Messiah, as found in Isaiah 53 and other places, and portraits of a conquering Messiah, also found in the Hebrew Bible. They posited two Messiahs, but could it not also be reasonable to believe there is just one Messiah but two aspects of his mission, a suffering aspect and a conquering aspect?
The eminent scholar Raphael Patai, who “taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem” and served as Professor of Anthropology at Dropsie University,1said this of the two-messiah theory:
“When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic Age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph, was to raise the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories and miracles, would fall victim Gog and Magog. The other, Messiah ben David, will come after him (in some legends will bring him back to life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two), and will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the Messianic era of bliss.“2
There is only one Messiah, but there are two comings and two aspects of his ministry. The Messiah came the first time to provide atonement for sin. He is now expanding his kingdom and conquering the Gentiles, not by the sword, but by preaching. (In this century alone over 50,000,000 Chinese have come to faith in the God of Israel through Jesus, even while being persecuted.) Messiah’s Kingdom is growing tremendously among the Koreans and in Africa and South America. Many earthly rulers bow down before Messiah Jesus. One day he will return to judge the earth and to bring in his Kingdom in all its fullness. Know him now as your sin-bearer and bow before him today as your King, and when he returns you will not need to fear the judgement, because he came to receive the judgement in the place of those who trust him.
Isaiah 53: What Did the Rabbis Say?
Maybe you weren’t told, but many ancient rabbinic sources understood Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah. Here are quotations from some of them:
Babylonian Talmud: “The Messiah—what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted…’” (Sanhedrin 98b)
Midrash Ruth Rabbah: “Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14):—He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,’ draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,’ that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,’ this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities’”
Targum Jonathan: “Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong…”
Zohar: “`He was wounded for our transgressions,’ etc….There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.’”
Rabbi Moses Maimonides: “What is the manner of Messiah’s advent….there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place’ (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc….in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.” (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)
Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: “having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,’ and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah….This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so.” (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)
Why Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the nation of Israel, or anyone else, but must be the Messiah
1. The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: “Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!” He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had “done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!”
2. The prophet said: “It pleased the LORD to bruise him.” Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God’s pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel’s suffering during that horrible period, “It pleased the LORD to bruise him?” Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement.
3. The person mentioned in this passage suffers silently and willingly. Yet all people, even Israelites, complain when they suffer! Brave Jewish men and women fought in resistance movements against Hitler. Remember the Vilna Ghetto Uprising? Remember the Jewish men who fought on the side of the allies? Can we really say Jewish suffering during the holocaust and during the preceding centuries was done silently and willingly?
4. The figure described in Isaiah 53 suffers, dies, and rises again to atone for his people’s sins. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for “sin-offering” is “asham,” which is a technical term meaning “sin-offering.” See how it is used in Leviticus chapters 5 and 6. Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven. Can anyone really claim that the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, however undeserved and unjust, atones for the sins of the world? Whoever Isaiah 53 speaks of, the figure described suffers and dies in order to provide a legal payment for sin so that others can be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere human.
5. It is the prophet who is speaking in this passage. He says: “who has believed our message.” The term “message” usually refers to the prophetic message, as it does in Jeremiah 49:14. Also, when we understand the Hebrew parallelism of verse 1, we see “Who has believed our message” as parallel to “to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed.” The “arm of the Lord” refers to God’s powerful act of salvation. So the message of the speaker is the message of a prophet declaring what God has done to save his people.
6. The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for “the transgression of my people,” according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?
7. The figure of Isaiah 53 dies and is buried according to verses 8 and 9. The people of Israel have never died as a whole. They have been out of the land on two occasions and have returned, but they have never ceased to be among the living. Yet Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.
8. If Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Israel, how about Isaiah himself? But Isaiah said he was a sinful man of unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5-7). And Isaiah did not die as an atonement for our sins. Could it have been Jeremiah? Jeremiah 11:19 does echo the words of Isaiah 53. Judah rejected and despised the prophet for telling them the truth. Leaders of Judah sought to kill Jeremiah, and so the prophet describes himself in these terms. But they were not able to kill the prophet. Certainly Jeremiah did not die to atone for the sins of his people. What of Moses? Could the prophet have been speaking of him? But Moses wasn’t sinless either. Moses sinned and was forbidden from entering the promised land (Numbers 20:12). Moses indeed attempted to offer himself as a sacrifice in place of the nation, but God did not allow him to do so (Exodus 32:30-35). Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah were all prophets who gave us a glimpse of what Messiah, the ultimate prophet, would be like, but none of them quite fit Isaiah 53.
So what can we conclude? Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the nation of Israel, nor to Isaiah, nor to Moses, nor another prophet. And if not to Moses, certainly not to any lesser man. Yet Messiah would be greater than Moses. As the rabbinic writing “Yalkut” said: “Who art thou, O great mountain? (Zech. iv.7) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him`the great mountain?’ because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, `My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly’—he will be higher than Abraham…lifted up above Moses…loftier then the ministering angels…” (Quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, page 9.)
Of whom does Isaiah speak? He speaks of the Messiah, as many ancient rabbis concluded. The second verse of Isaiah 53 makes it crystal clear. The figure grows up as “a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground.” The shoot springing up is beyond reasonable doubt a reference to the Messiah, and, in fact, it is a common Messianic reference in Isaiah and elsewhere. The Davidic dynasty was to be cut down in judgement like a felled tree, but it was promised to Israel that a new sprout would shoot up from the stump. The Messiah was to be that sprout. Several Hebrew words were used to refer to this undeniably Messianic image. All the terms are related in meaning and connected in the Messianic texts where they were used. Isaiah 11, which virtually all rabbis agreed refers to the Messiah, used the words “shoot” (hoter) and branch (netser) to describe the Messianic King. Isaiah 11:10 called Messiah the “Root (shoresh) of Jesse,” Jesse being David’s father. Isaiah 53 described the suffering servant as a root (shoresh) from dry ground, using the very same metaphor and the very same word as Isaiah 11. We also see other terms used for the same concept, such as branch (tsemach) in Jeremiah 23:5, in Isaiah 4:2 and also in the startling prophecies of Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12.
Beyond doubt, Isaiah 52:13-53:12 refers to Messiah Jesus. He is the one highly exalted before whom kings shut their mouths. Messiah is the shoot who sprung up from the fallen Davidic dynasty. He became the King of Kings. He provided the ultimate atonement.
Isaiah 52:13 states that it would be the Messiah who will “sprinkle” many nations. What does that mean? What was Messiah’s ministry to be toward the nations? The word translated “sprinkle” or sometimes “startle” is found several other places in the OT. The Hebrew word is found in Leviticus 4:6; 8:11; 14:7, and Numbers 8:7, 19:18-19. The references cited all pertain to priestly sprinklings of the blood of atonement, the anointing oil of consecration, and the ceremonial water used to cleanse the unclean. Is Isaiah 52:13 telling us that the Messiah will act as a priest who applies atonement, anoints to consecrate, sprinkles to make clean? (This vision of the Messiah as both priest and king is also found in Zechariah 6:12-13). But, priests were to come from the tribe of Levi and Kings from the tribe of Judah! What kind of priest is he? David told us Messiah would be a priest of the order of Melchizedek (see Psalm 110 and Hebrews chapters 7-9).
Isaiah 53 must be understood as referring to the coming Davidic King, the Messiah. King Messiah was prophesied to suffer and die to pay for our sins and then rise again. He would serve as a priest to the nations of the world and apply the blood of atonement to cleanse those who believe. There is one alone who this can refer to, Jesus, whom millions refer to as Christ, which is from the Greek word for Messiah. Those who confess him are his children, his promised offspring, the spoils of his victory. According to the testimony of the Jewish Apostles, Jesus died for our sins, rose again, ascended to the right hand of God, and he now serves as our great High Priest who cleanses us of sin and our King. Jesus rules over his people and is in the process of conquering the Gentiles. The first century Jewish disciples were willing to die rather than deny they had seen the risen Messiah. Only if one has presupposed Jesus cannot have been the Messiah can one deny that which is obvious. Israel’s greatest son, Jesus, is the one Isaiah foresaw.
The Curious Idea of the “Leper Messiah”
When one studies rabbinic ideas of the Messiah one comes upon a very curious idea: Messiah is a Leper! Where does this idea come from? We’ll tell you below, but first consider some of the rabbinic references.
Babylonian Talmud:
“The Messiah—what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted…’” (Sanhedrin 98b)
The Talmud also “records” a supposed discourse between the great Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and the prophet Elijah. The rabbi asks “When will the Messiah come?” And “By what sign may I recognize him?” Elijah tells the rabbi to go to the gate of the city where he will find the Messiah sitting among the poor lepers. The Messiah, says the prophet, sits bandaging his leprous sores one at a time, unlike the rest of the sufferers, who bandage them all at once. Why? Because he might be needed at any time and would not want to be delayed. Elijah says he will come “Today, if you will listen to his voice.” (Sanhedrin 98a)
There is also a strange story about the Baal Shem Tov, founder of the Hasidic movement. One day the rabbi was riding with a young student. He stopped his wagon at the hut of an old leper, horribly affected by the disease. The rabbi climbed down and spent a great deal of time with the poor man. When he returned to the wagon and recommenced his journey, the puzzled student asked the rabbi who it was that the rabbi had visited with. The rabbi replied that in every generation there is a Messiah who will reveal himself if the generation is worthy. The leper he had been meeting with was that Messiah, but the generation was not worthy, so the Messiah would depart. (Quoted in The Messiah Texts, by Raphael Patai, page 31.)
Where did this “Leper Messiah” idea come from? This odd concept must have arisen from the rabbis as they struggled with Isaiah 53. They either saw the Messiah’s sufferings as leprosy or split the Messiah in two, one a sufferer and one a conqueror. The Hebrew words in Isaiah 53:4, stricken (nagua) and smitten (mukkay) are interpreted as referring to a leprous condition. Either word can refer to being stricken with a disease, yet they need not be understood in that way, much like our English work “stricken” can refer to stricken with disease or just simply stricken, as with a fist. Either way, Jesus was stricken. He was certainly made sick by the Roman floggings and beatings and the tortuous ordeal of crucifixion. He was certainly stricken with the Roman lash. As a leper was despised and rejected of men, so also was the Messiah despised and rejected. And still today there are many who see Jesus as being as repugnant as leprosy and his followers as those who should be isolated and shunned.
To the followers of the Suffering One, his afflictions, described in Isaiah 53, are the agonies of one dying to provide atonement. The lamb being led to slaughter envisioned by Isaiah is described as one punished in the place of his people. Jesus, the true Messiah, came as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” His crucifixion provided a substitutionary sacrifice adequate to fulfill the punishment we all deserve. Let us praise the God of Israel, our Redeemer, who has provided his Messiah to take the just punishment for his people so that we might be forgiven our sins!
THE SUFFERING SERVANT… AND YOU
Interpreting the Bible isn’t simply an intellectual matter. Certainly it involves the intellect, but there is much more to understanding what the Bible says than simply understanding with the mind, which is a Greek concept, not a Hebrew one. The Hebrew meaning of what it means to know something is demonstrated by the statement in the Torah, “Adam knew his wife.” Adam did not simply have an intellectual concept of his wife. He knew her personally, intimately, physically, and practically. Likewise, to know the Lord means much more than to know he exists. Jesus’ brother Jacob told us, “You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” (James 2:19) Real belief and understanding involves action. There is a great deal of difference between saying I believe there is a million dollars buried in the back yard and getting out a shovel and digging it up!
We’ve studied Isaiah 53 from several perspectives. We’ve considered rabbinic interpretation, examined to see if the passage could be referring to Israel or some other individual. Finally, we saw that the key to understanding the passage is that it contained the familiar image of a root or shoot (shoresh) sprouting up, which is beyond dispute a Messianic image in other places in Isaiah, such as Isaiah 11:10. The figure of Isaiah 53 would be exalted over the Kings of the earth, yet he would also serve as a priest who would sprinkle many nations, which is a priestly function. Let us go back to this rich text again and consider how to understand it in a Hebrew way, that is, practically and personally.
Let’s go back to the text and consider the implications for each of us.
53:1 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
The arm of the Lord is his power at work to save his people. God delivered Israel from Egypt by his mighty arm (Exodus 6:6). The word for arm is “zeroah,” the same word used for the shank bone of the lamb found on the Passover Seder plate today to remind us of the Passover Lamb. Isaiah 53 described one who would come as a sacrificial lamb for us. What can you say about the response to the message of the Messiah? How was the Messiah to be viewed? The prophet said he would be rejected, despised, and one people would prefer to avoid looking at. When Messiah came the Judean leadership, as foretold, did not accept him. In fact, many saw his crucifixion as the punishment he deserved, just as Isaiah foresaw. How have you responded to the Messiah? Many times in Israel’s history the prophets were rejected. Remember, most of those who came out of Egypt did not make it into the Promised Land. Many in Israel rebelled against Moses in his day. It is no surprise that many, often those in power, rejected the Messiah when he came. Yet the faithful remnant among Israel believed and took the message of God’s love through the Messiah to the known world of that day. How have you responded?
53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Though many thought the Messiah was suffering for his own sin, what was actually going on was that God was providing atonement for us. Human nature is corrupt. We all go astray and wander from the Good shepherd. We all have guilt and sin. Can you admit that? The prophet Isaiah confessed that he was among those who needed healing and payment for our sins. He used the word “we.” Do you recognize yourself among the we? Do you recognize and admit that you yourself are one of the ones who has gone astray? Will you receive the Messiah’s payment for sin as your own, not just as a general payment for sin, but as the payment for your own personal sins? Will you receive God’s loving offer of forgiveness through Messiah’s suffering as the sin offering?
53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
The servant willingly accepts his suffering and death. Though he was mistreated and oppressed he never objected to the treatment he received. He even said “father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Why was he so willing to suffer and die? Because he loves us and it was God’s will for Messiah to suffer and die to provide payment and forgiveness for our sins. Jesus said “Greater love has no man than this than to lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13) How have you responded to God’s loving offer?
53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; he will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;
53:11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
God has provided a guilt offering (asham) for us through the Messiah. This is the same term used of the Levitical sacrifices made in the ancient Temple (Leviticus 5 & 6). If Moses said we needed a guilt offering, what does this imply about us? The guilt offering of Temple times was the sacrificial animal upon whom the sins of the worshiper were symbolically placed before it was slaughtered. God demonstrated through these sacrifices that guilt could not go unpunished. There was a principle of justice which had to be fulfilled. But could an animal really atone for a human’s sin? Way before the Temple was built, Abraham was called to offer up his son Isaac on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22). This was the same place where the Temple was eventually built by David. The ram was provided as a substitute for Isaac, but does that hint to us that, in essence, God has the right to demand the sacrifice of a son? Only the death of a man satisfies the just punishment. Yet even then, how could one sinful man, worthy of his own punishment, offer himself in the place of another? God did not allow even Moses to sacrifice himself in place of Israel when Moses offered (Exodus 32:30-32). How can the sacrifice of one man be of enough value for his punishment to satisfy the judgement deserved by many? Only if that man were without sin. The Levitical sacrifices were to be spotless. They foreshadowed the sinless Messiah who would be the perfect sacrifice. Because the Messiah was perfect he could take the place in judgement and suffer our punishment. Because the Messiah was more than a man, he was God residing among us clothed in human nature, his sacrifice was of infinite value.
When you receive the Messiah as your guilt offering, in payment for your sin, your guilt is done away with. Will you receive the Messiah as your substitute sufferer punished in your place for your sins? The prophet said Messiah would justify many. This means that all who trust him are counted righteous before God because of their faith in Messiah’s vicarious atonement. “Many” means not everyone, yes, a great number, but not everyone. Are you among the many?
The prophet said that after the death and burial of the Messiah he would see the light of life and be satisfied. Messiah rose again, just as Isaiah said he would. But there is more. Not only does Messiah satisfy justice by dying to pay for the sins of his people, he also provides something very wonderful. There is a reward to be distributed, the spoils of victory. What are the spoils he distributes? We are told Messiah has a kingdom for us, a great inheritance (Luke 12:32). When we receive the Messiah we are not only forgiven of our sins and counted as righteous before a Holy God, we also come into the Kingdom of God, spiritually speaking, and we have a new relationship with our Maker, a close friendship with all guilt and sin removed so that nothing comes between us. When Messiah returns we will be co-heirs with him, as it is written: “The meek will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)
God is reaching out to you now. He is giving you a chance to come into a renewed relationship with him. How amazing that God would love us to this extent! The only obstacle that can get in the way is your unbelief, but God is able to overcome that, as well. Why not pray and ask the God of Israel to help you to believe whatever is the truth. 700 years before Jesus was born the Jewish prophet Isaiah spoke of one who would come to suffer and die for the sins of his people and then rise again. Could Jesus be the one Isaiah spoke of? Why not ask God to help you believe it?
If you now believe the prophet’s message spoke of Messiah Jesus, tell God you receive his free gift of forgiveness today. Confess your sins to Him and then thank Him that Messiah came to suffer for your sins. Ask him to renew your heart so that you will live a life of grateful obedience as he enables you. God has shown his love and provided the way back to Him through Messiah Jesus. Will you turn to God and receive the love he offers?
Gober
Yopu’re giving everybody a headache. Judaism is a messianic religion. The difference is that we are a true messianic religion, not a false messianic religion. Your first post seems ok, but I didn’t need a review at this time of night. As for the second, the Messiah son of Joseph is not going to be the son of a guy named Joseph, he will be of the tribe of (Ephraim, son of) Joseph. Jospeph was the firstborn of Rachel, who was intended to be first wife of Jacob. Therefore he could make a case to be firstborn of Jacob. For various reasons, Judah inherited the kingship rather than Reuben, and the epic rivalry between Judah and Joseph has resounded through the ages. That is what the Messiah son of Joseph refers to, and in the era of peace it will be resolved. I suppose I don’t need to mention that Jesus was not of the tribe of Ephraim.
The real point to be made is that when the Messiah arrives, it will be the knowlegable Jews who know and will let you now if it not publically obvious by that time, which it will be. Not the prostitutes and the fishermen and the tax collectors and the Mister Softee truck drivers.
Harry Woods
Decide what you are trying to express and express it.
Shalom Benny,
The blog is a means of people expressing their point of view. Whether or not it gives you a headache or not, it educates others to understand the difference between Talmudic Judaism & Biblical Judaism. You and yours place Tradition of the Elders above Torah/Tanach, while Biblical Judaism places Torah/Tanach above Talmud.
Go to You Tube & type in Girl Prank Calls Parents on Radio Station & listen! It makes understanding people like you clearer.
Pasting in large gobs of text is not expressing yourself and educating others. It is the dumb, amateur, lazy and cowardly way to communicate. I can easily paste in more and larger gobs of really good text from dozens of sources, paralyze the whole thread, and have it locked or deleted and screw up the website. By responding from my head and heart supplemented by snippets from sources I am acting with greater honesty and respect than you. Doesn’t that make the Rabbinic Jew a better Christian tham you? If you can’t express an position intelligently all by yourself, than you have no business here. Why should I contend with ghosts while you feel ree to ignore my sincere comments because it was not you who said anything? Anybody can do a research study on a topic if they are so inclined.
The truth is that by changing the focus of the topic from the headline post to evangelical missionizing you are also cheating, but I can deal with that. The way you are doing it gets any meaningful dialog lost in the sauce.
My position is that you know nothing about Judaism to educate anyone about. The Torah consists of a written and Oral component, just as with any body of knowledge and principle. Not only that, but the Torah itself makes several explicit references (supplied on request) to the origin and process of continuing authority in the living Torah society. When the Torah direct us to learn it and study it and involve ourselves in it and observe it, what do you suppose that process should look like? Don’t you think there should be study groups and academies and masters and disciples and personal transmission and interaction? The Talmud that we have is a snapshot of the discussions in play for centuries preceding Christianity. It would not have been written down at all except for the insane fascist disruption of Jewish life that your thuggish culture imposed upon us, in which teachers of Torah were tortured and executed wholesale, and it became clear that the personal interaction needed to continue could not take place noramlly. The Oral Law is no more than the process of realizing the Written Law by way of case studies and defining the parameters and boundaries and method of it, along with some more abstract cultural references. While the text of the Talmud was finalized, the process contiues to this day and this moment everywhere there are Jews who study it. And in so doing, Jewish brains become better and stronger than Chaldean and Egyptian and Babylonian and Assyrian and Greek and Roman brains on down. And the brain is the seat of the soul, not the heart which may be the seat of the animal spirit although I don’t want to get into that definitively.
Conversely, there is far more commentary on the New Testament than there is on the Tanach, as Christianity staggers ideologically down the centuries in search of authenticity and something that makes sense. Christians revere these no less than the synoptic gospels, even as they contradict one another and you fight Hundred Year Wars and Three Hundred Year Wars etc. about them.
Shalom Benny,
My position is that if you got two rabbis to agree on anything, then you could talk about Talmudic Judaism being a religion of the mind & heart. As it is your lot are brainless & full of crap.
If you had studied the Talmud, you would understand how screwed up Talmudic Judaism is. What about the bloke falling off the roof with a hard-on & impregnating a woman? The crap is sooooo far out, these rabbis must have been crac cocaine. And what the Talmudic health cures? Using all kinds of sh-t & blood of animals. One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest couldn’t come near it. Once again I have to use one of your own to show you how screwed up Talmudic Judaism is. “Take it away Rabbi David”!
Modern Jewish Messianism
Jewish messianism has been repeatedly reinterpreted in the modern era.
By Rabbi David S. Ariel
Classical Jewish texts depict a Messiah who will come to redeem the Jewish people, gather the exiled to the land of Israel, and rule over a prosperous nation, and relate other more detailed (and diverse) traditions about the Messiah’s arrival as well as the conditions of the messianic era. Excerpted and reprinted with the permission of Schocken Books, a division of Random House, Inc., from What Do Jews Believe?.
The Arrival of the Messiah
The rabbis speculated on the conditions under which the Messiah was likely to appear.
He will not arrive on the Sabbath, since that would require people to violate the Sabbath in welcoming him [Babylonian Talmud Pesahim 13a]. [The prophet] Elijah [who is supposed to usher in the messianic age] will arrive no later in the week than Thursday, leaving room for the Messiah to arrive by Friday. Elijah will announce the arrival of the Messiah from Mount Carmel in the Land of Israel [Jerusalem Talmud Pesahim 3:6].
Many rabbis believed that the Messiah would arrive suddenly on the eve of Passover, the first redemption, which serves as a model of the final redemption [Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pischa 14].
Corruption and Degradation Will Precede Redemption
One statement from the time of the rabbis describes the era leading up to the Messiah in the darkest terms of societal corruption:
“In the footsteps of the Messiah, arrogance [chutzpah] will increase; prices will rise; grapes will be abundant but wine will be costly; the government will turn into heresy; and there will be no reproach. The meeting place [of scholars] will become a bordello; the Galilee will be destroyed; the highland will lie desolate; the border people will wander from city to city and none will show them compassion; the wisdom of authors will stink; sin-fearing people will be detested; truth will be missing; young men will humiliate the elderly; the elderly will stand while the young sit; sons will revile their fathers; daughters will strike their mothers, brides will strike their mothers-in-law; and a man’s enemies will take over his house. The face of the generation is like the face of a dog! Sons have no shame in front of their fathers; and on whom can one depend? Only upon our father in heaven [Sotah 9:15].”
This era will be characterized by God’s war against Gog and Magog and other catastrophic events. Another statement, which may date from the time of the Hadrianic persecutions (132-35 C.E.), offers the dark assessment that the Messiah will arrive in a period when Jews collaborate with their enemies, Torah learning disappears, poverty increases, and religious despair deepens:
“The son of David will not arrive until informers are everywhere. Another view: Until there are few students left. Another view: Until the last coin is gone from the pocket. Another view: Until people despair of redemption “as if there is no support or help for Israel [BT Sanhedrin 97a].”
Some sages predicted that the Messiah would not arrive until Israel observed the commandments more fully:
“Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: If all Israel had observed the very first Sabbath, no nation or tongue would have ever ruled over her? Rabbi Yohanan said, following Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai: Were Israel to observe two Sabbaths punctiliously, they would be redeemed immediately [BT Shabbat 118b].”
Some rabbis believed that the arrival of the Messiah had no relation either to political and societal events or to individual actions. They believed that there were a finite number of souls destined to enter the world and reside within human bodies. When the supply of fresh souls was exhausted, the Messiah would arrive [BT Yevamot 62a; BT Avodah Zarah 5a; BT Niddah 13b] [?]
Converting to Judaism in the Messianic Age
A central question that preoccupied the rabbis was how the messianic age would differ from the present age.
One concern was that many Gentiles would convert to Judaism at the last moment just in order to participate in the new age. Some sages concluded, therefore, that “converts are not received in the days of the Messiah,” just as they were not welcome in the days of David and Solomon [BT Yevamot 24b].
A dispute arose among the rabbinic sages about the desirability of encouraging Gentiles to convert to Judaism. While most welcomed converts, others raised doubts about their sincerity. Rabbi Helbo, who mistrusted the sincerity of converts, stated that “converts are more difficult for Israel than a sore [BT Niddah 13b].” Others suspected that converts might not remain loyal during the messianic era. They decided that converts could be accepted, but with difficulty because they were likely to revert to their former ways in the heat of the messianic upheavals [BT Avodah Zarah 3b].
Specific Features of the Messianic Age
Foreign nations would not be obliterated in the messianic era. Nations such as Rome would come to the Messiah to pay tribute to him, but their appeals for favor would be rejected [BT Pesahim 118b].
Some rabbis faced the messianic age with anticipation, others with dread. One viewpoint suggested that knowledge of Torah would continue to decline in the messianic age:
“A bad announcement was conveyed to Israel at that moment. In the future, the Torah will be forgotten [Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pischa 12].” Others forecast that in “the future era, the synagogues and academies of Babylonia will be transported to the Land of Israel [BT Megillah 29a].”
Still others held that humans would take on a new appearance: some thought that man would achieve a height of 160 feet, while another suggested he might double that. There is no suggestion that the Messiah himself is a wonder worker, but many sages believed that the messianic age would be a time of wonders. Women would give birth painlessly, hens lay eggs continuously, and food appear in abundance [BT Shabbat 30b].
There were controversies about the nature of the messianic era. Followers of the sage Samuel maintained that it would be similar to their own era, except that the Jewish people would be returned to Israel and the Davidic monarchy restored. Samuel saw “no difference between this world and the messianic age other than subjugation to dispersions [BT Shabbat 63a].”
Others, such as Rabbi Eliezer, believed that the next era would be unprecedented and qualitatively different. This debate represented the two poles of Jewish belief about the messianic era. One view sees it in terms of normal human existence under conditions of Jewish political independence; the other as something wholly new that defies prediction.
During the messianic era, the Messiah will reign victorious and rebuild the Temple. He will restore the priesthood to the Temple, and the traditional sacrifices will be reinstated. The return to the golden age of the Jewish people will be complete. Many popular Jewish prayers express this messianic longing for the rebuilding of the Temple and above all for the return to Zion. Perhaps even more than the coming of the Messiah, traditional Judaism has sought this dream of the return to Zion.
Dr. David S. Ariel is head of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. He was previously president of Baltimore Hebrew University and president of Siegal College of Judaic Studies (formerly the Cleveland College of Jewish Studies). He is author of Spiritual Judaism: Restoring Heart and Soul to Jewish Life and The Mystic Quest: An Introduction to Jewish Mysticism.
Dear Mr Plonie,
This is what I wanted to say, but some one beat me to it:
Scum of the Earth
Haredi Man Allegedly Tricked and Extorted Organ ‘Sellers’
July 24, 2009
Rabbi Levi Itzak Rosenbaum would pull out a pistol and tell the “sellers”–poor people brought to the US from Moldova on false pretenses–“You’re here. A deal is a deal. Now, you’ll give us a kidney or you’ll never go home.’” The Brooklyn man arrested Thursday for dealing in black-market kidneys was identified to the FBI seven years ago as a major figure in a global human organ ring. Levy-Izhak Rosenbaum’s name, address and even phone number were passed to an FBI agent in a meeting at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan by a prominent anthropologist who has been studying and documenting organ trafficking for more than a decade.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes of the University of California, Berkeley, was and is very clear as to Rosenbaum’s role in the ring.
“He is the main U.S. broker for an international trafficking network,” she said.
Her sources include a man who started working with Rosenbaum imagining he was helping people in desperate need. The man then began to see the donors, or to be more accurate, sellers, who were flown in from impoverished countries such as Moldova.
“He said it was awful. These people would be brought in and they didn’t even know what they were supposed to be doing and they would want to go home and they would cry,” Scheper-Hughes said.
The man called Rosenbaum “a thug” who would pull out a pistol he was apparently licensed to carry and tell the sellers, “You’re here. A deal is a deal. Now, you’ll give us a kidney or you’ll never go home.’”
Scheper-Hughes felt she had to stop Rosenbaum. She met with the FBI.
“I always thought of it as my Dick Tracy moment,” she said Thursday.
She waited and waited for something to be done. The FBI may have been following the lead of the State Department, which dismissed organ trafficking as “urban legend.”
“It would be impossible to conceal a clandestine organ trafficking ring,” a 2004 State Department report stated.
Scheper-Hughes had better luck in Brazil and in South Africa, where law enforcement corroborated her findings and acted decisively.
But the ring kept operating elsewhere. Scheper-Hughes visited villages in Moldova where, “20% of the men were siphoned off to be kidney sellers in this same scheme.”
Back in Brooklyn, Rosenbaum stayed busy. He was contacted by an FBI informant who introduced Rosenbaum to an undercover agent who supposedly wanted to buy a kidney for her uncle.
“I’m doing this a long time,” Rosenbaum was recorded saying.
The undercover asked how many organs he had sold.
“Quite a lot,” he answered.
On Wednesday, the FBI called Scheper-Hughes, who is putting her findings into the upcoming, “A World Cut in Two, The Global Traffic in Humans for Organs.”
“Why are you calling me now?” she asked.
Thursday, seven years after her Dick Tracy moment with the FBI at the Roosevelt Hotel, Rosenbaum was finally arrested.
Shalom Benny,
Talmudic Jews are always going on about being persecuted by the followers of Yeshua, but the fact is, it was Jews who started persecuting the followers of Yeshua.
MESSIANIC RABBINIC DIALOGUE
Through the centuries there was always an ambivalence among Jewish rabbinic leaders as to whether to ignore Messianic proofs for Jesus’ Messiahship and Divinity, or to treat them seriously by using counter arguments. It seems that the latter view prevailed.
J.D. Eisenstein in his Hebrew book entitled, “Polemics and Disputations” makes the following observation:
The first Christians, who were Jewish, some half, some one third and some one fourth Jewish, were called Minim (a sectarian; a believer in Jesus). These Minim were always on the lookout for opportunities of disputations with rabbis, especially in the matter of interpreting Scriptures. The rabbis, however, pushed them aside as with a straw, i.e., they did not give them sincere or weighty answers, only a sharp work, or saying, like it is written in the Passover Hagadah, in regards to the wicked, But do thou set his teeth on edge and answer him. ...”
As example, the following story is quoted from the Talmud 1:
The minim asked R. Saphra (a third century Jerusalem Amora-teacher): What is the meaning of Amos 3:2, You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I visit upon you your iniquity? Does one treat kindly a bad horse? (If God is unkind to the Jews then they must be bad.) He did not know the answer, so they threw a kerchief on his neck and were bothering him. But R. Abahu explained it to them in this way: It is like one having two creditors to whom he made loans. One is a friend, the other an enemy. From his friend he agrees to collect the debt in small installments(as god does with the Jews), but from his enemies he demands payment in one lump sum (Gentiles will be punished in one lump).
The other example is quoted from Midrash 2:
R. Samlai was asked: How many Divinities participated in the creation of the universe? He answered we should inquire from the ancient days as it is written in Deuteronomy 4:32: ‘For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth. ...’ It is not written created in a plural Hebrew form but in a singular form. They asked further, Why is it written, Bereshit bara elohim (Elohim is a plural form in Hebrew)? He answered again that bara (created) is a singular form. They asked again, why is it written in Genesis 1:26, ‘Let us make man in our image.’ He answered, read what is written in the following verse, ‘God created man in His own image.’ It is not written ‘In His images’ but ‘in His image.’
They asked again, Why is it written in Joshua 22:22, ‘The Lord, God; The Lord, God, God’ (Hebrew El, Elohim, Jehovah). He answered it is not written, ‘They knew’ but ‘He knows,’ His disciples objected again saying, you pushed them aside with a weak reed, but explain it to us. He answered, all three are names of God as one says, Basileus (king), Caesar, Augustus.
Oft repeated in the Talmud is the pun made on Matthew 5:13:
How do you salt the salt that lost its savour?
[answer] With the offal of a mule. But does a mule have an offal (since it is incapable of giving birth)?
[Answer] And does salt lose its savour? 3
The following story, in a similar vein, attempts to show the superiority of the rabbis as compared with the Minim.
R. Joshua ben Hananiah was standing before king Hadrian. There was also one of the Minim present and the latter hinted before the king [by sign language] that the Jews are a people from whom God has turned away His countenance. R. Joshua, in turn, showed [by sign language], that God still has His protecting Hand over us. The king asked R. Joshua quietly, What did he show you? He answered, The Min showed that God turned away His countenance from us, but I showed him that God’s hand is still outstretched over us. Then the king asked the Min: Explain what you showed him? He answered, I showed him that he belongs to the people from who God turned away His countenance. And what did R. Joshua show you? He answered: I do not know. The courtiers said, A man who does not know what was shown to him by sign language dares speak in sign language before the king? They took the Min outside and killed him. 4
We could summarize this rabbinic relation to Jewish believers in this way: The Jewish believers in Messiah Yeshua were convinced of their bounden duty to witness to their Jewish brethren about the One who died and rose from the dead according to the Scriptures, who was the Way, the Truth and the Life. Their proofs were from the Hebrew Scriptures and from history. The disaster of A.D. 70 was special proof to them that this extreme judgment was the result of the non-acceptance of Yeshua as Messiah by the Jewish leaders. Although it irked the rabbis, they had not ready reply to these arguments. The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132-135 failed miserably in spite of the fact that the leading Rabbi Akiba hailed him as the Star of Numbers 24:17. 5
Lacking the answers, the rabbis resorted to denigrating the Jewish believers, calling them Minim, although some Jewish believers see in this term the initials for Ma’min Yeshua Nozree - Believer in Yeshua the Nazarene.
The Talmud forbids the reading of the Gospels. Parts of them were known to the rabbis, yet they preferred to treat these parts with contempt, instead of searching their own hearts and determining how they could be the light they were supposed to be. 6
Messianic Reactions
The Jewish Messianic reaction in the post-apostolic period can be illustrated by the contents of the Epistle of Barnabas. On the basis of Isaiah 1:11-13 and Jeremiah 7:22-23, Barnabas points out that the ceremonial laws of sacrifices, feasts, and fasts, were never intended to be observed literally forever. Only Messiah can and will purify us. The Hebrew Scriptures make this clear by predicting Messiah’s incarnation, death and resurrection. This is also hinted in the Tenach by the types of the two goats for the Day of Atonement 7, and by the Red Heifer. 8 Even the laws of circumcision and the dietary laws of kosher and non-kosher foods, have a spiritual meaning and intent. Believers in Messiah Yeshua are, therefore, the true heirs of the Patriarches, of Moses, and of the Prophets. The Messianic believers possess the true Sabbath and they are the true Temple of God.
Dialog With Tryphon
Justin, a Samaritan, composed this Dialogue soon after the Bar Kokhba war of C.E. 132-135. He was martyred A.D. 165. Justin tells us how he met this venerable rabbi, whose name sounds like the R.Tarphon of the Talmud. Justin rebukes Tryphon for studying philosophy instead of concentrating on the Hebrew Scriptures. He tells him how he, Justin, a philosopher himself, has come to the knowledge of Truth which is found in the Prophets. These Jewish prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures glorify the Creator of all things as God the Father and proclaim Messiah sent from God as his Son.
Tryphon’s companions laugh aloud at this. Even Tryphon himself smiles and says to Justin that it were better for him to have remained a philosopher. By believing in Yeshua “You have forsaken God and placed your hope on man. What kind of salvation yet remains for you?” Justin is advised to get circumcised, keep the Sabbath, and the Jewish feasts “and then perchance you will find mercy from God.” As to Messiah, He is unknown “until Elijah shall come and anoint Him ... but you ... shape a kind of Messiah for yourselves.” Now Justin seizes the opportunity to point out the prophetic passages regarding Messiah. He reminds Tryphon that believers in Yeshua are denounced in the Jewish synagogue in the twelfth benediction of the Shemona Esreh. (In his days the text was: “To the apostates let there be no hope, and the kingdom of pride do Thou quickly root out in our days. And let the Nozrim (Nazarenes) and the Minim perish as in a moment. Let them be wiped out from the Book of Life.” 9
Justin then shows that the believers in Yeshua are the true followers of Moses and the Prophets. This he finds in Genesis 49:10, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh comes, and unto him shall the gathering of the peoples be.” He finds confirmation also in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which prophesies about the New Covenant. He supports the pre-existence and the Divinity of Messiah with Genesis 1:26 (Let us make man in our image.) He supports the supernatural birth of the Messiah with Isaiah 7:14. This leads to a lengthy discussion as to whether the Septuagint was correct in translating, “Behold the Virgin. ...(parthenos)” or that it should be translated, “Behold the young maiden. ... (neanis).”
Messiah is “the Stone cut out without hands” of Daniel 2:34; hence, in a midrashic manner, Justin explains that the circumcisions by “knives of stone” in Joshua 5:2 suggests the Stone which is Messiah Yeshua.
Tertulian, A.D. 200, in his discussion with Jewish people introduced the additional proof, that Messiah is to be the light to the nations according to Isaiah 10:11; 42:4; and 49:6 and says, “We see that the prophecies that the nations should hear him are already being fulfilled, even to the very ends of the earth including the parts of Britain unreached by Rome.” 10
Conclusion
Believers in Yeshua took seriously their Lord’s command to be witnesses to the end of the earth, but “first to the Jew” and “beginning in Jerusalem” 11 To support their witness they had a risen Messiah, prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the historical facts that followed Messiah’s resurrection. The rabbis’ counter-arguments did not even satisfy their own disciples; therefore they resorted to strengthening the wall of partition between those who believed in Messiah Yeshua and those who did not.
This could not go on forever and so especially today we see the wall, erected so artificially, crumbling before our own eyes, and again thousands of Jewish people, especially the young and the intellectual, are finding their joy, salvation, and satisfaction in Messiah Yeshua.
References:
1 Aboda Zara 4:a 2 Rabbah Genesis 9 3 Berakot 8b
4 Hagiga 5:b 5 Bar Kokhba means the Star. 6 Isaiah 60:1-3 7 Leviticus 16
8 Numbers 19 9 Berakhot 19:a 10 Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeus (Cambridge 1935)
11 Acts 1:8; Romans 1:16
Shalom Benny,
Here is an address & email for you to contact. They will help you to understand why Yeshua is Messiah.
-MENORAH MINISTRIES -
P.O. Box 460024
Glendale, CO 80246-0024
Voice: 303-355-2009 Fax: 303-355-6901
E-mail: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
First for Harry Woods. Your report is false. I have seen it elsewhere and it is reproduced only on antisemitic websites. Here is a somewhat scientific test I conducted.
Google for terms from your pseudo-report including
Rosenbaum pistol thug moldova
11,000 hits. Now do the same in Google News rather than Google Web. Zero hits. Meaning it is a false report filed for scoombags such as yourself to reproduce on the internet.
Actually Rosenbaum may be a hero, doing well by doing good. Now for a real view of the issue, from Peter Singer, rofessor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne.
Kidneys for Sale?
by Peter Singer
Peter SingerPRINCETON – The arrest in New York last month of Levy-Izhak Rosenbaum, a Brooklyn businessman whom police allege tried to broker a deal to buy a kidney for $160,000, coincided with the passage of a law in Singapore that some say will open the way for organ trading there.
Last year, Singapore retail magnate Tang Wee Sung was sentenced to one day in jail for agreeing to buy a kidney illegally. He subsequently received a kidney from the body of an executed murderer – which, though legal, is arguably more ethically dubious than buying a kidney, since it creates an incentive for convicting and executing those accused of capital crimes.
Now Singapore has legalized payments to organ donors. Officially, these payments are only for reimbursement of costs; payment of an amount that is an “undue inducement” remains prohibited. But what constitutes an “undue inducement” is left vague.
Both these developments raise again the question as to whether selling organs should be a crime at all. In the United States alone, 100,000 people seek an organ transplant each year, but only 23,000 are successful. Some 6000 people die before receiving an organ.
In New York, patients wait nine years on average to receive a kidney. At the same time, many poor people are willing to sell a kidney for far less than $160,000. Although buying and selling human organs is illegal almost everywhere, the World Health Organization estimates that worldwide about 10% of all kidneys transplanted are bought on the black market.
The most common objection to organ trading is that it exploits the poor. That view received support from a 2002 study of 350 Indians who illegally sold a kidney. Most told the researchers that they were motivated by a desire to pay off their debts, but six years later, three-quarters of them were still in debt, and regretted having sold their kidney.
Some free-market advocates reject the view that government should decide for individuals what body parts they can sell – hair, for instance, and in the US, sperm and eggs – and what they cannot sell. When the television program Taboo covered the sale of body parts, it showed a slum dweller in Manila who sold his kidney so that he could buy a motorized tricycle taxi to provide income for his family. After the operation, the donor was shown driving around in his shiny new taxi, beaming happily.
Should he have been prevented from making that choice? The program also showed unhappy sellers, but there are unhappy sellers in, say, the housing market as well.
To those who argue that legalizing organ sales would help the poor, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, founder of Organ Watch, pointedly replies: “Perhaps we should look for better ways of helping the destitute than dismantling them.” No doubt we should, but we don’t: our assistance to the poor is woefully inadequate, and leaves more than a billion people living in extreme poverty.
In an ideal world, there would be no destitute people, and there would be enough altruistic donors so that no one would die while waiting to receive a kidney. Zell Kravinsky, an American who has given a kidney to a stranger, points out that donating a kidney can save a life, while the risk of dying as a result of the donation is only 1 in 4000. Not donating a kidney, he says, thus means valuing your own life at 4000 times that of a stranger – a ratio he describes as “obscene.” But most of us still have two kidneys, and the need for more kidneys persists, along with the poverty of those we do not help.
We must make policies for the real world, not an ideal one. Could a legal market in kidneys be regulated to ensure that sellers were fully informed about what they were doing, including the risks to their health? Would the demand for kidneys then be met? Would this produce an acceptable outcome for the seller?
To seek an answer, we can turn to a country that we do not usually think of as a leader in either market deregulation or social experimentation: Iran. Since 1988, Iran has had a government-funded, regulated system for purchasing kidneys. A charitable association of patients arranges the transaction, for a set price, and no one except the seller profits from it.
According to a study published in 2006 by Iranian kidney specialists, the scheme has eliminated the waiting list for kidneys in that country, without giving rise to ethical problems. A 2006 BBC television program showed many potential donors turned away because they did not meet strict age criteria, and others who were required to visit a psychologist.
A more systematic study of the Iranian system is still needed. Meanwhile, developments in Singapore will be watched with interest, as will the outcome of the allegations against Levy-Izhak Rosenbaum.
Judaism is not only a religion of the mind and heart, it is a holistic approach to reality and existence that accounts for all of the physical and metaphysical, all of the natural and supernatural, all of matter and energy, all of space and time; that defines and explores the relationship between the finite and infinite. Quite unlike the crude simulacrum of spirituality that you adhere to, which is all hat and no cattle when it comes to actual positive accomplishment in the spiritual realm. For thousands of years you have been whining that the big bad Jews are preventing you from achieving the Kingdom of Heaven. Put up or shut up. We number one in five hundred of you. You don’t need us.
The idea of the talmudic approach is not to come to an agreement. It is to test the boundaries and draw the lines of God’s will for his personal nation. The technique is to construct test cases, no matter how unlikely, in order to establish a principle and apply it. What you are missing is the overwhlming agreement and brotherhood between the parties. They are all on the same team. And they don’t kill each other over nonsense like you Christians.
Is Jesus Really G-d?
“To whom then will you liken G-d, or what likeness compare with him?”
Isaiah 40:18 (NRS)
Christian theology holds that Jesus was more than just the Messiah. They hold that Jesus is G-d Himself. First, let’s explore a couple of New Testament verses which make it perfectly clear that Jesus was subordinate to G-d, and not equal to Him:
Mark 13:32 But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV)
There are things that G-d keeps from Himself? Is such a thing even possible? It’s obvious that these verses contradict Jesus being equal and of the same substance as G-d Almighty. Christians say he’s G-d, and then they say he’s the Son of G-d. Make up your mind. Which one is he? Is he G-d or is he the Messiah? He can’t be both, and closer examination will show he is neither.
Ezekiel 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their G-d. [24] And David My servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. (KJV)
Christians and Jews agree that chapter 37 of Ezekiel is messianic. The object of verse 24 of Ezekiel 37 is the Messiah, and it is clear that the Messiah is G-d’s servant, and not G-d Himself.
Of all chapters in the Bible, chapter 13 of Deuteronomy has always pulled at me. Let us examine this chapter in greater detail.
Deuteronomy 13:1 The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. [2] If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, [3] and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying “Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!” [4] do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for HASHEM, your G-d, is testing you to know whether you love HASHEM, your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul. [5] HASHEM, your G-d, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. [6] And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against HASHEM, your G-d Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery to make you stray from the path on which HASHEM, you G-d, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst. (Artscroll)
So, what are the lessons gleaned here? First off, we are to never alter the precepts of the Torah, we are never to add to it nor subtract from it. Secondly, we are not to follow gods that we did not know. Did my ancestors from 2,500 years ago or earlier know Jesus as G-d? Did they pray to Jesus as Lord and Messiah? Of course, not. Jesus had not been born yet. The point is that we did not know a G-d in the form of man and since it was something we did not know, as verses 3 and 4 show, we are not to listen to these teachings. Chapter 13 of Deuteronomy is not the only chapter of the Torah that deals with false prophecy. Moses gave another warning in this regard:
Deuteronomy 18:15 A prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like me, shall HASHEM, your G-d, establish for you to him shall you hearken. [16] According to all that you asked of HASHEM, your G-d, in Horeb on the day of the congregation, saying, “I can no longer hear the voice of HASHEM, my G-d, and this great fire I can no longer see, so that I shall not die.” [17] Then HASHEM said to me: They have done well in what they have said. [18] I will establish a prophet for them from among their brethren, like you, and I will place My words in his mouth; He shall speak to them everything that I will command him. [19] And it shall be that the man who will not hearken to My words that he shall speak in My name, I will exact from him, [20] But the prophet who willfully shall speak a word in My name, that which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of the gods of others that prophet shall die. [21] When you say in your heart, “:How can we know the word that HASHEM has not spoken?” [22] If the prophet will speak in the Name of HASHEM and that thing will not occur and not come about that is the word that HASHEM has not spoken; with willfulness has the prophet spoken it, you should not fear him. (Artscroll)
Didn’t Apostles such as Paul believe and preach that the return of Jesus would occur within their lifetimes? It didn’t happen. What can we learn from this? That these teachings were foreign to the core of Judaism, that it was not the word of the Lord and that we should neither fear nor trust those who spoke it. To further magnify this point, let us look at the beginning of the Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy G-d, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (KJV)
Contemplate the importance of this commandment for a moment. “No other gods before Him.” Christians will contend that Jesus IS G-d, claiming they don’t have any other gods before Him, but as noted in the verses from the New Testament quoted above, it is plain to see that not only was Jesus separate from G-d, but he was NOT G-d. What do we have if we pray to Jesus? We have polytheism.
From Deuteronomy 34:10-12, we learn that Moses was the greatest prophet of all time, whom G-d knew “face to face.” He taught us everything there is to know about the nature of G-d.
Numbers 23:19 G-d [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (KJV)
Psalms 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, [nor] in the son of man, in whom [there is] no help. (KJV)
From this, we learn that G-d is NOT a man. When G-d appeared before Moses prior to the delivering of the Ten Commandments, G-d made His presence known amidst a cloud of smoke. If He were a man, why didn’t the Holy One, Blessed be He, take on physical form and appear as a man? The answer is amazingly simple: G-d is infinite, and incorporeal. To take on physical form would limit the limitless, and He would not take on physical form because that might have led the Israelites to idolatry.
On a slightly different note, didn’t Jesus refer to himself quite often as the Son of Man? Aren’t we to learn from Psalm 146 that there is no help to be had from the Son of Man? There’s a reason why Jesus called himself this. Jesus was a Jew, and as such, there are things that Christians who deify him will miss. It is quite likely that Jesus was trying to prevent his followers from deifying him.
What reason is there to think that Jesus is G-d? What reason is there to think that ANY man is G-d? So a man shows you signs and wonders, and a couple of people claim he rose from the dead. How do you test a man to know that he’s G-d? What could Jesus possibly have done to prove He was G-d, especially given the text of the New Testament, which makes it plainly clear that he was subordinate to G-d? That which is subordinate to G-d must be SEPARATE from G-d.
In an occasion that keeps Christian apologists fumbling, we have the following passage, from Matthew and Mark:
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? [17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], G-d: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJV)
Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? [18] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], G-d. (KJV)
These verses present a back-breaking problem to a Christian who believes in Jesus as G-d, because Jesus states emphatically that he wasn’t. The translators of NIV were quick to recognize the problem, and adjust their text accordingly:
Matthew 19:16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” [17] “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” (NIV)
It’s very slick, it’s very sneaky. And it’s also very sloppy. See the same scene below from Mark in NIV:
Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [18] “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except G-d alone.” (NIV)
NIV’s rendering of this passage from Mark’s Gospel makes the point even more clearly than King James did.
Jesus makes it clear that he is the son of G-d, which for no reason should be taken literally. All Jews can be considered sons of G-d. See Hosea 11:1. Even others can be under that terrific label.
Matthew 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of G-d.
Christians will object, saying that of course this isn’t to be taken literally. Well, neither is it to be taken literally with Jesus! Gentiles come to the New Testament with a clean slate, without a true understanding of what came before. Well, the Jews can view the New Testament from a different perspective, the proper perspective.
Jesus wasn’t G-d. The worship of Jesus is precisely what G-d warned us against.
The plain fact is that there is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that makes the claim that Jesus is G-d. If such verses did indeed exist, then Christianity wouldn’t be splintered into so many hundreds, if not thousands, of sects, and the councils of Nicea and Constantinople would not have taken place to determine Jesus’ divinity.
Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; (KJV)
G-d Almighty needed to learn obedience? Isn’t G-d all knowing? Does He not know everything?
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (KJV)
Jesus clearly states that he is less than G-d. That which is less than G-d cannot be the same as G-d.
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with G-d and man. (KJV)
Would G-d grow in wisdom and stature? Would G-d grow in His own favor? It is noteworthy that this verse from Luke’s Gospel bears a remarkable resemblance to another Biblical verse:
1 Samuel 2:26 And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men. (KJV)
The fact remains. Nowhere even in the New Testament is it taught that Jesus is part of a triune godhead. Nowhere does he make the claim that he was G-d. Nowhere in the New Testament is there the reason to believe that he is G-d.
Did Jesus Claim to be God?
Question:
I have heard Christian missionaries claim that Jesus deliberately screened or veiled his divine nature on earth, so when he is asked a question by one of his disciples about the time of the end he can honestly answer, that no man, not even the Son knows the time of the end, only the Father. Then, when he says elsewhere that he and the Father are One, he is speaking about his ontological identity with the Father. Please comment on this and post it on your web site.
Thank you.
Answer:
If the one God of the universe, Creator of the heavens and the earth, wanted to convey to His people that He alone was God and there was no other who shared this unique distinction with Him, what words would He use so that there would be no possibility for error? What phrase could He have selected so that there would be no chance of misunderstanding? If you or I wanted to describe the unique oneness of God in a way that could not be misinterpreted, how would we express this? Would we not have used the words that Moses reported God to have said in Deuteronomy 32:39,
See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides Me . . . .
As a result of this and many other inspiring affirmations throughout the Jewish scriptures,1 faithful Jews to this day will only worship the One life-giving God of Israel—alone.
No prophet in Tanach ever remained silent on this foundational teaching. As if with one voice, they pleaded with their often-wayward nation never to compromise their faith for anything other than the unwavering monotheism that they tirelessly preached. Over and over again, the Hebrew Bible declared with deliberate clarity in its most celebrated creeds that the Almighty alone is God, and there is no other. Nothing was ever “screened,” nothing was ever “veiled.” It could not be, because the very survival of the Jewish people depended on it. The Torah intimately connects the faith in one indivisible God with the national experience of the Jewish people throughout their long history. Dreadful suffering was the consequence for any defection from the uncompromising monotheism that the Almighty demanded of His people.
Throughout the Jewish scriptures, God never “screened or veiled his divine nature.” In fact, Isaiah unequivocally proclaimed that the Almighty did not reveal Himself in darkness or in a hidden or veiled fashion. In Isaiah 45:19 the prophet, speaking in the Almighty’s name, declares that,
I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, “Seek Me in vain.” I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right.
Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. This is understandable when we consider that primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the heretical Judaism out of which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman rather than the Hebrew began to dominate the church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2
This absorption of a triune godhead into Christianity created serious problems for post-Nicene Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge a first and second century Christian Bible which was monotheistic with a much later church which was not?
This task was particularly difficult because throughout the Gospels and Paul’s letters Jesus never claims to be God. On the contrary, the Jesus of the New Testament makes it crystal clear that he is not God, but rather an agent of God. For example, in John 14:28, the author of the fourth Gospel has Jesus declare,
I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.
The example you mentioned illustrates this particularly well. In the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Mark, Jesus is asked by four of his disciples when the Tribulation period will occur. In 13:32 Jesus responds,
But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father.
The problems this verse creates for Trinitarians are staggering. If Jesus were coequal with the Father, how could the Father have information that Jesus lacked? That is to say, if Jesus were God manifested in the flesh, as missionaries contend, how can God not know something? If somehow the second Person of the godhead didn’t know, how did the first Person find out? Moreover, if, as some Trinitarians persist, the son was limited by his human nature, why didn’t the Holy Spirit know?
Christians cannot simply explain away this verse by insisting that it was Jesus’ human or humble nature that did not know. This is because the doctrine of the Trinity does not hold that Jesus was half God and half man. Rather, Jesus was one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man. His substance as God was not diminished because of his human nature. As the ecclesiastical Athanasian Creed explicitly states,
The divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
Few statements defining the nature of the triune godhead have so plainly spelled out the nature of the doctrine of the Trinity as does this durable fourth century creed.
Some missionaries will argue, as you point out, that Jesus’ statement in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one,” demonstrates that Jesus considered himself God. The Greek word hen (one), however, does not imply being a part of the same substance. We see this clearly in John 17:11 and 17:21-22 where Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one (hen) as are Jesus and God. Clearly, Jesus is requesting that the disciples be of one unified purpose, not of the same substance or part of the Trinity.
Moreover, John 10:30-34 is particularly revealing. The fourth Gospel describes how when the Jews heard Jesus proclaim, “I and my Father are one,” they immediately wanted to stone him. When Jesus asks them why they wanted to kill him, the Jews responded because “you claim to be God.” Upon hearing this, Jesus asked, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I have said you are gods’?” This response is one of the most important statements in the Book of John, and should at least give Trinitarians pause.
The verse is found in Psalm 82:6 where the Bible refers to judges who teach God’s divine law as gods. This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s divine law, not because they were actually God in any way. This usage is quite common in the Jewish scriptures. For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was God’s representative to Pharaoh. In essence, Jesus’ reply supports the very opposite of what missionaries are trying to put forth. Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his identification with God is comparable to the Jewish judges’ identification with God.
The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the Trinity. It took many years from the time the last Gospel was completed for the defenders of the church to promote this alien creed.
Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer
————————————————————————————————————————
Footnotes:
Click on the footnote to return to the article
1Exodus 20:2-3 The first of the Ten Commandments
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, and of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. (see also Deuteronomy 5:7)
Deuteronomy 4:11-12
You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no image; there was only a voice.
Deuteronomy 4:35
You are the ones who have been shown, so that you will know that God is the Supreme Being, and there is none other besides Him!
Deuteronomy 4:39
Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other!
Deuteronomy 6:14
You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you!
Deuteronomy 32:39
See, now, that I, I am He—and no god is with Me.
I Samuel 2:2
There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside Thee; neither is there any Rock like our God.
I Kings 8:27
For will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house that I have built?
I Kings 8:60
So that all the nations of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other!
II Kings 19:19
Now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God
Isaiah 40:18
To whom then will you liken God? To what likeness will you compare unto Him?
Isaiah 40:25
“To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be his equal?” says the Holy One.
Isaiah 42:8
I am the Lord, that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another. Neither My praise to graven images!
Isaiah 43:10-11
“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”
Isaiah 44:6-8
This is what the Lord says, Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty, “I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no God! Who then is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me . . . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Isaiah 44:24
Thus said the Lord, your Redeemer, the One who formed you from the womb, “I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself.”
Isaiah 45:5-6
I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God; I will strengthen you . . . . In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other!
Isaiah 45:21-22
. . . Who announced this from before, who declared it from the distant past? Is it not I, the Lord, and there is no God apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other!
Isaiah 46:5
To whom shall you liken Me and make Me equal and compare Me that we may be alike?
Isaiah 46:9
Remember the first things of old, that I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me.
Isaiah 48:11
. . . My honor I will not give to another.
Hosea 13:4
I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no god but Me, no savior except Me!
Joel 2:27
You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and I am the Lord your God, there is no other; and My people shall never be ashamed.
Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why should we betray, each one his brother, to profane the covenant of our forefathers?
Psalm 73:25
Whom have I in heaven but You? Earth has nothing I desire besides You.
Psalm 81:8-9
Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you; O Israel, if you would listen to Me! Let there be no strange god among you; nor shall you worship any foreign god.
Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the Lord; You made the heavens, the heaven of the heavens and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You give life to all, and the heavenly host bow down before You.
I Chronicles 17:20
O Lord, there is none like You, neither is there any god beside You, according to all that we have heard with our ears!
2The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople took place in 325 and 381 C.E., respectively. At the Council of Nicea the nature of Jesus was determined to be of the same substance (homousios) as the Father, and at the Council of Constantinople this doctrine was ratified and the doctrine of the Trinity was expressly declared to be a foundational church teaching. (See Question and Answer entitled “Isaiah 53: Did Jesus have long life?”)
An Analysis of the Primary Proofs of Christianity
“Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.”
Acts 24:13 (KJV)
Using logical analysis, let us examine the primary proofs used for Christianity:
1) The religion was started by a group of Jews—is this proof? This is offered as proof astoundingly often, despite how weak this is. I could just as easily start a cult that worships the great red oak tree, and justify it by saying I’m a Jew. Would you follow me? Who were these Jews who began early Christianity? These Jews were the dregs of society, considered criminals by most. To add insult to injury, these societal rejects claim that the great Sanhedrin carried out a disgusting miscarriage of justice, the only such recorded claim made against the Sanhedrin in its entire history, and people believe it without asking any questions. Is there proof? No.
2) The Word of G-d—Jews and Christians both maintain that the Torah, Prophets, and Writings are of Divinely inspired origin. With the New Testament, we have a divergence. Does the New Testament offer proof of Divine inspiration? It does not in any substantial amount. Jesus did supposedly predict the destruction of the Second Temple, but the prophet Daniel did that some five hundred years prior to Jesus, so there’s really no proof there. Three hundred years after Jesus lived and died, the quality of different pieces of Christian religious literature came to a vote, and by majority vote Christian religious doctrine was hashed out, and certain books were deemed not the word of G-d, and certain books were decided to be the word of G-d. So, what we have here in essence is religious doctrine by means of democracy.
3) Fulfillment of prophecy—the Christian claim is that Jesus (Yeshu, as he is called in Jewish sources such as the Talmud) was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy dating back five hundred years and more prior to his birth. There are several logical arguments against this contention.
a) The only proof of these fulfillments is contained within the New Testament itself. All outside mention of Jesus (such as passages supposedly written by Flavius Josephus) is not considered reliable. As long as disagreements exist in outside texts, they cannot be used as proof. Thus, we must limit ourselves to the veracity of the New Testament itself. In an age where Jewish literacy and literature was not a limited activity, we find no contemporaneous writings about this man Jesus. While arguments from silence aren’t quite as cogent, one must wonder why a figure allegedly recognized as the Messiah and then put to death by those same people who had apparently accepted him wouldn’t receive mention in contemporary writings.
b) Most quotes aren’t even the fulfillments of Messianic prophecy. For the sake of brevity we shall use the following example:
Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called My son. (KJV)
Compare to:
Hosea 11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt. (KJV)
Taking a verse that’s not even about the Messiah and saying it’s the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy isn’t proof that the New Testament is true. It’s proof that the New Testament is dishonest. To those that say that one verse quote doesn’t mean anything, they should be reminded that the New Testament is supposedly the revealed word of G-d. It should not have any such fallacies staring you so blatantly in the face. Other quotes are of such small events involving taking Jewish Bible verses out of context in such a manner that they are on par with trying to prove that Mohammed was illiterate prior to his supposed revelation.
4) The “Revelation” of Paul—In the Acts of the Apostles, we are told of the supposed revelation experienced by Paul, going from being a persecutor of Jews who chose to ignore the Sanhedrin ruling, to being the biggest advocate of the belief system that became Christianity. Is this reason to believe him? If it is, we must be fair and follow everyone whose story rings similar. With this logic, all Christians should jump onto the Joseph Smith train and become Mormons. After all, Smith had a “revelation” that nobody else experienced, and suddenly we’re left with the fastest growing religion in the United States of America.
5) Other personal revelations—So, if we are to follow Christianity’s story, we should believe there is no line between kosher and unkosher food because the apostle Peter had a dream that told him so. The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, Jesus gave them a sign (at least, he did in the Gospel of Matthew. In Mark he told them there would be no sign), which would be his resurrection after being dead for three days. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesn’t bother to appear to the Pharisees, who specifically asked him for the sign. Instead, Jesus’ followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had transpired. Not much of a sign, is it? Jesus (assuming the resurrection took place) had the perfect opportunity to come back and prove that he was telling the truth. Numerous Christians claim to have had a personal revelation that Jesus spoke to them. Does this do us any good? If it’s not something that you can see or verify, it is completely useless.
So, when we examine these proofs with even a superficial eye, we see that they do not hold water. Even more so if we were to examine them under greater scrutiny.
Given the New Testament a Chance?
“You shall have no other gods before me.”
Exodus 20:3 (NRS)
One approach that some missionaries will use in their efforts to convince Jews to accept Christianity is to tell a prospective Jewish convert, “Haven’t you at least read the New Testament? How can you be so sure if you’ve never read it?” Questions like, “Why have my people been so stubborn over the last nineteen centuries? Is there the slightest chance that Christians were right?“This author once opened himself to that idea. Jews and Christians both agree on the validity of the Jewish Bible (whether you call it the Tanach or the Old Testament). Let us see if the Christian extension called the New Testament was valid.
Before arriving at the end of the second chapter of Matthew, there are eight items that prevent an objective reader from believing the New Testament is true:
1) King Jeconiah is listed in the genealogy of Joseph (Matthew 1:11). Jeconiah was cursed by G-d that none of his descendants would ever rule (Jeremiah 22:30). Joseph is disqualified from inheriting the throne, as would be his progeny. If they couldn’t get something this simple right, what was I to expect from the rest of the document?
2) The misquotation of Isaiah 7:14 found in Matthew 1:23. I found this disagreeable because a) the Messiah wasn’t the subject of the verse, and b) lacking a father descended from David prevents anyone from inheriting the throne.
3) The author of Matthew’s Gospel misused Hosea in Matthew 2:15—
Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. (KJV)
When you look for the verse being quoted here, you find this passage:
Hosea 11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (KJV)
In case a Christian reader might object, saying that we are quoting the incorrect verse, it must be stated that Christian Bibles that are annotated for quotes between the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Bible clearly label that Matthew 2:15 is quoting from this verse in Hosea. This verse has nothing to do with the Messiah. The author of Matthew took the verse out of context and misused it.
4) The fabrication of a verse, creating the façade of a Messianic prophecy that never existed:
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Most annotated Christian Bibles, which go to exhaustive lengths to source every single Jewish Scripture quote, list no reference. There is an important reason for this:
No such prophecy exists.
Matthew fabricated a prophecy in an effort to make his case look more valid. The implications of this should speak for themselves.
Objectively, there is no reason to continue after that. Who could give credit to a theology that makes things up in order to latch on to Judaism? It is said that Matthew’s Gospel was the gospel specifically aimed at the Jews. Those same people who proclaim this are the same ones who can’t understand why Jews reject Jesus. This author is Jewish, and was left unimpressed by it.
But, if we were to continue, we would find even further evidence against its credibility.
5) Read the names in the genealogy in Matthew 1 very carefully and compare them to the genealogy in First Chronicles. Names are conspicuously absent. The reasoning behind this is in Matthew:
Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations. (KJV)
David’s name in Hebrew has a numerical value of fourteen. The author of Matthew’s Gospel edited out members of the royal family so Jesus would seem to be part of some cosmic numerical mneumonic, making it seem like it was just the right time for the Messiah to come.
6) A slight misquote indicating just how lacking in Hebrew skills the author was:
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, [2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. [3] When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. [4] And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. [5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, [6] And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (KJV)
It’s important to examine the wording of this quote VERY closely. Let us now look at the quote from the Jewish Scriptures:
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting. (KJV)
Notice that Micah is saying that Bethlehem is the least among the thousands of Judah, but when Matthew quotes it, suddenly Bethlehem is NOT the least. Matthew’s author had such a poor understanding of Hebrew he didn’t realize the message the prophet was conveying, so he changed the wording.
7) The creation of an event in order to quote a verse out of context:
Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. [17] Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, [18] In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping [for] her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. (KJV)
Verse 18 quotes Jeremiah, and if you read the verse in its proper context, you’ll find that Rachel’s children aren’t dead, but are among the exiles. That is not the point I’m bringing up here. I could write an entire book detailing how the New Testament takes verses out of context. Verse 16 is the major point here. This is about the so-called “slaughter of innocents.” It should strike the reader of how closely this mirrors the story of Moses. It should also strike the reader to know that this event never happened. You can find a long list of Herod’s rather heinous and brutal crimes, and something as disgusting and abhorrent as the murder of every child under the age of two would have hit the history books. Herod’s list of crimes included having members of his own family killed. The “slaughter of innocents” would have been recorded.
So, even if we do read the New Testament in-depth, the Jews should in no way be compelled to convert.
Looking for the Messiah?
“Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”
Matthew 24:34 (NRS)
There are a few kinks in Christian theology that the common Christian will encounter and ignore to avoid the discomfort that comes from confronting them. The following is a brief study of some of these issues.
Part I—What is a Messiah?
Messiah comes from the Hebrew word for “anointed one,” which is pronounced “Moshiach.” Kings, prophets, and priests were all anointed. Hence, all were messiahs. In the Bible, you can break prophecy into two groups, immediate prophecies and long-term prophecies. Immediate prophecies are prophecies that take place not long after they are given. Long-term prophecies are another category altogether. These prophecies can all be construed as messianic, since they refer to the Messianic Era. These prophecies that refer to a future king are the ones that refer to the Messiah himself. We call him the Messiah by convention because all kings were messiahs, since they were all anointed. The following is a list of prophecies that show the theme of the Messianic Era.
World Peace
Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (KJV)
11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. (KJV)
This is not the sort of thing that passes people by.
Universal Knowledge and Recognition of G-d
Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. (KJV)
Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (KJV)
The last time I checked, those who didn’t “know the Lord” represented one-third of this planet.
The Resurrection of the Dead
Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. (KJV)
Ezekiel 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. [13] And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, [14] And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the LORD. (KJV)
The Ingathering of the Jewish Exiles
Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. [12] And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (KJV)
Isaiah 43:5 Fear not: for I [am] with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; [6] I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; (KJV)
Jeremiah 23:8 But, The LORD liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land. (KJV)
This is the one prophecy that occurs most often in all of the Jewish Bible. While this prophecy has apparently begun to come true, we cannot say that is has completely.
The Building of the Third Temple
Ezekiel 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. [27] My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their G-d, and they shall be my people. [28] And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. (KJV)
The third holiest place in all of Islam is in the way of this occurring.
When all of these things take place, and a king descended from David sits on the throne, we will know who the Messiah is. Until these things happen, we shall wait. We have no way of knowing who that future king is until these things take place. The standard Christian argument is to thus claim that Jesus will accomplish these things in his “Second Coming.” This brings us to our next portion.
Part II—The Second Coming: How Credible?
The convenient explanation of how Jesus can be the Messiah without fulfilling the prophecies is “he will when he returns.” Realistically, this is a contrived solution. Let us go over why this is not a viable solution:
1) There isn’t a single prophecy in scripture that tells us the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission. Jesus didn’t do anything that the Messiah is to do.
2) You don’t know a man is the Messiah until all the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled. Jesus didn’t fulfill any of them, and as such, there’s no reason to believe he was the promised one, nor is there any reason to believe he’d return at some later date to fulfill them.
3) The Second Coming theory completely discredits his first coming. Anyone could have followers, and upon his death, those followers could claim that he had been resurrected, and would one day return. I could even do that.
The New Testament says repeatedly that Jesus’ return was imminent.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: [30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. [31] And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. [32] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: [33] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. [34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (KJV)
Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; [26] Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. [27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. [28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. [29] And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; [30] When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. [31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of G-d is nigh at hand. [32] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)
Paul wrote that the time until Jesus’ return was so short that people should change the way they lived their lives.
1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; [30] And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; [31] And they that use this world, as not abusing [it]: for the fashion of this world passeth away. (KJV)
1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. [14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will G-d bring with him. [15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (KJV)
Paul had to continually refine the date of the Second Coming when it never happened. The fact that it didn’t happen as they predicted necessitated that they revise the prediction, saying it would happen at some future date. However, the fact that the original prediction did not come true places it under the instructions in the Torah:
Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. [21] And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? [22] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (KJV)
It didn’t happen. That means it wasn’t G-d’s word, and it wasn’t to be believed.
Part III—The Return of Elijah
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: [6] And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (KJV)
While this prophecy doesn’t contain a reference to the actual future king, both Christians and Jews agree that it is messianic in nature. Before the future king comes, Elijah the Prophet will come to usher in that new age. So, where was he two thousand years ago? Christians claim that John the Baptist was Elijah. John himself seemed to disagree:
John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (KJV)
(Note: King James Version calls Elijah “Elias” in their New Testament translation.)
So, John was Elijah, yet he was unaware of it. In arguing this, Christians refer to this telling verse from Luke’s Gospel:
Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (KJV)
This does not work. Did the prophecy from Malachi say Elijah in spirit? No, it said Elijah himself. It’s difficult to argue with a spirit, but even more difficult for Christians to prove. One would think John himself would be a bit more certain of his own identity and his place in the scheme of things? After all, he did deny being Elijah! Once again, we find Christianity’s solution is predicated by the needs of its theology, and not by the facts.
Did John even play a part that fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah? Did he turn the hearts of fathers to the children, and hearts of children to their fathers? No, he did not. Additionally, Jesus identified John as Elijah. That’s the exact opposite of how this works. The prophet identifies the king, not vice versa. See 1 Samuel for an example of this. G-d uses the prophet to tell the people who the king is.
Additionally, this issue brings up the fact that the New Testament fabricated evidence yet again to give itself the illusion of validity.
Mark 9:13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. (KJV)
Where is it written that Elijah would come and be abused? The prophecy in Malachi is short, yet concise. How can anyone put faith in a religion that unjustifiably builds itself off another religion, and then abuses the privelege? The New Testament does this more than once, and even once is inexcusable.
If Jesus was the Messiah, where was Elijah?
Part IV—Apologetics
There is an issue at hand, which few people are considering:
Why has apologetics become such a vital function of modern Christianity?
Why do Christians so desperately need people like Josh McDowell? When you go searching for reading material on religions via the Internet, you could go to Yahoo and explore religions, and find the Judaism section of Faiths and Practices, and you’ll find nothing entitled “Apologetics.” Go to the Christianity section and you’ll find enough of it to be reading until the dawn of the 22nd century. Why is this necessary? Doesn’t the reason for that speak for itself?
A Cult of Personality
I would be thrilled if I could find someone who could direct me to the verse in the Jewish scriptures which refer to a “belief” in the Messiah. All the true messianic prophecies never give any hint that the Jewish religion itself would change in some dramatic way. The practices involved would be performed perfectly, but never does it say that the basic precepts of the religion would be altered in any way.
Try to find in the Jewish Bible words that echo John 3:36. While you’re looking, try to find the prophet who’s quoted in Matthew 2:23. You’ll never find either one.
What many Christians fail to realize is that in the Jewish view of the Messiah, when he comes, the Jews are NOT going to pray to him!
The revelation of the gentiles’ errors is foretold in Jewish scriptures in places such as Isaiah 53 and the below passage.
Zechariah 8:23 Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from nations of every language shall take hold of a Jew, grasping his garment and saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you.” (NRSV)
Vindication is the Jewish people’s birthright. Christian missionaries will say that when the day comes, the Jews will be proven wrong.The Jewish Bible says otherwise.
Why Doesn’t Judaism Have a King? Where is Our Messiah?
Question:
Dear Rabbi Singer,
I have been a Jewish Christian (Messianic Jew, meshumed, whatever) for 20+ years. I have been attending a Conservative temple recently and my rabbi there lent me your tape series. I listened to about six of the tapes and enjoyed your style and research very much. Thank you for your fair and even-handed presentation of both sides. (By the way, I do use an interlinear bible as you suggested and recommend it to everyone.)
While I am not a staff member of Jews for Jesus, I work with them fairly often as well as folks from Chosen People Ministries. Certainly I refer people to Isaiah 53 and other passages you covered, but I usually start with a different tack that you did not mention (in the six tapes I have heard so far). I wanted to get your opinion on this, or you could simply tell me, “That is on tape 14,” for example, and I’d listen to that one.
My approach goes something along the lines of, “If not Jesus, then who?” The main scriptures I use are the promises that David’s throne shall never go empty. There are lots of passages that say that, the main ones are Jeremiah 33:17-26 and I Chronicles 17:12-14. So if God promised that, then that must mean that there is a Davidic king right now. So “If not Jesus, then who?” In all fairness, some of the other passages seem to make the promise conditional (“if your sons walk in my ways”) except that makes me uncomfortable because of the certainty of the Jeremiah 33 promise. I trust your view on this because you have made a defense of a literal fulfillment of other promises about which you have spoken on your tapes.
Thank you for your time on this.
Answer:
Thank you for your thoughtful question; it does my heart good to know that you are enjoying the Let’s Get Biblical tape series. When I first published this audio program in 1993, it was the Hebrew-Christian, such as yourself, whom I had in mind as its most important audience. Over the years this tape series has grown and, as a result, many Jews who had joined the church have since returned to their rich heritage. Please continue to study the Let’s Get Biblical series, and I look forward to the day when I can welcome you home.
Although the answer to your question is addressed on the two-tape set entitled “Who Is the Messiah?,” I believe that the point you raise is also of great interest to our website visitors.
Curiously, the biblical “tack” that you use does not directly seek to prove that Jesus is the messiah; rather, you present a series of verses from the Jewish scriptures in order to demonstrate that Judaism is a defective religion. As you can well imagine, you have undertaken a formidable task. Although the methodology you employ entails a more roundabout approach to Jewish evangelism, this technique is used widely by missionaries dedicated to converting Jews to Christianity.
In your approach, you maintain that the Bible teaches that there is to be at all times a Davidic ruler sitting on the royal throne. You also point out that whereas present-day Judaism lacks any ruler from the House of David, Christianity claims Jesus as its king. As a result, you conclude that only the church, which claims Jesus as its king, can rightly claim spiritual legitimacy because it alone boasts a Davidic ruler as ordained by the Jewish scriptures.
Although this question has been asked of me many times in the past, you are the first to use the words of Jeremiah and I Chronicles to support this argument. In general, this contention is based on a verse found in Genesis. Far be it from me to tell a missionary how to conduct his evangelism; however, the verses you quote do not in any way convey the message that the throne of David is to be occupied without interruption. In fact, as I will elaborate on below, all of these biblical texts clearly affirm the Davidic covenant—God has set aside the royal throne for the descendants of King David alone. None of the verses you mentioned, however, teach that there will not be an interruption of David’s throne.
For example, you quoted Jeremiah 33:17-26 to support your contention, yet this text does not refer to a period when Jewry is in its diaspora as it is today. On the contrary, these verses are messianic in nature, and the prophecies they contain have yet to be fulfilled. In essence, this prophecy specifically foretells the events that will follow the advent of the messiah, which even in Christian terms has not yet occurred. Christian commentators therefore acknowledge that these verses contain a future prophecy of a millennial kingdom. For example, Charles Caldwell Ryrie writes in his annotation on Jeremiah 33:14-26,
The King-Messiah will emerge from the Davidic dynasty to rule in the millennial kingdom (see 23:5).1
In your reading of Jeremiah’s words you made two serious errors that caused you to misconstrue the words of the prophet. Your first mistake was to take these verses out of context. Had you begun your quote one verse earlier, you would have quickly discovered that Jeremiah’s words refer to a time in the future, and you would have concluded that this prophecy has no bearing on our time. Jeremiah 33:16 states,
In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. This is the name by which she will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.
Ponder this for a moment: Has Judah been saved? Does Jerusalem dwell safely? This is certainly not the case today. As a result, the children of Israel live without a king. In fact, the predicament of the people of Judah and the condition of the city of Jerusalem became much worse immediately after the Christian century than it ever had been before.
The prophet Jeremiah is speaking of a golden era when the Jewish people will dwell in their holy city in peace and tranquility. Such a utopian age has not occurred since the glorious days of King Solomon. Only under these splendid circumstances will our anointed king again occupy the throne of David. This will occur, without interruption, only in the messianic age just as the prophet foretold.
Your second error, however, is far more puzzling because the very verses from which you quoted demonstrate that Jeremiah is speaking of an end-of-days prophecy. Let’s take a quick look at Jeremiah 33:17-26.
. . . for thus says the Lord, “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.” The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, “Thus says the Lord, ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’ ” Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, “Have you not considered what these people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the Lord has chosen, He has also cast them off?’ Thus they have despised My people, as if they should no more be a nation before them.” Thus says the Lord, “If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them.”
These 10 verses contain some of the most comforting messianic passages in the Jewish scriptures. None of them, however, speaks of our current era as you suggested; rather, each of these verses foretells of a future messianic age that has yet to come.
You constructed your entire thesis on verse 33:17, which reads,
. . . for thus says the Lord, “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel . . . .
Yet surprisingly, you ignored the following verse that is a vital part of the same sentence and prophecy. This selective reading of Jeremiah’s prophetic message led you to erroneously conclude that the prophet speaks of all of Jewish history. This is a misinterpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Verse 18 continues,
. . . nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.
As you are well aware, neither a priest nor a Levite has brought a burnt, grain or sacrificial offering in Jerusalem in the last 1,900 years. The prophets of Israel foretold that the sacrificial system would be restored in all of its glory at the end of days. At what juncture therefore will the royal throne of David once again seat a ruler? At the same time that the sacrificial system will be restored to its rightful place in Jerusalem—during the advent of the messiah, and not before.
In fact, in Hosea 3:4-5, the prophet reveals this divine plan of history as he declares that the Jewish people would remain for many days without a king, sacrifice or high priest (ephod) until the messianic age. Hosea 3:4-5 states,
. . . for the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.
This prophecy completely undermines your contention that Judaism is deficient because it lacks a Davidic king. The Jewish people are today without a king precisely as Hosea had foretold. Moreover, the church’s claim to have such a king places an enormous strain on Christian theology. Notice how Hosea, just as Jeremiah, connects the future king with future sacrifices as he declares that both of these ecclesiastical functions will only be restored in the “latter days.”
In your question you also referred to I Chronicles 17:12-14 to support your contention. I Chronicles 17:12-14 states,
He is the one who will build a house for Me, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his Father, and he will be My son. I will never take My love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. I will set him over My house and My kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.
As I mentioned above, I am somewhat surprised by the selection of verses from which you quoted to support your contention. I have yet to come across a Christian who used passages from Jeremiah and I Chronicles to support the claim that there can never be a moment without a king reigning on the throne of David. Missionaries typically use Genesis 49:10 to support this well-known argument. Although this text may appear at first glance to be somewhat more ambiguous than the scriptures you used, Christians zealously employ this verse to argue that the Torah states that the reign of Davidic kings will continue without interruption. Genesis 49:10 reads,
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes . . . .
What does the word “Shiloh” mean? Although there is some disagreement over the definition of this obscure word, there is wide agreement among Jews and Christians that Shiloh is an uncommon reference to the messiah. Bear in mind, this verse is part of the blessing that Jacob bestowed on his son Judah, the ancestor of King David. Using Genesis 49:10, Christians argue that Jacob is revealing that the “scepter,” the symbol of kingship, will never depart from the tribe of Judah even until the end of days. Pointing to the fact that the Jewish people maintain that there is no Davidic king today, missionaries argue that Judaism is a defective and blinding religion that has turned its back on Jesus, king of the Jews.
Although it appears as though the church has made a serious charge against the Jewish faith, this contention is born out of Christendom’s inability to grasp one of the most important covenants in the Bible. The notion that the reign of a Davidic king will continue uninterrupted is unknown to the Jewish scriptures. This Christian creed has come about as the result of a skewed understanding of Jacob’s blessing and a misinterpretation of a vital promise made by God to King David. In all of the verses that you quoted, the Bible declares that the legitimate royal throne of the Jewish people will never be occupied by anyone other than a member of the tribe of Judah and the House of David. I Chronicles 17:12-142 is therefore one of the most well-known passages in the Jewish scriptures because it contains God’s everlasting covenant with King David—the irrevocable promise that the throne would never depart from his dynasty until the end of time.
Yet how can we be confident that this is the correct understanding of the scripture’s message? How can we know with certainty that the Bible does not say that there would never be an interruption of a Davidic king to sit on the throne at every moment throughout history, as missionaries insist?
The answer is quite simple. Even the church concedes that there was no king on the throne of David for five centuries! In other words, missionaries acknowledge that from the time the Babylonians removed King Zedekiah from his throne and destroyed the first Temple until the Christian century there was in fact no king from the House of David who reigned over the Jewish people. If the Christian rendering of these prophecies is correct, why was there no king from the House of David who ruled during those 500 years? No further evidence is necessary to demonstrate that the church’s interpretation of Genesis 49:10 and I Chronicles 17:12-14 is erroneous.
There is, however, a far more serious problem with which missionaries must contend regarding their claim that Jesus was a direct descendant from the House of David. According to Christian teachings, Jesus was born of a virgin. Although this assertion in the New Testament provides an important record of pagan influences on first century Christianity, it also deals a devastating blow to the church’s claim that Jesus is the messiah from the lineage of King David.
By insisting that Jesus was born of a virgin, Christendom therefore concedes that Jesus lacked the human Jewish father necessary to trace his lineage back to King David and the tribe of Judah. This patrilinear connection to the Davidic dynasty is vital for any claimant to the throne of David because the lineage of the mother is irrelevant in this regard. In Numbers 1:18, the Torah clearly states that tribal affiliation is traced exclusively through the father.
They assembled the entire congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers . . . .”
Moreover, the author of the Book of Hebrews’ strange assertion that Jesus was also a high priest further weakens the church’s claim that Jesus is eligible to rule as a Davidic king. For example, the New Testament author writes:
Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. (Hebrews 3:1)
Seeing then that we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. (Hebrews 4:14)
This stunning claim that Jesus was high priest further undermines the church’s position that Jesus was a Davidic king. Simply put, the same man can never be both high priest and king. The high priest must be a descendant of Aaron (the brother of Moses), who was from the tribe of Levi. A Davidic king, on the other hand, has to trace his lineage from the House of David, descended from the tribe of Judah. It is impossible for the same person to be a descendant from both the tribes of Levi and Judah.
It isn’t difficult to understand why the Book of Hebrews would repeatedly maintain that Jesus served as high priest—the notion that Jesus provided the ultimate sin sacrifice for the human race was vital to the core theology of this Pauline author. This astonishing claim, however, completely sabotages the missionary contention that Jesus was eligible to sit on David’s throne.
There is no mystery as to how Christianity could find itself in this self-inflicted theological tangle. During the first century the church had endured a severe theological transition. In its earliest years, the founders of Christianity sought out Jews to join their young movement. As the first century began to draw to a close, however, Christendom recognized that the Jewish people were by and large unimpressed with their message. The church understood that if Christianity was going to flourish, they needed to attract converts from heathen communities that dotted the Fertile Crescent. Although the church’s swift adaptation at this crucial juncture was highly successful, it would have devastating consequences for the theological complexion of this once-Jewish heresy.
Quite rapidly, Christendom inculcated pagan teachings that were widely familiar to the citizens of the Roman Empire. Virtually all of the god-men and divine saviors of Persia, the Far East, North Africa, and Rome were born to a virgin mother.3 As a result, the notion that Jesus was also born of a virgin quickly became well ensconced in the teachings of the very young Christian church.
Christianity would eventually import many other notable pagan beliefs into its teachings. Yet many of these creeds, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, would take a few more centuries and numerous political struggles until they were firmly a part of church orthodoxy. The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, on the other hand, was adopted by the church so early that the New Testament was still being fashioned when it was embraced by first century Christians.
Christendom paid no small price for becoming the repository of pagan lore. The consequences for adopting the doctrine of the virgin birth created a theological disaster from which the church has never recovered and rendered every royal and priestly claim it has made for Jesus impossible.
Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer
Footnotes:
Click on the footnote to return to the article
1Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (Dallas Theological Seminary), Chicago: Moody Press, 1978, p. 1175.
2See also II Samuel 7:12-16.
3See accounts of Romulus, Apollonius of Tyana, Drusilla, Claudius, Dionysus-Bacchus, Tammuz-Adonis, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, and Buddha.
Who is the Moshiach ben Yosef?
CLAIM: The Rabbis believe in two messiahs, one exalted and one suffering. It’s not two messiahs one exalted and one suffering, but one messiah, first time suffering the second time exalted.
Missionaries associate this claim with a well-known teaching in the Talmud[1]. “Rabbi Alexandri said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi opposed two verses. One verse says, ‘with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man came.[2]’ In another verse it says, ‘lowly and riding on an ass.[3]’ If they merit ‘with the clouds of heaven’ if not ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’”[4] Frydland makes the association of this passage to Moshiach ben Yosef in his famous work, ‘What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah’. There he says, “Rabbi Yehoshua Bar Levi, referring to the Zechariah scripture, said that if Israel is not worthy, then the Messiah will come in humility riding upon an ass. This is Messiah Ben Yosef – the Suffering Messiah.[5]” He is not the only missionary to wrongly make such an association. This passage has no direct information about Moshiach ben Yosef, or a suffering messiah, as it is not about him at all (which will be shown later.) Misnaming ‘Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’ is not his only mistake here.
In order to understand this passage in the Talmud, we need to understand who Moshiach ben Yosef is and where he fits into Rabbinic/Biblical eschatology. To get to this we need to find out three things:
What does the Tenach say about who is ‘messiah’?
What do the Rabbis mean by ‘messiah’?
Where do the Rabbis get their idea of more then one Messiah?
As to the Tenach, the facts about the ‘Messiah’ will be surprising. One of the top Biblical scholars J. H. Charlesworth states:
“The term, ‘the Messiah’ simply does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament). The last group of scholars to acknowledge this fact were conservative Christians, and now the very conservative New Testament specialist [the late] Professor George Eldon Ladd states, without qualification, that ‘the simple term “the Messiah” does not occur in the Old Testament at all.’ Of course, the title ‘the Anointed One’[6] denotes in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) a prophet, a priest, and especially a king.”[7]
From here we see that Biblically a person is ‘a messiah’ if he is doing some G-d ordained function: prophet, priest or king, but it does not refer to a single special person who is expected to arrive at some future date. This, of course, leads to a question. We use the term ‘Messiah’ and more or less, everyone has an understanding about that term. At the least, it refers to a person who will appear at the ‘end-times’. Where do we get this association with that term?
To understand this we need to look at some of the ‘end-times’ prophecies of the Tenach. While much of the arguments with missionaries deal with passages that are unclear as to when or to whom they apply, there are passages in the Tenach that announce that they are dealing with a specific period called ‘the end of days’.[8] Some of them mention particular characters that seem to have a role to play in this future period:[9]
One of the most well known passages that is explicit about being an end-times prophecy is Isaiah 2:2-4. Verse 4 is one of the most well known verses in the Tenach.
2 And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the G-d of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Here we see an announcement of the end of days with a few specifics of that time. These issues mentioned will help us to find more passages dealing with this time period. Let’s see what will happen then:
People will gather in Jerusalem to worship HaShem (verse 2-3)
War will end (verse 4)
The nations will be judged (verse 4)[10]
In Isaiah 11 we see an expansion of these themes. Just as above we have: people gathering in Jerusalem in verse12, the end of war in verse 6-8, and the judgment of nations in 2-5.
1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears;
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; and he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk’s den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting-place shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord will set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Israel, and gather together the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and they that harass Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
14 And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
15 And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with His scorching wind will He shake His hand over the River, and will smite it into seven streams, and cause men to march over dry-shod.
16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, that shall remain from Assyria, like as there was for Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.
Besides the repetition of what is in Isaiah 2, this passage adds a few new points that add to our picture of the end-times:
There will be a leader, from the tribe of Judah who will also be the judge. (1 and 10)
Ephraim (the Northern kingdom of Israel) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom) will no longer contend with each other. (13)
The Jewish people will be gathered from exile. (12, 16)
In Ezekiel 37 we find more about this reconciliation of Judah and Ephraim, with some more information about this ingathering period:
15. And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
16. ‘And thou, son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it: For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it: For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and of all the house of Israel his companions;
17 and join them for thee one to another into one stick, that they may become one in thy hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying: Wilt thou not tell us what thou meanest by these?
19 say into them: Thus saith the Lord G-D: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions; and I will put them unto him together with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in My hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thy hand before their eyes.
21 And say unto them: Thus saith the Lord G-D: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land;
22 and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;
23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; so shall they be My people, and I will be their G-d.
24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children’s children, forever; and David My servant shall be their prince forever.
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them—it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will establish them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for ever.
27 My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people.
28 And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.’
In addition to the same old themes, we see the following new ones added to our picture of the end times:
Ephraim and Judah will be joined together with Judah as the lead. (16-19)
This leader will be David’s descendant. He is called the king, prince and leader of that time. (24-25)
There will be a sanctuary (temple). (28)
What is interesting about this passage in Ezekiel is that Ephraim and Judah are on the same level, but that Judah would lead. This indicates that both Ephraim and Judah would have leaders. But the one from Judah (i.e. the Davidic one) would be the sole leader. What happens to the leader of Ephraim?
Now if we look at Ezekiel 40-48 we see more information about that Temple and another important figure in that time. There we learn about the priesthood, and verse 44:27 refers to a single priest.
The final end-times prophecy[11] we will look at is Malachi 3, which adds another piece of information.
23 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.
24 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction.
To summarize what we have seen in the end-times prophecies: There will be a Davidic king/leader, a Priest, and the prophet Elijah.
Sometime during the late second temple period we see that these people are referred to as ‘Messiahs’. We find this in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1QS (Rule of the Community) we read (IX 11) ‘until the prophet comes and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel.’ Here we see the three figures mentioned above: the prophet, the priest of Aaron and the leader of Israel. Here are three messianic type characters in the end of days, in the Biblical text and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There are two things I have found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. One is that the priestly ‘messiah’ seems to have the superior position. The second is that there is no mention of the House of Israel, i.e. the Northern tribes referred to as Ephraim in the Tenach. This is not so serious as the truth is that there is a limited amount of material in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But it is important. One factor seems to be missing. What about ‘Ephraim’ and her leader?[12]
To understand what the Rabbis have taught about the major figures that will have a role in end time’s story we need to look at a few verses in Zechariah 2:
1 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns.
2 And I said unto the angel that spoke with me: ‘What are these?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.’
3 And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.
4 Then said I: ‘What come these to do?’ And he spoke, saying: ‘These—the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head—these then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.’
5 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
6 Then said I: ‘Whither goest thou?’ And he said unto me: ‘To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.’
7 And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, 8 and said unto him: ‘Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein.
9 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her.
10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
11 Ho, Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.’
12 For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
13 For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them’; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
These verses seem to be talking about the end times. Jerusalem is filled again with people (8) and verse 10 indicates the ingathering which we have seen the Tenach places in the end-times. But look at 1-4; we see that there are 4 horns, which represent the enemies of the Jewish people, who sent them into exile. Opposed to them are four craftsmen, who cut them down. These four seem to be important figures in the end-times. Who are they? Here is what the Rabbis teach[13]: “ ‘And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.’ Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Chunah the son of Bizna said in the name of Rebbi Shimon, ‘These are Moshiach ben Dovid, Moshiach ben Yosef, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.’ “ The four of the Rabbis are the three people mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls plus the leader of Ephraim.
So what is the job of this fourth person? One hint is in the prophet Ovadiah:
17 But in mount Zion there shall be those that escape, and it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken.
19 And they of the South shall possess the mount of Esau, and they of the Lowland the Philistines; and they shall possess the field of Ephraim, and the field of Samaria; and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
20 And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel, that are among the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath, and the captivity of Jerusalem, that is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the South.
21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD’S.
He we see, from verse 18, that the House of Joseph (including its leader) has a military role in the end-times drama. Verse 21 indicates that this is a joint effort. From this we see that the time when the Moshiach ben Yosef comes ends with a period of peace. This would indicate the period we have seen above when there is world peace, a renewal of the Davidic kingdom, etc. Let me summarize the Rabbinic writings[14] with regards to Moshiach ben Yosef:
There will be a period of about seven years of terrible famines and other troubles. The land of Israel will at that time be under Non-Jewish control, and a leader of the tribe of Ephraim, will arise to lead militarily against these nations who control Jerusalem. He will be successful, but after his initial victory he will die in battle. This will cause a great mourning and many will lose faith. At that time (still within the seven years) the Moshiach Ben David will be revealed, he shall finish the battle. After which, he will resurrect all the dead, starting with the Moshiach Ben Yosef. Both of them will go up to Mount Zion to fulfill the prophecy in Ovadiah verse 21: “And the saviors (plural - both Messiahs) shall go up onto Mount Tzion and judge Mount Esav, and the kingdom will be for Hashem.” There is the fulfillment of ALL the major prophesies like an end to war and a world at peace with the Jewish people in a restored Jerusalem with the third Temple.
The following points summarize this issue and are agreed to in all the Midrashim that deal with the Moshiach ben Yosef and the Moshiach ben Dovid.
They are two different people from two different tribal families.
They live at the same time.
Moshiach ben Yosef never takes the throne nor is he entitled to.
Moshiach ben Yosef is a warrior (Moshiach ben Dovid would also appear to be)
Moshiach ben Yosef will be killed in BATTLE[15] and will be the first to be raised from the dead by Moshiach ben Dovid.
The period of time from when Moshiach ben Yosef first comes into prominence until he is resurrected after the Moshiach ben Dovid comes to his throne is very short, the longest period is under two years.
The basic chronology of events is that there is a seven-year period. It starts with continually problems, it starts to improve and then in the sixth year it gets worse again. In the seventh year there are great wars in which the Moshiach ben Yosef is first successful and then he is killed in that later part of the year. Many Jewish people will become depressed and fall away. At the end of the seven years Moshiach ben Dovid comes and finishes the job and there comes the resurrection of the dead.
There is one more aspect with regards to Moshiach ben Yosef that appears in Rabbinic literature that we need to address, and then we can return to the passage in the Talmud which opened up this paper and see how far off they are. In the work, Emunah V’Deos by Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, after a discussion of the end-times[16] he makes the following comment:
If we do not repent, the events of Ben Joseph will come to pass. But if we repent, they will not, and Messiah ben David will appear to us suddenly.[17]
To understand this issue and how it could be, we need to understand something simple about Biblical prophecy. People usually think (based on Deuteronomy 18) that a false prophet says something will occur and it does not. Here is what appears in Deuteronomy 18:
21 And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?’
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
But there is a problem. Let’s look at the book of Jonah. In chapter 1 we see that Jonah is commanded by G-d to bring a message:
1. NOW THE WORD of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying:
2. ‘Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim against it; for their wickedness is come up before Me.’
In chapter 3 we see the message:
1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying:
2 ‘Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and make unto it the proclamation that I bid thee.’
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city, of three days’ journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he proclaimed, and said: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.’
So the message of Jonah was that Ninevah had only 40 days left. But that is not what happened:
5 And the people of Nineveh believed G-d; and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 And the tidings reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying: ‘Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing; let them not feed, nor drink water;
8 but let them be covered with sackcloth, both man and beast, and let them cry mightily unto G-d; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who knoweth whether G-d will not turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?’
10 And G-d saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and G-d repented of the evil, which He said He would do unto them; and He did it not.
So is Jonah a false prophet??? What he said did not come to pass. The key is verse 10: When G-d sees that people repent; there is no need for the bad decree. With every prophecy of doom, there is an understood condition: If you repent then it is not going to happen. This principle is explicit in the Tenach. We read in Jeremiah 28:
7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people:
8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.
9 The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.’
Here we see that although many prophecies of disaster have been sent it is only those prophecies of peace that must occur. Only through a positive philosophy can they know a true prophet. For that reason Jonah was NOT a false prophet. His prophecy of disaster had an understood condition that, IF they repent, then it will not have to come, but if not then it will. ONLY if he had predicted that there would be a peaceful result, then its non-occurrence would be a sign of his being a false prophet. From this we see that there can be two possibilities for the end-times. One will occur if they repent and the other if they do not. That is what Rabbi Saadiah Gaon was referring to.
With this we can return to the passage from the Rabbis quoted at the beginning. This passage refers to the principle we have just stated, and is a reference to Moshiach ben Dovid, and the two ways in which HE can come! Before this above passage[18] we find the following passage:
Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘If Israel repents they will be redeemed, and if not they will not be.” Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, “If they don’t repent they will not be redeemed? But the Holy One Blessed is He will raise up for them a King who will make decrees over them like Haman and they will repent and return to the good.”
As Rabbi Saadiah Gaon points out[19] this teaching refers to the wars and disasters that would occur before the coming of Moshiach ben Yosef. But if they do repent then there is no need for all of that. If we look at the Tenach we see two types of prophecies dealing with the end-times period. One tells of wars, like Ezekiel 38 and Zechariah 12. But others are silent, mentioning neither war, nor any other series of events. Based on the Biblical principle we saw from the books of Jonah and Jeremiah, we see that G-d’s message of war is a conditional one that can be mitigated by repentance. This is the message of the Talmud. Let’s see the passages in context. First Daniel 7:
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Here we see the end-times, but in a miraculous way. But in Zechariah 9, the same results are given in another format:
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace unto the nations; and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Here the results are the same, but the protagonist is described as coming in a more humbling manner. Bringing all these Biblical verses and principles we now have the teaching of the Rabbis:
“Rabbi Alexandri said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi opposed two verses. One verse says, ‘with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man came.’ In another verse it says, ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’ If they merit ‘with the clouds of heaven’ if not ‘lowly and riding on an ass.’”
If the Jewish people will repent, then the horrible things described will not come and the end-times will be inaugurated in a wondrous way. If not, then there will be wars and humility.
Copyright © 2003, Moshe Shulman for http://www.MessiahTruth.com. All rights reserved.
————————————————————————————————————————
[1] Sanhedrin 98b
[2] Daniel 7:13
[3] Zechariah 9:7
[4] It should be noted that this is not necessarily a contradiction, since it is possible for a person to be BOTH humble, and make a wondrous entry. See my article ‘What is a Midrash?’ for a discussion of how the Rabbis use verses.
[5] Page 51-52.
[6] This is the translation into English of the Hebrew ‘HaMoshiach’, ‘the Messiah’.
[7] ‘From Messianology to Christology: problems and prospects.’ By J. H. Charlesworth. Page 11 in the book ‘The Messiah’ edited by Charlesworth.
[8] It is not my intention of going through all of them, and not even all of the end-times prophecies that relate to the ‘Messiah’, the ‘Messiahs’. That is a whole study in itself. I will only bring here a few passages that tell us about those characters who are to play a key role during the end-times period.
[9] All translation are from the JPS.
[10] It is interesting to note that the verse mentions someone as doing the judging, but not who this is. We shall see in the next passage who this is.
[11] This is far from exhaustive. I have limited the verses to those which lead us to the identification of the main characters of the end-times.
[12] In the work of the prophet Ovadiah we see the importance of the house of Joseph.
[13] Tractate Sukkah 52b.
[14] Primary Sources:
Pesikta Zetrusa (parshas Balak);
Midrashim on Moshiach from the Otzar HaMidrashim (OH) pages 390-395;
Sefer Zerubabal OH page 160;
Rabbenu Saadia Goan in Emunah VaDeos book 8 from chapter 5;
Responsa from Rabbenu Hai Goan OH page 387.
In additions to the sources previously mentioned I can bring the following partial sources: Succah 52a, Sanhedrin 97a, Midrash Shir HaShirim 2.14, Derech Eretz Zuta 10.
[15] This is subject to how the end-times drama will enfold. See the discussion below for how this works.
[16] Part 8 chapters 4 and 5 are the primary sources for this.
[17] This quote is directly from ‘The Messiah Texts’ by Raphael Patai, page 317. I have taken it from there because this work is a favorite of missionaries who quote it extensively, even with it’s many failures. There he translates part of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon’s work.
[18] Sanhedrin 97b.
[19] Op. cit. Chapter 4
Has God Divorced Israel? What is the Meaning of the ‘New Covenant’ Promised in Jeremiah?
Question:
Rabbi,
How do you explain the divorce in Jeremiah? How do you explain that the Jewish people are divorced from God by His own word? How do we as Jews get back to God under the Law which prohibits us from coming back? I am not saying that we are no longer God’s Chosen—I am saying that for us to be reconciled to God, it cannot happen under the Law. Would God have to bring a “new covenant” in to bring us back to Him? You may post this question.
Thank you.
Answer:
When you ask about the “divorce in Jeremiah,” I am sure that you are referring to the parable in the opening verse of the third chapter of Jeremiah, where the prophet uses a harsh allegory to illustrate God’s displeasure with His wayward nation. For the readers of our website who are unfamiliar with this subject, I will briefly explain your series of questions.
Using a jarring metaphor, Jeremiah compares Israel’s spiritual disloyalty to an adulterous woman who has been put away by her husband whom she betrayed. The prophet then asks a biting question, “After she leaves him and marries another man, may he return to her again?” (Jeremiah 3:1) The unspoken answer is that he cannot. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states that the original husband may never come back to his twice-divorced wife.
Your question therefore is how can Israel ever return to its rightful place as God’s priestly nation? The prophet seems to indicate that she (Israel) has married another, namely, the gods of the heathen nations, and she is therefore unable to return as God’s “firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22). How can Israel ever hope to restore herself with the Almighty when the Law of Moses seems to indicate that she cannot? How can the nation of Israel look to the commandments of the Torah for her salvation when, according to Jeremiah’s metaphor, it is those very commandments that prevent her from returning?
The reason you have had difficulty understanding Jeremiah 3:1 is that you made two mistakes while reading the parable of Israel as the divorced wife. Your first error is you attempted to interpret a parable in a hyper-literal fashion. I find it puzzling that Christians, who should be quite familiar with the use of parables, have such difficulty understanding how Jeremiah is using the parable of the “divorced wife.” Your second mistake is you read only half the parable. In fact, the answer to your question is embedded in the final clause of the very same verse. Let’s first examine this parable more closely.
Jeremiah’s purpose in using this parable is two-fold. First, the prophet wishes to vividly illustrate Israel’s spiritual disloyalty to its Creator. Second, and most importantly, unlike the twice-estranged wife whose original husband cannot return to her, the prophet appeals to the Jewish people to repent and proclaims that it is their covenantal purpose to be restored as God’s chosen people. What is impossible with the forsaken woman is the destiny for the children of Israel. Let’s look at the entire verse in context.
They say, “If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s, may he return to her again?” Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; “Yet return to Me,” says the Lord. (Jeremiah 3:1)
The central feature of the prophet’s exhortation that you overlooked appears at the very end of the verse, ” ‘Yet return to Me’, says the Lord.” Jeremiah makes this plea five times throughout the chapter. The message of the prophet is clear: The mercy and compassion of the Almighty is far beyond the scope of man’s comprehension. Whereas normally the betrayed husband would never take back his adulterous wife, our merciful God will forgive His wayward nation. While the transgressed husband would never part with his burning wrath against his estranged wife, Jeremiah points the way to forgiveness, reconciliation, and salvation with the Almighty. In contrast to the enraged husband who would never take back his unfaithful wife, God will, upon repentance, compassionately receive his disobedient people. What must Israel do to win the affection of its Maker?
Just cry out to Me, “My Father, you are the Master of my youth!” (Jeremiah 3:4)
Yet how can this be? Will God’s wrath not be kindled forever against His nation? Jeremiah responds with a rhetorical question.
Will He remain angry forever? Will He keep it to eternity? (Jeremiah 3:5)
The Almighty’s answer follows with a comforting oath promising Israel an eternal destiny and permanent union with the Almighty.
“Return, O backsliding children,” says the Lord, “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” (Jeremiah 3:14)
The central message of the third chapter remains: The fate of disloyal Israel stands in stark contrast to an unfaithful wife. Whereas the adulterous woman may never return to her former husband, Jeremiah beckons the Jewish people back to the Almighty, and assures them of their eternal destiny to be forever married to their Maker.
Yet, by what means can the Jewish people return to God? A few chapters later, Jeremiah answers this question as he outlines for his disobedient nation how they are to end their persistent backsliding. In his seventh chapter, the prophet warns his people not to place their hopes on blood sacrifices or look to The Temple of the Lord to save them. Jeremiah proclaims that these institutions cannot deliver them from their brazen sins. Rather, they must turn away from idolatry and return to God by keeping the commandments. Please take a moment and study Jeremiah’s remarkable message on atonement.
So said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, “Improve your ways and your deeds, I then will allow you to dwell in this place. Do not rely on false words, saying, ‘The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord are they.’ If you improve your ways and your deeds, if you perform judgment between one man and his fellow man, you do not oppress the stranger, an orphan, or a widow, and you do not shed innocent blood in this place, and you do not follow other gods for your detriment. I will then allow you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave your forefathers from days of yore to eternity . . . . So says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings upon your sacrifices and eat flesh; for neither did I speak with your forefathers nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning a burnt offering or a sacrifice. This thing did I command them saying, ‘Listen to Me so that I am your God and you are My people, you walk in all the ways that I command you . . . .’ ” (Jeremiah 7:3-7, 21-23)
The above chapter stands as a reverberating indictment against the church’s most fundamental creeds. For example, according to Christian doctrine, man cannot merit salvation through his own repentance. Atonement comes only through the shedding of innocent blood. Throughout the seventh chapter of Jeremiah, however, the prophet proclaims the very opposite message on atonement. Over and over again, Jeremiah loudly declares that God does not want blood sacrifices but rather repentance alone for man’s grievous sins.
Finally, as we study the words of Jeremiah, attention also must be paid to what the prophet does not say. Because Jeremiah’s silence on missionary teachings is deafening, this chapter presents a serious theological problem for evangelical Christians. Why isn’t there one word throughout the prophet’s admonishment about believing in Jesus for salvation? Bear in mind that the purpose of this prophecy is to guide Jewish people who have lost their way into a sanctified relationship with the Almighty. Why didn’t Jeremiah, as he points his wayward nation in the direction of Godliness, direct the Jewish people to Jesus’ atoning death on the cross? Why did Jeremiah instead prophesy that the day will come when the Jewish people will be restored to their land as a result of their heartfelt repentance? (Jeremiah 3:14-18) According to Christian doctrine, repentance alone cannot save man from damnation. He can weep and wax forth with humble words of remorse from dawn until dusk, but without the blood of the cross, missionaries argue, there can be no forgiveness of sin. Why didn’t the prophet ever mention this foundational creed in his sermon on forgiveness or declare that the Jewish people will eventually be restored because they believed in Jesus as their Lord and Savior?
Moreover, why would Jeremiah prophesy that in this act of penitence, you will one day “call Me ‘My Father,’ and not turn away from Me”? (3:4) Why is there no mention in Jeremiah’s prophecy of the Jewish people calling out to the Son or the Holy Spirit in repentance? In short, why is there not a word mentioned throughout Jeremiah’s prophetic sermon on atonement regarding the foundational claims of Christendom? It is not only what the prophet does say, but also what he doesn’t say that draws our attention.
Your next question insists that Jews can only find salvation through a “new covenant” or New Testament (the Greek word diatheke means both a “covenant” and a “testament”). This “new covenant,” missionaries argue, is the covenant of the cross that was fulfilled nearly 2,000 years ago when the blood of Jesus was shed for the sins of mankind. Moreover, Christians insist, this new covenant was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which states,
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant (bris) with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. Not like the covenant (bris) which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their hearts I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” says the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
This “new covenant,” missionaries maintain, is the New Testament which speaks of salvation by believing in the atoning death of Jesus as proclaimed in Matthew 26:28,
. . . for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
What of the Sinaitic covenant founded on the keeping of the Torah’s commandments? Commenting on Jeremiah 31:31, the author of the Book of Hebrews relegates the Torah’s life-giving commandments to obsolescence and concludes that,
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)
In short, the New Testament writer pronounces that the covenant God made with the Jewish people has expired. The Jewish people no longer have to keep the commandments of the Torah. Salvation comes by believing in Jesus as high priest, sacrifice, and messiah. It is therefore not difficult to understand how the Calvinist author Arthur W. Pink in his An Exposition of Hebrews writes,
It is exceedingly difficult, if not quite impossible, for us to form any adequate conception of the serious obstacles presented to the mind of a pious Jew, when any one sought to persuade him that Judaism had been set aside by God and that he must turn his own back upon it.1
Some of our readers will undoubtedly be offended by Pink’s conclusion, but, in fact, this Reformed author is a rationalist. He is simply drawing the conclusion that the Book of Hebrews is conveying. Essentially, the Book of Hebrews is a multifaceted polemic against the church’s older rival: Judaism.
In order to answer your question regarding Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant,” you must first understand how the New Testament has misapplied and altered Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then grasp the prophet’s message in these four well-known verses.
As mentioned above, missionaries argue that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a prophecy of an event that occurred nearly 2,000 years ago with Jesus’ death on the cross. They insist that this is the new covenant that replaced the old and decaying Mosaic covenant made with Israel.
This Christian rendering of Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant,” however, is an extraordinary reconstruction of the prophet’s own words. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not a prophecy that occurred 2,000 years ago, or any time in the past. Rather, it is a prophecy that will be fulfilled in the future messianic age.
The fact that Jeremiah 31:31-34 begins with the prophet addressing both the “House of Israel and the House of Judah” clearly indicates that Jeremiah is speaking to a restored and fully ingathered Jewish people. This, however, was not at all the case at the time when Christians claim the new covenant was fulfilled in Jesus’ death . . . quite the contrary. During the Christian century there was no House of Israel in existence because Assyria had exiled the Kingdom of Israel more than 700 years earlier (approx. 732 B.C.E.). Moreover, in the first century the Jewish people were spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Thus, even the “House of Judah” was not all in the Promised Land during the Christian century.
In short, the era of the new covenant has not yet arrived. Rather, Jeremiah’s prophecy addresses a future messianic age when the entire Jewish people—both Judah and Israel—will be restored together in their rightful place, the land of Israel (Ezekiel 37:15-22). In contrast, there had been no time in history when the Jewish people were more fractured and dispersed than during the Christian century when, according to the author of Hebrews, Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant was supposedly fulfilled.
Moreover, a cursory reading of verse 31:34 further confirms that Jeremiah’s prophecy is not speaking of a Christian cross 2,000 years ago but rather a restored Jewish people in the future messianic era. Missionaries often overlook verse 34 and emphasize only 31:31-33 when quoting Jeremiah’s declaration of a new covenant. This oversight has proved to be devastating to their understanding of this prophecy because verse 31:34 sheds much light on this new covenant era. Jeremiah 31:34 reads,
No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.
The above verse reveals that the age of the new covenant will be realized during an epoch of the universal knowledge of God. It will occur when no one will have to teach his neighbor about God, “for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them . . . .” Did this occur at the time of the Christian century nearly 2,000 years ago, or at any time since? Does every human being “know the Lord”? This is hardly the case. The church is spending many hundreds of millions of dollars annually in order to convert masses worldwide to Christianity. There are roughly one billion Moslems and Hindus in the world today who, according to Christian teachings, do not know the Lord; and there are an untold number of atheists throughout the globe who certainly do not know the Lord. Has Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant” yet been fulfilled by anyone’s standards? Are we living in a time when each and every person “knows the Lord”? Certainly not.
The Hebrew word bris (covenant) in Jeremiah 31:31 does not mean a Bible or refer to a new salvation program or Torah. The word bris always refers to a promise or a contract. This covenant was made with the Jewish people while they were still in the desert before they were brought into the Promised Land.
In the 28th and 29th chapters of Deuteronomy, Moses told the children of Israel that if they remained faithful to God in the land they were about to enter then the Almighty would bestow upon them manifold blessings and they would flourish in the Holy Land. On the other hand, if they backslid and turned away from the Lord, they would be driven out of Israel into a bitter exile in the land of their enemies. We are all familiar with the events that followed when the Jewish people broke their side of the covenant and they were sent into diaspora.
These four verses in Jeremiah 31:31-34 are part of an ongoing theme repeated throughout the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s unique literary motif is to contrast the redemption of the children of Israel from Egypt with their final redemption in the messianic age—always vividly illustrating how the latter will far outshine the former. In Jeremiah 23:7-8, the prophet makes this clear when he proclaims,
Therefore, behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when men shall no longer say, “As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,” but, “as the Lord lives who brought up and led the descendants of the house of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where He had driven them.” Then they shall dwell in their own land.
In the 31st chapter of the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet continues to contrast the exodus from Egypt with the messianic age. He therefore foretells that unlike the exodus from Egypt when the Jewish people were brought into the land of Israel only to be exiled centuries later because they broke their original covenant as a result of their faithlessness, in the messianic age, the Jewish people will enter into a “new covenant” when they will be permanently restored to their land, never to be exiled again.
As was declared by every prophet, the covenant that God has with the Jewish people is eternal. No words in the Christian Bible or interpolation of the Jewish scriptures can ever change this eternal oath. The prophet Isaiah proclaimed this vow more than 2,700 years ago,
“With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,” says the Lord, your Redeemer. “This is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you. The mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,” says the Lord, Who has mercy on you. (Isaiah 54:8-10)
Remarkably, the contorted manner in which Hebrews rendered Jeremiah’s prophecy promulgates the precise opposite message of the prophet’s original intent. Hebrews misconstrued Jeremiah’s prophecy to be understood that God had somehow disregarded His covenant with Israel, when, in fact, the prophet’s message is that God’s unique covenantal relationship with the Jewish people will never be destroyed.
Moreover, in the next two verses the prophet determinedly proclaims this, pointing to the natural phenomena of the world as a witness to His eternal relationship with the children of Israel. Jeremiah 31:35-36 reads,
Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of hosts is His name: If this fixed order were ever to cease from My presence, says the Lord, then also the offspring of Israel would cease to be a nation before Me forever. Thus says the Lord: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will reject all the offspring of Israel because of all they have done.
Because Jeremiah’s prophecy of an eternal Jewish people presents the church with a serious theological problem, the New Testament went to great lengths to undermine it. In fact, the author of Hebrews deliberately changed the words of Jeremiah in order to reverse the prophet’s original message.
In Hebrews 8:9, while quoting Jeremiah 31:32, the author changed a most crucial word in the verse. The last clause of Jeremiah 31:32 reads,
. . . My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them.
Hebrews misquoted Jeremiah’s words and instead wrote,
. . . because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.”
The Hebrew word “ba’altee,” means a “husband,” not “to disregard.” This is a stunning alteration of the words of Jeremiah; to be a “husband” is the precise opposite of “disregarding” someone. How can the author of Hebrews change the word of God in order to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over its older rival Judaism? When New Testament authors wantonly tamper with the Jewish scriptures, do they not convey the very opposite message?
Furthermore, in contrast to the message of Hebrews 8:13, the life-giving commandments of the Torah have no expiration date. Moses declared that these commandments are forever and ever.
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:28 [29:29])
The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. (Psalm 111:7-8)
Moreover, the prophets foretold that the Jewish people will observe the commandments of the Torah after the messiah arrives. In fact, the Jewish scriptures prominently testify that the faithful observance of the Torah will be the emblematic feature of the messianic era.
And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. (Ezekiel 11:19-20)
My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. (Ezekiel 37:24)
And many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths,” for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:3)
So let’s ask ourselves this question: Do Hebrew-Christians who insist that the messiah has already come keep the commandments of God? Do members of Messianic congregations actually keep the mitzvoth of Shabbat and Kashruth clearly outlined in the Jewish scriptures? For example, do those Jews who have converted to Christianity make sure never to kindle a fire and refrain from carrying any object on the Sabbath day as the Bible decrees? (Exodus 35:3; Jeremiah 17:19-20) The answer is that they do not. Yet, why don’t they if they believe the messiah has already come? Who are those people who diligently and joyfully adhere to these life-giving commandments? The faithful remnant of the Jewish people who loudly reject the teachings of Christianity.
Paradoxically, Hebrew-Christians misguidedly point to Jeremiah’s new covenant to explain away their continued indifference to the commandments of the Torah, when in fact the central messianic prophecy in the Bible declares that the Children of Israel will diligently keep the commandments as a result of the coming of the messiah.
Finally, let’s consider which grievous sin the Jewish people committed that brought down the wrath of God upon them in the first place. In which iniquity did Israel indulge that brought about Jeremiah’s bitter reproach? The appalling sin of idolatry; they had violated the first of the Ten Commandments. The Jewish people worshiped gods that their fathers had not known. They indulged in idol worship and heathen practices of the surrounding gentile nations. Let us consider whether a pious Jew ever read the third chapter of Jeremiah and as a result was somehow moved to convert to Christianity.
More than 3,300 years ago the Torah warned the Jewish people that they would one day serve gods that their fathers didn’t know (Deuteronomy 28:36). When a Jew becomes a Hebrew-Christian, whether he then calls himself Messianic or Baptist, did this occur as a result of the teachings of his grandfather or great grandfather? Did he come to this theological conclusion by fervently studying the Torah in a yeshiva? Did he find the doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Jeremiah, or by any other prophet in Tanach? This is certainly never the case. Hebrew-Christians learn and adopt their spiritual craft from the gentiles who evangelized them. Just as in the Bible.
Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer
As a postscript, our readers should be excited to know that the author of this letter, who has spent many years of his life as a Hebrew-Christian, has returned to the truth and beauty of the Jewish faith.
Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! His mercy endures forever. Psalm 136:1
Footnote:
Click on the footnote to return to the article
1Pink, Arthur W., An Exposition of Hebrews, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI; 1984: pp. 1065.
Daniel 9:25 Translation
QUESTION: I have noticed that there are many differences between Jewish Bible translations of Daniel 9:25-26 and several different Christian Bible translations. What should be the correct readings of the disputed words and phrases?
ANSWER:
In our study of the different translations we will compare the Hebrew text with |that of the King James Version of the Bible. It contains the grossest errors, which are, in |whole or in part, duplicated by other Christian versions of the Bible.
First, the King James Version puts a definite article before “Messiah the Prince” (9:25). |The original Hebrew text does not read “the Messiah the Prince,” but, having no article, |it is to be rendered “a mashiach [“anointed one,” “messiah”], a prince,” i.e., Cyrus |(Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2).
The word mashiach is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a |title of authority of a king or a high priest. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original |Hebrew should be: “an anointed one, a prince.”
Second, the King James Version disregards the Hebrew punctuation. The punctuation |mark ‘atnach functions as the main pause within a sentence. The ‘atnach is the appropriate |equivalent of the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It thus has the effect of |separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: “. . . until an anointed one, a |prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again . . .” (9:25).
By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of |seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, |i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.
Some Christians claim that there is something called a “prophetic year” of 360 days, thus |shortening the interval between the beginning of the 483 years which they claim began in |444 B.C.E., and the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. They do this in order to make the |dates coincide, but the claim of a “prophetic year” is without any scriptural foundation.
Third, the King James Version omits the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should |read: “And after the threescore and two weeks. . . .” By treating the sixty-two weeks as a |distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks |mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the ‘atnach. |Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven |weeks (Cyrus), and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks (Alexander |Yannai).
Fourth, the words v’ayn lo (9:26) are incorrectly translated by the King James Version as |“but not for himself.” They should be translated as “he has nothing” or “he shall have |nothing.” There are Christian commentators who maintain this phrase has both meanings, |but that claim cannot be supported grammatically.
Shalom Benny,
Here is a reminder of the Sabbath Law, so the readers can understand why Yeshua condemned the Traditions of the Elders:
The Law Of The Sabbath From The Mishnah And The Jerusalem Talmud
Advanced Information
(From Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
by Alfred Edersheim, 1886, Appendix XVII)
The terribly exaggerated views of the Rabbis, and their endless, burdensome rules about the Sabbath may best be learned from a brief analysis of the Mishnah, as further explained and enlarged in the Jerusalem Talmud. [The Jerusalem Talmud is not only the older and the shorter of the two Gemaras, but would represent most fully the Palestinian ideas.] For this purpose a brief analysis of what is, confessedly, one of the most difficult tractates may here be given.
The Mishnic tractate Sabbath stands at the head of 12 tractates which together form the second of the 6 sections into which the Mishnah is divided, and which treats of Festive Seasons (Seder Moed). Properly to understand the Sabbath regulations, it is, however, necessary also to take into account the second tractate in that section, which treats of what are called ‘commixtures’ or ‘connections’ (Erubin). Its object is to make the Sabbath Laws more bearable. For this purpose, it is explained how places, beyond which it would otherwise have been unlawful to carry things, may be connected together, so as, by a legal fiction, to convert them into a sort of private dwelling.
Thus, supposing a number of small private houses to open into a common court, it would have been unlawful on the Sabbath to carry anything from one of these houses into the other. This difficulty is removed if all the families deposit before the Sabbath sone food in the common court, when ‘a connection’ is established between the various houses, which makes them one dwelling. This was called the ‘Erubh of Courts.’ Similarly, an extension of what was allowed as a ‘Sabbath journey’ might be secured by another ‘commixture,’ the ‘Erubh’ or ‘connection of boundaries.’ An ordinary Sabbath day’s journey extended 2,000 cubits beyond one’s dwelling. [On the Sabbath journey, and the reason for fixing it at a distance of 2,000 cubits, see Kitto’s Cyclop. (last ed.) ‘Sabbath way,’ and ‘The Temple and its Services,’ p. 148.]
But if at the boundary of that ‘journey’ a man deposited on the Friday food for two meals, he thereby constituted it his dwelling, and hence might go on for another 2,000 cubits. Lastly, there was another ‘Erubh,’ when narrow streets or blind alleys were connected into ‘a private dwelling’ by laying a beam over the entrance, or extending a wire or rope along such streets and alleyways. This, by a legal fiction, made them ‘a private dwelling,’ so that everything was lawful there which a man might do on the Sabbath in his own house.
Without discussing the possible and impossible questions about these Erubin raised by the most ingenious casuistry, let us see how Rabbinism taught Israel to observe its Sabbath. In not less than 24 chapters, [In the Jerusalem Talmud a Gemara is attached only to the first 20 chapters of the Mishnic tractate Shabbath; in the Babylon Talmud to all the 24 chapters.] matters are seriously discussed as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain. Through 64.5 folio columns in the Jerusalem, and 156 double pages of folio in the Babylon Talmud does the enumeration and discussion of possible cases, drag on, almost unrelieved even by Haggadah. [I have counted about 33 Haggadic pieces in the tractate.]
The Talmud itself bears witness to this, when it speaks (no doubt exaggeratedly) of a certain Rabbi who had spent no less than two and a half years in the study of only one of those 24 chapters! And it further bears testimony to the unprofitableness of these endless discussions and determinations. The occasion of this is so curious and characteristic, that it might here find mention. The discussion was concerning a beast of burden. An ass might not be led out on the road with its covering on, unless such had been put on the animal previous to the Sabbath, but it was lawful to lead the animal about in this fashion in one’s courtyard. [In the former case it might be a burden or be lead to work, while in the latter case the covering was presumably for warmth.] The same rule applied to a packsaddle, provided it were not fastened on by girth and backstrap.
Upon this one of the Rabbis is reported as bursting into the declaration that this formed part of those Sabbath Laws (comp. Chag. i. 8) which were like mountains suspended by a hair’ (Jer. Shabb. 7b). And yet in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace of anything spiritual, not a word even to suggest higher thoughts of God’s holy day and its observance,
The tractate on the Sabbath begins with regulations extending its provisions to the close of the Friday afternoon, so as to prevent the possibility of infringing on the Sabbath itself, which commenced on the Friday evening. As the most common kind of labour would be that of carrying, this is the first point discussed. The Biblical Law forbade such labour in simple terms (Ex. 36:6; comp. Jer. 17:22). But Rabbinism developed the prohibition into 8 special ordinances, by first dividing ‘the bearing of a burden’ into two separate acts, lifting it up and putting it down, and then arguing that it might be lifted up or put down from two different places, from a public into a private, or from a private into a public place.
Here, of course, there are discussions as to what constituted a ‘private place’ and ‘a public place’; ‘a wide space,’ which belongs neither to a special individual or to a community, such as the sea, a deep wide valley, or else the corner of a property leading out on the road or fields, and, lastly, a ‘legally free place.’ [Such a free place must cover less than four square cubits, for ex., a pillar would be such. To this no legal determination would apply. The ‘wide space’ is called Karmelith. The Mishnah, however, expressly mentions only the ‘private’ and the ‘public’ place (or ‘enclosed’ and ‘open’), although the Karmeilth was in certain circumstances treated as ‘public,’ in others as ‘private’ property. The explanation of the terms and legal definitions is in Jer. Shabb. 12d; 13a; Shabb. 6a, b; Toseft. Shabb. 1.] Again, a ‘burden’ meant, as the lowest standard of it, the weight of ‘a dried fig.’
But if ‘half a fig’ were carried at two different times, lifted or deposited from a private into a public place, or vice versa, were these two actions to be combined into one so as to constitute the sin of Sabbath desecration? And if so, under what conditions as to state of mind, locality, etc.? And, lastly, how many different sins might one such act involve?
To give an instance of the kind of questions that were generally discussed: the standard measure for forbidden food was the size of an olive, just as that for carrying burdens was the weight of a fig. If a man swallowed forbidden food of the size of half an olive, rejected it, and again eaten of the size of half an olive, he would be guilty, because the palate had altogether tasted food to the size of a whole olive; but if one had deposited in another locality a burden of the weight of a half a fig, and removed it again, it involved no guilt, because the burden was altogether only of half a fig, nor even if the first half fig’s burden had been burnt and then a second half fig introduced. Similarly, if an object that was intended to be worn or carried in front had slipped behind it involved no guilt, but if it had been intended to be worn or carried behind, and it slipped forward, this involved guilt, as involving labor.
Similar difficulties were discussed as to the reverse. Whether, if an object were thrown from a private into a public place, or the reverse. Whether, if an object was thrown into the air with the left, and caught again in the right hand, this involved sin, was a nice question, though there could be no doubt a man incurred guilt if he caught it with the same hand which it had been thrown, but he was not guilty if he caught it in his mouth, since, after being eaten, the object no longer existed, and hence catching with the mouth was as if it had been done by a second person.
Again, if it rained, and the water which fell from the sky were carried, there was no sin in it; but if the rain had run down from a wall it would involve sin. If a person were in one place, and his hand filled with fruit, he would have to drop the fruit, since if he withdrew his full hand from one locality into another, he would be carrying a burden on the Sabbath. It is needless to continue the analysis of this casuistry. All discussions to which we have referred turn only on the first of the legal canons in the tractate ‘Sabbath.’
They will show what a complicated machinery of merely external ordinances traditionalism set in motion; how utterly unspiritual the whole system was, and how it required no small amount of learning and ingenuity to avoid committing grievous sin. In what follows we shall only attempt to indicate the leading points in the Sabbath legislation of the Rabbis. Shortly before the commencement of the Sabbath (late on Friday afternoon) nothing new was to begun; [Here such questions are raised as what constitutes the beginning, for ex., of shaving or a bath] the tailor might no longer go out with his needle, nor the scribe with his pen; nor were clothes to be examined by lamp light. A teacher might not allow his pupils to read, if he himself looked on the book. All these are precautionary measures.
The tailor or scribe carrying his ordinary means of employment, might forget the advent of the holy day; the person examining a dress might kill insects, [To kill such vermin is, of course, strictly forbidden (to kill a flea is like a camel). Rules are given how to dispose of such insects. On the same occasion some curious ideas are broached as to the transformation of animals, one into another.] which is strictly forbidden on the Sabbath, and the teacher might move the lamp to see better, while the pupils were supposed to be so zealous as to also do this.
These latter rules, we are reminded, were passed at a certain celebrated discussion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, when the latter were in the majority. On that occasion also opposition to the Gentiles was carried to its farthest length, and their food, their language, their testimony, their presence, their intercourse, in short, all connection with them denounced. The school of Shammai also forbade to make any mixture, the ingredients of which would not be wholly dissolved and assimilated before the Sabbath. Nay, the Sabbath law was declared to apply even to lifeless objects. Thus, wool might not be dyed if the process was not completed before the Sabbath. Nor was it even lawful to sell anything to a heathen unless the object would reach its destination before the Sabbath, nor to give to a heathen workman anything to do which might involve him in Sabbath work.
Thus, Rabbi Gamialiel was careful to send his linen to be washed three days before Sabbath. But it was lawful to leave olives or grapes in the olive or wine press. Both schools were agreed that, in roasting or baking, a crust must have been formed before the Sabbath, except in case of the Passover lamb. The Jerusalem Talmud, however, modifies certain of these rules. Thus the prohibition of work by a heathen only applies if they work in the house of the Jew, or at least in the same town with him. The school of Shammai, however, went so far as to forbid sending a letter by a heathen, not only on a Friday or on a Thursday, but even sending it on a Wednesday, or to embark on the sea on these days.
It being assumed that the lighting of the Sabbath lamp was a law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, the Mishnah proceeds, in the second chapter of the tractate on the Sabbath, to discuss the substances of which respectively the wick and the oil may be composed, provided always that oil which feeds the wick is not put in a separate vessel, since the removal of that vessel would cause the extinction of the lamp, which would involve a breach of the Sabbath law. But if the light were extinguished from fear of the Gentiles, of robbers, or of an evil spirit, or in order that one dangerously ill might go to sleep, it involved no guilt. Here, many points in casuistry are discussed, such as whether twofold guilt is incurred if in blowing out a candle its flame lights another.
The Mishnah here diverges to discuss the other commandments, which, like that of lighting the Sabbath lamp, specially devolve on women, on which occasion the Talmud broaches some curious statements about the heavenly Sanhedrin and Satan, such as that it is in moments of danger that the Great Enemy brings accusations against us, in order to ensure our ruin; or this, that on three occasions he specially lies in ambush: when one travel after the fast (Day of Atonement), that the Jewish proverb had it: ‘When you bind your Lulabh [The Lulabh consisted of a palm with myrtle and willow branch tied on either side of it, which every worshipper carried on the Feast of Tabernacles (‘Temple and its Services,’ p. 238).] (at the Feast of Tabernacles) bind also your feet’, as regards a sea voyage (Jer. Shabb. 5b, Ber.R 6).
The next two chapters in the tractate on the Sabbath discuss the manner in which food may be kept warm for the Sabbath, since no fire might be lighted. If the food had been partially cooked, or was such as would improve by increased heat, there would be temptation to attend to the fire, and this must be avoided. Hence the oven immediately before the Sabbath only to be heated with straw or chaff; if otherwise, the coals were to be removed or covered with ashes. Clothes ought not to be dried by the hot air of a stove. At any rate, care must be taken that neighbours do not see it. An egg may not be boiled by putting it near a hot kettle, nor in a cloth, nor sand heated by the sun. Cold water might be poured on warm, but not the reverse (at least such was the opinion of the school of Shammai), nor was it lawful to prepare either cold or warm compresses.
‘Nay, a Rabbi went so far as to forbid throwing hot water over one’s self, for fear of spreading the vapour, or of cleaning the floor thereby! A vessel might be put under a lamp to catch the falling sparks, but no water might be put into it, because it was not lawful to extinguish a light. Nor would it have been allowed on the Sabbath to put a vessel to receive the drops of oil that might fall from the lamp. Among many other questions raised was this: whether a parent might take his child in his arms. Happily, Rabbinic literally went so far as not only to allow this, but even, in the supposed case that the child might happen to have a stone in its hands, although this would involve the labour of carrying that stone! Similarly, it was declared lawful to lift seats, provided they had not, as it were, four steps, when they must be considered as ladders.
But it was not allowed to draw along chairs, as this might produce a rut of cavity, although a little carriage might be moved, since the wheels would only compress the soil but not produce a cavity (comp. on the Bab. Talmud, Shabb. 22a;46; and Bets. 23b). Again, the question is discussed, whether it is lawful to keep the food warm by wrapping around a vessel certain substances. Here the general canon is, that all must be avoided which would increase the heat: since this would be to produce some outward effect, which would be equivalent to work.
In the fifth chapter of the tractate we are supposed to begin the Sabbath morning. Ordinarily, the first business of the morning would, of course, have been to take out the cattle. Accordingly, the laws are now laid down for ensuring Sabbath rest to the animals. The principle underlying these is, that only what serves as ornament, or is absolutely necessary for leading out or bringing back animals, or for safety, may be worn by them; all else is regarded as a burden. Even such things as might be put on to prevent the rubbing of a wound, on other possible harm, or to distinguish an animal, must be left aside on the day of rest.
Next, certain regulations are laid down to guide the Jew when dressing on the Sabbath morning, so as to prevent his breaking its rest. Hence he must be careful not to put on any dress which might become burdensome, nor to wear any ornament, which be might put off and carry in his hand, for this would be a ‘burden.’ A woman must not wear such headgear as would require unloosing before taking a bath, nor go out with such ornaments as could be taken off in the street, such as a frontlet, unless it is attached to the cap, nor with a gold crown, nor with a necklace or nose ring, nor with rings, nor have a pin [Literally, a needle which has not an eyelet. Of course, it would not be lawful for a modern Jew, if he observes the Rabbinic Law, to carry a stick or a pencil on the Sabbath, to drive, or even to smoke.] in her dress. The reason for this prohibition of ornaments was, that in their vanity women might take them off to show them to their companions, and then, forgetful to the day, carry them, which would be a ‘burden.’
Women are also forbidden to look in the glass on the Sabbath, because they might discover a white hair and attempt to pull it out, which would be a grievous sin; but men ought not to use looking glasses even on weekdays, because it was undignified. A woman may walk about her own court, but not in the streets, with false hair. Similarly, a man was forbidden to wear on the Sabbath wooden shoes studded with nails, or only one shoe, as this would involve labour; nor was he to wear phylacteries nor amulets, unless, indeed, they had been made by competent persons (since they might lift them off in order to show the novelty). Similarly, it was forbidden to wear any part of a suit of armour. it was not lawful to scrape shoes, except perhaps with the back of a knife, but they might be touched with oil or water.
Nor should sandals be softened with oil, because that would improve them. It was a very serious question, which led to much discussion, what should be done if the tie of a sandal had broken on the Sabbath. A plaster might be worn, provided its object was to prevent the wound from getting worse, not to heal it, for that would have been a work. Ornaments which could not easily be taken off might be worn in one’s courtyard. Similarly, a person might go about with wadding in his ear, but not with false teeth nor with a gold plug in the tooth. If the wadding fell out of the ear, it could not be replaced. Some indeed, thought that its healing virtues lay in the oil in which it had been soaked, and which had dried up, but others ascribed them to the wrath of the wadding itself. In either case there was danger of healing, of doing anything for the purpose of a cure, and hence wadding might not be put into the ear on the Sabbath, although if worn before it might be continued.
Again, as regarded false teeth: they might fall out, and the wearer might then lift and carry them, which would be sinful on the Sabbath. But anything which formed part of the ordinary dress of a person might be worn also on the Sabbath, and children whose ears were being bored might have a plug put into the hole. It was also allowed to go about on crutches, or with a wooden leg and children might have bells on their dresses; but it was prohibited to walk on stilts, or to carry any heathen amulet. The seventh chapter of the tractate contains the most important part of the whole. It opens by laying down the principle that, if a person has either not known, or forgotten, the whole Sabbath law, all the breaches of it which he has committed during ever so many weeks are to be considered as only one error or one sin.
If he has broken the Sabbath law by mistaking the day, every Sabbath thus profaned must be atoned for; but he has broken the law because he thought that what he did was permissible, then every separate infringement constitutes a separate sin, although labors which stand related as species to the genus are regarded as only one work.
It follows, that guilt attaches to the state of mind rather than to the outward deed. Next, 39 chief or ‘fathers’ of work (Aboth) are enumerated, all of which are supposed to be forbidden in the Bible. They are: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, sifting (selecting), grinding, sifting in a sieve, kneading, baking; shearing the wool, washing it, beating it, dyeing it, spinning, putting it on the weaver’s beam, making a knot, undoing a knot, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches; catching deer, killing, skinning, salting it preparing its skin, scraping off its hair, cutting it up, writing two letters, scraping in order to write two letters; building, pulling down, extinguishing fire, lighting fire, beating with the hammer, and carrying from one possession into the other.
The number 39 is said to represent the number of times that the word ‘labour’ occurs in the Bibical text, and all these Aboth or ‘fathers of work are supposed to be connected with some work that had been done about the Tabernacle, or to be kindred to such work. Again, each of these principal works involved the prohibition of a number of others which were derived from them, and hence called their ‘descendants’ (toledoth). The 39 principal works have been arranged in four groups: the first (1 - 11) referring to the preparation of bread; the second (12 - 24) all connected with dress; the third (25 - 33) all connected with writing; and the last (34 - 39) to all the work necessary for a private house.
Another Rabbi derives the number 39 (of these Aboth) from the numerical value of the initial word in Exod. 35:1, although in so doing he has to change the last letter ‘the’ into ‘a’ to make 39). [The Rabbis contend for the lawfulness of changing ‘the’ into ‘a’ for the sake of an interpretation. Sop expressly here (Jer. Shabb. 9b) and in Jer. Peah 20b into Lev. 19:24).] Further explanations must here be added. If you scatter two seeds, you have been sowing. In general, the principle is laid down, that anything by which the ground may be benefited is to be considered a ‘work’ or ‘labour,’ even if it were to sweep away or to break up a clod of earth. Nay, to pluck a blade of grass was a sin. Similarly, it was sinful labour to do anything that would promote the ripening of fruits, such as to water, or even to remove a withered leaf.
To pick fruit, or even to lift it from the ground, would be like reaping. If for example, a mushroom were cut, there would be twofold sin, since by the act of cutting, a new one would spring in its place. According to the Rabbis of Caesarea, fishing, and all that put an end to life, must be ranked with harvesting. In connection with the conduct of the disciples in rubbing the ears of corn on the Sabbath, it is interesting to know that all work connected with food would be classed as one of the toledoth, of binding into sheaves. If a woman were to roll wheat to take away these husks, she would be guilty of sifting with a sieve. If she were rubbing the ends of the stalks, she would be guilty of threshing. Is she were cleaning what adheres to the side of a stalk, she would be guilty of sifting. If she were brushing the stalk, she would be guilty fo grinding. If she were throwing it up in her hands, seh would be guilty of winnowing. Distinctions like the following are made: A radish may be dipped into salt, but not left in it too long, since this would be to make pickle.
A new dress might be put on, irrespective of the danger that in so doing it might be torn. Mud on the dress might be crushed in the hand and shaken off, but the dress must not be rubbed (for fear of affecting the material). If a person took a bath, opinions are divided, whether the whole body should be dried at once, or limb after limb. If water had fallen on the dress, some allowed the dress to be shaken but not wrung; other, to be wrung but not shaken. One Rabbi allowed to spit into the handkerchief, and that although it may necessitate the compressing of what had been wetted; but there is a grave discussion whether it was lawful to spit on the ground, and then to rub it with the foot, because thereby the earth may be scratched. It may, however, be done on stones. In the labour of grinding would be included such an act as crushing salt.
To sweep, or to water the ground, would involve the same sin as beating out the corn. to lay on a plaster would be a grievous sin; to scratch out a big letter, leaving room for two small ones, would be a sin, but to write one big letter occupying the room of two small letters was no sin. To change one letter into another might imply a double sin. And so on through endless details!
The Mishnah continues to explain that, in order to involve guilt, the thing carried from one locality to another must be sufficient to be entrusted for safekeeping. The quantity is regulated: as regards the food of animals, to the capacity of their mouth; as regards man, a dried fig is the standard. As regards fluids, the measure is as much wine as is used for one cup, that is, the measure of the cup being a quarter of a log, and wine being mixed with water in the proportion of three parts water to one of wine, 1 / 16 of a log. [It has been calculated by Herzfeld that a log = 0.36 of a litre; ‘6 hen’s eggs’.] As regards milk, a mouthful; of honey, sufficient to lay on a wound; of oil, sufficient to anoint the smallest member; of water, sufficient to wet eye salve; and of all other fluids, a quarter of a log.
As regarded other substances, the standard as to what constituted a burden was whether the thing could be turned to any practical use, however trifling. Thus, two horse’s hairs might be made into a bird trap; a scrap of clean paper into a custom house notice; a small piece of paper written upon might be converted into a wrapper for a small flagon. In all these cases, therefore, transport would involve sin. Similarly, ink sufficient to write two letters, wax enough to fill up a small hole, even a pebble with which you might aim at a little bird, or a small piece of broken earthenware with which you might stir the coals, would be ‘burdens!’
Passing to another aspect of the subject, the Mishnah lays it down that, in order to constitute sin, a thing must have been carried from one locality into another entirely and immediately, and that it must have been done in the way in which things are ordinarily carried. If an object which one person could carry is carried by two, they are not guilty. Finally, like all labour on the Sabbath, that of cutting one’s nails or hair involves moral sin, but only if it is done in the ordinary way, otherwise only the lesser sin of the breach of the Sabbath rest. A very interesting notice in connection with St. John 5, is that in which it is explained how it would not involve sin to carry a living person on a pallet, the pallet being regarded only as an accessory to the man; while to carry a dead body in such manner, or even the smallest part of a dead body, would involve guilt.
From this the Mishnah proceeds to discuss what is analogous to carrying, such as drawing or throwing. Other ‘labours’ are similarly made the subject of inquiry, and it is shown how any approach to them involves guilt. The rule here is, that anything that might prove of lasting character must not be done on the Sabbath. The same rule applies to what might prove the beginning of work, such as letting the hammer fall on the anvil; or to anything that might contribute to improve a place, to gathering as much wood as would boil an egg, to uprooting weeds, to writing two letters of a word, in short, to anything that might be helpful in, or contribute towards, some future work.
The Mishnah next passes to such work in which not quantity, but quality, is in question, such as catching deer. Here it is explained that anything by which an animal might be caught is included in the prohibition. So far is this carried that, if a deer had run into a house, and the door were shut upon it, it would involve guilt, and this, even if, without closing the door, persons seated themselves at the entry to prevent the exit of the animal.
Passing over the other chapters, which similarly illustrate what are supposed to be Biblical prohibitions of labour as defined in the 39 Aboth and their toledoth, we come, in the 16th chapter of the tractate, to one of the most interesting parts, containing such Sabbath laws as, by their own admission, were imposed only by the Rabbis. These embrace: 1. Things forbidden, because they might lead to a transgression of the Biblical commune; 2. Such as are like the kind of labour supposed to be forbidden in the Bible; 3. Such as are regarded as incompatible with the honour due to the Sabbath. In the first class are included a number of regulations in case of a fire: All portions of Holy Scripture, whether in the original or translated, and the case in which they are laid; the phylacteries and their case, might be rescued from the flames.
Of food or drink only what was needful for the Sabbath might be rescued; but if the food were in a cupbord or basket the whole might be carried out. Similarly, all utensils needed for the Sabbath meal, but of dress only what was absolutely necessary, might be saved, it being, however, provided, that a person might put on a dress, save it, to go back and put on another, and so on. Again, anything in the house might be covered with skin so as to save it from the flames, or the spread of the flames might be arrested by piling up vessels. It was not lawful to ask a Gentile to extinguish the flame, but not duty to hinder him, if he did so. It was lawful to put a vessel over a lamp, to prevent the ceiling from catching fire; similarly, to throw a vessel over a scorpion, although on that point there is doubt. On the other hand, it is allowed, if a Gentile has lighted a lamp on the Sabbath, to make use of it, the fiction being, however, kept up that he did it for himself, and not for the Jew. By the same fiction the cattle may be watered, or, in fact, any other use made of his services.
Before passing from this, we should point out that it was directed that the Hagiographa should not be read except in the evening, since the daytime was to be devoted to more doctrinal studies. In the same connection it is added, that the study of the Mishnah is more important than that of the Bible, that of the Talmud being considered the most meritorious of all, as enabling one to understand all questions of right and wrong. Liturgical pieces, though containing the Name of God, might not be rescued from the flames.
The Gospels, and the writings of Christians, or of heretics, might not be rescued. If it be asked what should be done with them on weekdays, the answer is, that the Names of God which they contain ought to be cut out, and then the books themselves burned. One of the Rabbis, however, would have had them burnt at once, indeed, he would rather have fled into an idolatrous temple than into a Christian church: ‘for the idolaters deny God because they have not known Him, but the apostates are worse.’ To them applied Ps. 139:21, and, if it was lawful to wash out in the waters of jealousy the Divine Name in order to restore peace, much more would it be lawful to burn such books, even though they contained the Divine Name, because they led to enmity between Israel and their Heavenly Father.
Another chapter of the tractate deals with the question of the various pieces of furniture, how far they may be moved and used. Thus, curtains, or a lid, may be regarded as furniture, and hence used. More interesting is the next chapter (18), which deals with things forbidden by the Rabbis because they resemble those kinds of labour supposed to be interdicted in the Bible. Here it is declared lawful, for example, to remove quantities of straw or corn in order to make room for guests, or for an assembly of students, but the whole barn must not be emptied, because in so doing the floor might be injured. Again, as regards animals, some assistance might be given if an animal was about to have its young, though not to the same amount as to a woman in childbirth, for whose sake the Sabbath might be desecrated.
Lastly, all might be done on the holy day needful for circumcision. At the same time, every preparation possible for the service should be made the day before. The Mishnah proceeds to enter here on details not necessarily connected with the Sabbath law.
In the following chapter (20) the tractate goes on to indicate such things as are only allowed on the Sabbath on condition that they are done differently from ordinary days. Thus, for example, certain solutions ordinarily made in water should be made in vinegar. The food for horses or cattle must not be taken out of the manger, unless it is immediately given to some other animal. The bedding straw must not be turned with hand, but with other part of the body. A press in which linen is smoothed may be opened to take out napkins, but must not be screwed down again, etc.
The next chapter proceeds upon the principle that, although everything is to be avoided which resembles the labours referred to in the Bible, the same prohibition does not apply to such labours as resemble those interdicted by the Rabbis. The application of this principle is not, however, of interest to general readers.
In the 22nd chapter the Mishnah proceeds to show that all the precautions of the Rabbis had only this object: to prevent an ultimate breach of a Biblical prohibition. Hence, where such was not to be feared, an act might be done. For example, a person might bathe in mineral waters, but not carry home the linen with which he had dried himself. He might anoint and rub the body, but not to the degree of making himself tired; but he might not use any artificial remedial measures, such as taking a shower bath. Bones might not be set, nor emetics given, nor any medical or surgical operation performed.
In the last two chapter the Mishnah points out those things which are unlawful as derogatory to the dignity of the Sabbath. Certain things are here of interest as bearing on the question of purchasing things for the feast day. Thus, it is expressly allowed to borrow wine, or oil, or bread on the Sabbath, and to leave one’s upper garment in pledge, though one should not express it in such manner as to imply it was a loan.
Moreover, it is expressly added that if the day before the Passover falls on a Sabbath, one may in this manner purchase a Paschal lamb, and, presumably, all else that is needful for the feast. This shows how Judas might have been sent on the eve of the Passover to purchase what was needful, for the law applying to a feast day was much less strict than that of the Sabbath. Again, to avoid the possibility of affecting anything written, it was forbidden to read from a tablet the names of one’s guests, or the menu. It was lawful for children to cast lots for their portions at table, but not with strangers, for this might lead to a breach of the Sabbath, and to games of chance. Similarly, it was improper on the Sabbath to engage workmen for the following week, nor should one be on the watch for the close of that day to begin one’s ordinary work. It was otherwise if religious obligations awaited one at the close of the Sabbath such as attending to a bride, or making preparation for a funeral.
[It is curious as bearing upon a recent controversy, to note that on this occasion it is said that an Israelite may be buried in the coffin and grave originally destined for a Gentile, but not vice versa.] On the Sabbath itself it was lawful to do all that was absolutely necessary connected with the dead, such as to anoint or wash the body, although without moving the limbs, nor might the eyes of the dying be closed, a practice which, indeed, was generally denounced.
In the last chapter of the tractate the Mishnah returns to the discussion of punctilious details. Supposing a traveller to arrive in a place just as the Sabbath commenced, he must only take from his beast of burden such objects are allowed to be handled on the Sabbath. As for the rest, he may loosen the ropes and let them fall down of themselves. Further, it is declared lawful to unloose bundles of straw, or to rub up what can only be eaten in that condition; but care must be taken that nothing is done which is not absolutely necessary. On the other hand, cooking would not be allowed, in short, nothing must be done but what was absolutely necessary to satisfy the cravings of hunger or thirst. Finally, it was declared lawful on the Sabbath to absolve from vows, and to attend to similar religious calls.
Detailed as this analysis of the Sabbath law is, we have not by any means exhausted the subject. Thus, one of the most curious provisions of the Sabbath law was that on the Sabbath only such things to be touched or eaten as had been expressly prepared on a weekday with a view to the Sabbath (Bez. 2b). [This destination or preparation is called Hachanah.] Anything not so destined was forbidden, as the expression is ‘on account of Muqtsah’ i. e. as not having been the ‘intention.’ Jewish dogmatists enumerate nearly 50 cases in which that theological term finds its application.
Thus, if a hen had laid on the Sabbath, the egg was forbidden, because, evidently, it could not have been destined on a weekday for eating, since it was not yet laid, and did not exist; while if the hen had been kept, not for laying but for fattening, the egg might be eaten as forming a part of the hen that had fallen off! But when the principle of Muqtsah is applied to the touching of things which are not used because they have become ugly (and hence are not in one’s mind). so that, for example, an old lamp may not be touched, or raisins during the process of drying them (because they are not eatable then), it will be seen how complicated such a law must have been.
Chiefly from other tractates of the Talmud the following may here be added. It would break the Sabbath rest to climb a tree, to ride, to swim, to clap one’s hands, to strike one’s side, or to dance. All judicial acts, vows, and tilling were also prohibited on that day (Bez. 5:2). It has already been noted that aid might be given or promised for a woman in her bed. But the Law went further. While it prohibited the application or use on the Sabbath of any remedies that would bring improvement or cure to the sick, ‘all actual danger to life,’ (Yoma 7:6) superseded the Sabbath law, but nothing short of that.
Thus, to state an extreme case, if on the Sabbath a wall had fallen on a person, and it were doubtful whether he was under the ruins or not, whether he was alive or dead, a Jew or Gentile, it would be duty to clear away the rubbish sufficiently to find the body. If life were not extinct the labour would have to be continued; but if the person were dead nothing further should be done to extricate the body. Similarly, a Rabbi allowed the use of remedies on the Sabbath in throat diseases, on the express ground that he regarded them as endangering life. On a similar principle a woman with child or a sick person was allowed to break even the fast of the Day of Atonement, while one who had a maniacal attack of morbid craving for food might on that sacred day have even unlawful food (Yoma 8:5, 6).
Such are the leading provisions by which Rabbinism enlarged the simple Sabbath law as expressed in the Bible, [Ex. 20: 8 - 11; 23:12 - 17; 34:1 - 3; Deut. 12 - 15.] and, in its anxiety to ensure its most exact observance, changed the spiritual import of its rest into a complicated code of external and burdensome ordinances. Shall we then wonder at Christ’s opposition to the Sabbath ordinances of the Synagogue, or, on the other hand, at the teaching of Christ on this subject, and that of his most learned and most advanced contemporaries? And whence this difference unless Christ was the ‘Teacher come from God,’ Who spake as never before man had spoken.
Dear Mr Plonie,
Is Haartz.com an anti-Semitic website? It seems you bury head in the sand whenever your co-religion folk are exposed.
Haaretz.com
Two Haifa men sentenced to jail for organ trafficking
By Fadi Eyadat
In a precedent-setting ruling yesterday the Haifa District Court yesterday sentenced two Haifa men to jail for trafficking in humans for the purpose of harvesting their organs.
John Allan (formerly Mohammad Gheit), 59, was sentenced to four years in jail with a three-year suspended sentence. Allan was also ordered to pay each of his six victims NIS 15,000. Hassan Zakhalka, 32, was sentenced to 20 months in prison and 12 months suspended sentence for aiding and abetting human trafficking for the harvest of organs.
Advertisement
This is the first time an Israeli court has issued a conviction for this offense, based on a law passed at the end of last year.
The pair confessed to the charges against them in a plea bargain with the prosecution.
Allan and Zakhalka admitted that at the end of 2006, they persuaded Arabs from the Galilee and central Israel who were developmentally challenged or mentally ill to agree to have a kidney removed for payment. They located their victims by placing ads in the newspaper offering money for organ donation. According to the indictment, the pair gave false information to the donors, and also pressured and threatened them to give up their kidney. After the surgery, Allan and Zakhalka did not pay the donors as promised.
One of the victims was an illiterate 32-year-old single mother from an Arab village in central Israel. The pair told her she would undergo a simple operation, and she would be back on her feet in two days. At one point, the woman changed her mind, and in response Allan and Zakhalka threatened to report her to the police, telling her it was a crime to agree to donate a kidney. Like the other victims, the woman was flown to Ukraine where she underwent the surgery. When she returned home, the victims refused to pay her the $7,000 they had promised her.
Allan and Zakhalka were part of a criminal ring that included an Israeli surgeon, Dr. Michael Zis, who also worked at Assaf Harofeh Medical Center. According to the indictment, Zis sold the kidneys he harvested for between $125,000 and $135,000, of which Allan received $10,000 dollars. The State Prosecutor’s Office is preparing an extradition order against Zis, who is being held in prison in Ukraine.
The conviction of Allan and Zakhalka was made possible by an amendment to the criminal code that was passed in October 2006, which added a number of clauses prohibiting trafficking in humans for the purpose of harvesting organs. Judges Josef Elron, Ron Sokol and Menahem Raniel decided to accept the plea bargain because they said clear legal interpretation had not yet been formulated with regard to the crime of human trafficking for the purpose of harvesting organs, Lacking such clear interpretation of the clause, they said, “the parties might be dragged into presenting much complex evidence.”
Dear Mr Plonie,
Maybe you could get one of your rabbis to explain this chapter in Talmud?
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
Folio 78a
whilst if it is not by his agency, it should fall [vertically] down?1 — But it is through his agency, though weakened.2
Our Rabbis taught: If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow.3 R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And he that killeth kol nefesh4 [lit., ‘all life’] of man shall surely be put to death.5 The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies the whole life;6 but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life.7
Raba said: Both agree that if he killed a terefah,8 he is exempt; if he slew one who was dying through an act of God,9 he is liable; their dispute refers only to one who was dying through man’s act:10 the one likens him to a terefah,11 the other to a person dying naturally. Now, he who likens him to a terefah, why does he not liken him to a person dying naturally? — Because no injury has been done to the latter; but an injury has been done to this one. Whilst he who likens him to a person dying naturally, why does he not liken him to a terefah? — A terefah has his vital organs affected,12 but this one has not.13
A tanna recited before R. Shesheth: And he that killeth all life of man: this includes one who smote his fellow, but there was not in his blow enough [force] to kill, and then a second came and killed him, [teaching] the latter is executed — But if the first man’s blow was insufficient to kill, is it not obvious [that the second is liable]? — But [say thus: the first smote him] with sufficient force to kill, [but before he expired] a second came and slew him; then the second is liable. This anonymous Baraitha agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra.14
Raba said: If one kills a terefah, he is exempt; whilst if a terefah committed murder: if in the presence of a Beth din, he is liable; otherwise he is exempt. Why is he liable if in the presence of a Beth din? — Because it is written, so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.15 But if not, he is exempt, because the law of confuted testimony is inapplicable, and testimony which cannot be so confuted is inadmissible.16
Raba also said: He who commits pederasty with a terefah is liable to punishment; but if a terefah committed it, if in the presence of a Beth din, he is liable; otherwise he is not. ‘If in the presence of a Beth din, he is liable’, because it is written, So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. ‘Otherwise he is not’, because the law of confuted testimony is inapplicable. Why state this second [law]; is it not identical with the first? — It is necessary to teach concerning one who commits pederasty with a terefah: for I might think that he is as one who abuses a dead person, and hence exempt. Therefore he teaches that [punishment is generally imposed] because of the [forbidden] pleasure derived, and in this case too pleasure is derived.17
Raba also said: if witnesses testified [to murder] against a terefah and were then confuted,18 they are not executed.19 But if witnesses, themselves terefah, were confuted, they are executed. R. Ashi said: Even these are not slain, because those who disprove their evidence are not liable if their own is subsequently confuted.20
Raba also said: If an ox, a terefah, killed [a man], it is liable [to be stoned]; but if an ox belonging to a terefah [person] killed, it is exempt. Why so? — Because the Writ saith, The ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall also be put to death;21 wherever it is possible to read, ‘and his owner shall also be put to death,’ we also read, ‘the ox shall be stoned;’ but where we cannot apply, ‘and his owner shall also be put to death,‘22 we do not read, ‘the ox shall be stoned.’ R. Ashi said: Even an ox, a terefah is exempt. Why so? — Since the owner in a similar condition would be exempt, the ox too is exempt.23
IF HE SET ON A DOG OR A SNAKE AGAINST HIM, etc.
R. Aha b. Jacob said: If you will investigate [the grounds of the dispute, you will learn that] in R. Judah’s opinion the snake’s poison is lodged in its fangs, therefore, one who causes it to bite [by placing its fangs against the victim’s flesh] is decapitated, whilst the snake itself is exempt. But in the view of the Sages the snake emits the poison of its own accord; therefore the snake is stoned, whilst he who caused it to bite is exempt.24
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SMOTE HIS FELLOW, WHETHER WITH A STONE OR WITH HIS FIST, AND THEY [THE EXPERTS] DECLARED THAT DEATH WOULD ENSUE; BUT THEN ITS EFFECT LESSENED [SO THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD LIVE], ONLY TO INCREASE SUBSEQUENTLY, SO THAT HE DIED. — HE IS LIABLE. R. NEHEMIAH SAID THAT HE IS EXEMPT, SINCE THERE IS EVIDENCE25 [THAT HE DID NOT DIE AS A RESULT OF HIS INJURIES, AS HE HAD ALREADY BEEN ON THE MEND.]
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: R. Nehemiah gave the following exposition: If he rise again, and walk abroad
1. Not in a slanting direction.
2. I.e., most of the force with which he threw it was already expended, but sufficient was left to impel it in the direction in which it fell.
3. Lit., ‘brought his death near’; v. B.K. 26b.
4. [H].
5. Lev. XXIV, 17.
6. Hence, if ten men assailed him successively, he was already nearly dead when the last smote him: therefore the last too is exempt.
7. I.e., however little life the man has, even if he is nearly dead, the man who actually kills him is liable.
8. V. Glos. When used of a person, it means that he was suffering from some fatal organic disease, recovery from which is impossible.
9. l.e., naturally, through age or weakness, but without an organic disease or wound.
10. As here: nine men had smitten him, and though not actually a trefah, he was already at the point of death.
11. Hence his slayer is exempt.
12. Lit., ‘cut’.
13. Although suffering very much from the successive blows, and on the point of death, no vital organ, e.g., the heart or lungs, is injured, as in the case of a trefah.
14. That the last of the ten is liable for hastening his death, though the cumulative effect of the preceding nine would have caused his death in any case, if not so soon.
15. Deut. XIII, 6.
16. Ibid. XIX, 16-19. Since the murder was not committed in the presence of a Beth din, witnesses must testify thereto. But should they subsequently be proved false (Zomemim, v. Glos.) they could not be executed in accordance with Deut. XIX, 16-19, because they had sought the execution of one who is already regarded as dead, a terefah being thus considered, and testimony to which this law is inapplicable is not valid. But if the murder was committed in the presence of a Beth din, so that no testimony at all is required, the ordinary law of a murderer applies.
17. Whereas there is no sexual gratification in abusing the dead.
18. It being proved they they were absent from the scene of the alleged murder.
19. V. p. 523, n. 3.
20. If A and B’s testimony is disproved by C and D, who testify that they were with them elsewhere than at the scene of the alleged crime, and then the latter themselves are similarly refuted, the law of Deut. XIX, 16-19 is applicable to C and D, since they had sought to impose punishment upon the first two. But if A and B were terefah, this law would not apply to C and D; consequently, the entire law does not apply, and hence they are not executed.
21. Ex. XXI, 29.
22. As here, since the owner, being a terefah, is regarded as already dead.
23. For this verse puts the two on an equal basis. It should be observed that in practice the owner was never killed, but ransomed, in accordance with Ex. XXI, 30 (v. supra 2a).
24. On R. Judah’s view, the fangs themselves are poisonous. Consequently, the snake does nothing, the murder being committed by the person. But the Sages maintain that even when its fangs are embedded in the flesh, they are not poisonous, unless it voluntarily emits poison. Consequently the murder is committed by the snake, not the man. The law of Ex. XXI, 30 applies to all animals and reptiles.
25. Lit., ‘there are feet’, ‘there is a basis, a reason for it’.
Sanhedrin 78b
upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit.1 Now, could you have thought that whilst he walks in the market place his assailant is executed! But it must refer to one who, it was judged, would die [of his injuries], but then their effect lessened, only to increase subsequently so that he died, [the Torah thus teaching that his assailant] is quit. But how do the Rabbis2 explain ‘then shall he that smote him be quit’? — This teaches that he is incarcerated [until the result is known]. Whence does R. Nehemiah know this? — From the ‘gatherer [of sticks]’.3 Then let the Rabbis also deduce it thence? — The ‘gatherer’ was certainly liable to death, Moses merely not knowing by which death;4 that excludes our case, where we do not know whether he is liable to death at all.5 But R. Nehemiah maintains that it can be deduced from the ‘blasphemer’: though not knowing whether he was liable to death, they imprisoned him.6 But the Rabbis say that in case of the blasphemer, [his incarceration] was an ad hoc decision.7
[The preceding discussion agrees with what] has been taught: Moses knew that the ‘gatherer’ was to be executed, for it is written, Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death;8 but he did not know by which death, as it is written, [And they put him in ward,] because it was not declared what should be done to him.9 But in the case of the blasphemer, it is only said, [And they put him in ward,] that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them;10 implying that Moses did not know whether he was at all liable to death or not.
Now, on R. Nehemiah’s view, it is right that two phrases bearing on judicial assessment are written;11 one teaching that if his injury was declared to be fatal, but yet he survived; the other, that if it was judged that he would die, and then the effect of the blow was lightened, [yet he subsequently died — that in both cases he is quit]. But according to the Rabbis [who maintain that in the latter case he is executed], why are two such clauses necessary? — One teaches that if his injuries were declared fatal, yet he survived, and the other, that if they were declared non-fatal, yet he died, — [that in both cases the assailant is free]. But R. Nehemiah maintains that no verse is necessary for the latter case, since he left Beth din a free man.12
Our Rabbis taught: If a man smite his neighbour and the blow was assessed to be fatal, yet he survived, he is dismissed.13 If the injury was declared fatal, but subsequently lightened, a second assessment of the financial damage is made.14 If thereafter he grew worse and died, the second assessment is followed.15 This is R. Nehemiah’s view. The Sages maintain: There can be no second assessment after the first.16
Another [Baraitha] taught: If his injuries were declared fatal, they may subsequently be declared non-fatal.17 But once his injuries are declared non-fatal, they cannot subsequently be declared fatal.18 If the blow was assessed to be fatal, but then he became better, a second assessment of the financial damage is made, and if he subsequently died, he must make compensation for the damage, pain [etc.]19 to the heirs. From when must compensation be made? — From when he smote him.20 And thus this anonymous [Baraitha] agrees with R. Nehemiah.21
MISHNAH. IF HE INTENDED KILLING AN ANIMAL BUT SLEW A MAN, OR A HEATHEN AND HE KILLED AN ISRAELITE, OR A PREMATURELY BORN AND HE KILLED A VIABLE CHILD, HE IS NOT LIABLE.22 IF HE INTENDED TO STRIKE HIM ON HIS LOINS, WHERE THE BLOW WAS INSUFFICIENT TO KILL, BUT SMOTE THE HEART INSTEAD, WHERE IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO KILL, AND HE DIED; OR IF HE INTENDED SMITING HIM ON THE HEART,
1. Ex. XXI, 19.
2. The representatives of the anonymous opinion in the Mishnah.
3. V. Num. XV, 32-36. Pending a decision, ‘they put him in ward’.
4. Hence it is obvious that he had to be incarcerated. On this view, Moses knew that he had to be executed. This is discussed below.
5. I.e., this case could not be deduced from the other.
6. Lev. XXIV, 10-14.
7. Lit., ‘a decision for the moment’. For, death not having been previously prescribed for blasphemy, there was no reason for his incarceration, but that it seemed expedient. But a special ad hoc decision cannot be taken as precedent for normal procedure.
8. Ex. XXXI, 14.
9. Num. XV, 34.
10. Lev. XXIV, 12. This implies that the entire law was unknown, whilst ‘what should be done to him’ indicates that only the details, i.e. mode of death, were unknown.
11. V. Ex. XXI, 18f: And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. Two phrases are superfluous, viz., ‘and he die not’, and ‘If he rise again and walk abroad upon his staff’, for it is self-evident that the assailant cannot be executed under such circumstances: hence they must refer to a judicial calculation that he would not die, which was, however, subsequently falsified.
12. A favourable verdict cannot be reversed (v. supra 33b). Therefore in the latter case it is obvious that ‘he is quit’.
13. [I.e., exempt from death, but liable to pay damages.]
14. I.e., the probable period that he would be incapacitated and the cost of medical assistance, for both of which he is liable.
15. I.e., he is liable for the financial damage, as it was computed, but not to death.
16. I.e., since on the first computation the injuries were declared fatal, when he subsequently grew better, and financial damages were awarded, we do not regard him as having left Beth din a free man (in respect of the capital penalty), but judge him according to the ultimate issue, and hence he is executed.
17. If he grew better, and the assailant is thus freed from death.
18. If he grew worse and died, the culprit is not executed.
19. [On the payments for injuries, v. B.K. VIII, 1.]
20. In assessing the victim’s worth, his value before being smitten is taken. But we do not say, since his injuries were first declared fatal, and then not fatal, subsequent to which he died, his value should be assessed on the basis of his health at the time of the second computation.
21. That financial compensation must be made, but there is no liability to death.
22. [A prematurely born child for the first thirty days is not considered viable.]
Gober
I believe the answer to your Sabbath question can be found here.
Is Christianity a form of Judaism?
Christians like to think that Christianity is just another form of Judaism. This is incorrect.
The first thing you have to understand is that to Judaism, jesus is a foreign god.
Yes, it is true, as a few people have written to me, that Christians themselves assert that they worship the same G-d we do. This is really misdirection, even when it is unintentional. Judaism has strict Laws and Guidelines to define these things, and Christian beliefs in jesus contravene those Laws and Guidelines.
Let me use a parable.
Abner Doubleday invented a game called baseball. He composed certain basic rules for the playing of the game; later, the Baseball Commission refined those rules and added others. These days, it is the Baseball Commission that decides what is within the rules and what is beyond the rules, as far as professional baseball is concerned.
Now, this may or may not be fair. After all, when I play baseball with my friends, there are probably quite a few rules we don’t keep, for all I know. We’re not playing hardball for any league, so who cares? As far as we are concerned, we are playing baseball.
On the other hand, we’re also not claiming to be on the same level as the Yankees, or even the Cubs, for that matter. So no one cares what we call the game. The way we feel about it, it’s close enough to the real thing that we can call it baseball.
But some friends of mine decided to create a new league, with new rules. We found that using a batter was too difficult for us, so instead of a batter someone catches the ball and throws it as hard as he can into the outfield. He does not run the bases, because there is only one base: home plate. Now, we feel that there is too much competition in this world, so there are no outs. Each baseman simply throws the ball to the outfield.
When all the players on your team have thrown the ball, the teams switch places and your team goes into the field.
No one loses. It’s true that no one wins, but at least no one loses.
Is that baseball? Well, we say that it is. We use a ball, and we have a home base. The name says BASE BALL. We have a base and a ball. What more do we need?
How does the Baseball Commission feel about this? Well, they say, it’s very nice, but it’s not baseball. Let them play to their hearts’ content, but it’s not baseball.
So who gets to decide whether or not our version is baseball? Well, anyone who wants can call it what they want. We call it baseball, and we like that name. We feel it is the perfect name for our game. But the minute that we begin to sell tickets, billing ourselves as “baseball,” we are likely to have a lawsuit on our hands.
Why? Because there is an established understanding of what baseball is and what it isn’t. Our game may be very nice, but it is certainly not traditional baseball. It doesn’t matter what we call it. Abner Doubleday would not have called it baseball, baseball fans don’t consider it baseball, and it doesn’t conform to the generally accepted rules of baseball.
This article does not intend to discuss the vices and virtues of Christianity. But no matter how Christians feel about it, Christianity is simply not Judaism. And by the Rules and Regulations of Judaism, the god that the Christians worship is not the same G-d as in Judaism. It is not acceptable to Jews at all.
I know that Christians don’t believe this, and many won’t accept it. That makes no difference to the Laws of Judaism. The Laws of Judaism stand as they have always stood, and any system that contravenes those Laws cannot be considered Judaism.
Part of the problem is that Christians don’t really have much understanding of Jewish Law, so they don’t really know how and why their beliefs contradict Judaism. The first (and often the only) difference they see is that they believe that the Messiah has come, and we Jews know that the Messiah has not yet come, could not possibly have come yet. That would indeed be enough of a difference, but the truth is that the differences are far greater than just that.
The point is that Christians do not get to decide whether their religion is like Judaism, since they have broken off and made changes. Those who keep the original religion are the ones who know, and are the ones who can say. We Orthodox Jews know Jewish Law. Christians do not.
Regardless of your belief, or variation of belief, no form of Christianity is Jewish. And no belief that includes jesus as messiah or savior or god can be Jewish.
In other words, it doesn’t matter waht Jesus did or how he thought about it, or what you think of it.
In addition to that, if one understands that Jesus, if he existed was no more than human being, he was not only a sinner like all of us but more specifically as follows:
Many people are fascinated by the person of Jsus. Even when they find it impossible to accept Chrstian theology, they still feel that they can identify with Jsus the person.
They see him as someone who preached love and peace, and whose life embodied the greatest ideals.
When we look at Jsus in such idealized terms, many of the things done in his name seem very strange. How could the Crusaders have pillaged and destroyed entire communities in his name? How could the Inquisition have tortured people to death in the name of a man who taught that the foremost commandment was love your neighbor as yourself? How are such contradictions possible?
It is much less surprising that his followers did not live by Jsus’ teachings when we realize that even Jsus himself did not abide by them. Chrstians like to present us with an idealized picture of Jsus the man, but a careful reading of the Gospels dispels this picture very quickly.
Let us look at a few examples.
One of the best known teachings of Jsus is
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Luke 6:29), If someone smites you on one cheek, turn the other cheek.
————————————————————————————————————————
This might have been a beautiful ideal, but Jsus himself did not live up to it. When one of the High Priest’s officers struck him, Jsus did not turn the other cheek at all. Instead, the Gospel tells us that his response was
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(John 13:23), if I spoke amiss, state it in evidence at my trial. If I spoke well, then why did you smite me?
————————————————————————————————————————
He did not meekly and quietly submit, as he himself is alleged to have preached.
Throughout history, it seems that the only one who ever turned the other cheek was the Jew.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jsus instructed his followers
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Matthew 5:43) Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and do good to those who hate you.
————————————————————————————————————————
This might have been a fine lesson if Jsus himself lived up to it. But when it came to his own enemies, Jsus declared
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Luke 19:27), Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me.
————————————————————————————————————————
Jsus might have preached against vindictiveness, but he did not practice as he preached, when he said
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(John 11:39), I come to the world for judgment. I may give sight to the sightless, but I will blind those who see.
————————————————————————————————————————
Some of us may have a picture of Jsus preaching love and peace, as when he said
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Matthew 5:22), Anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be brought to judgment. . . If he even sneers at him, he will have to answer for it in the fires of hell.
————————————————————————————————————————
The picture, however, changes very rapidly when Jsus himself is put to the test. We then find him declaring
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Matthew 10:34), Think not that I have come to send peace to the world. I come not to send peace, but the sword.
————————————————————————————————————————
Jsus subjected anyone who dared oppose him to the most awful abuse, curses and threats of dire punishment. When the Jews tried to defend their ancient faith, Jsus answered them by saying,
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Matthew 23:33), You snakes, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?
————————————————————————————————————————
Jsus did not limit himself to his immediate opponents, such as the Rabbis and teachers. He spoke against all those who dared not believe in him, branding them as outcasts, subject to divine punishment. We thus hear his pronouncement
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(John 3:36), He who believes in the Son has everlasting life. But he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but shall suffer the everlasting wrath of G-d.
————————————————————————————————————————
He may have preached love, but it was a very restricted love. He thus said
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(John 3:5), I surely say to you: Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of G-d.
————————————————————————————————————————
In contrast to this, the Rabbis, whom Jsus hated so much, did not place any such limitations on G-d’s love. It was the Rabbis of the Talmud who made the statement
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13), The righteous of all nations have a share in the World to Come.
————————————————————————————————————————
They saw G-d’s love as available to all people, and not only to Jews.
An even stronger statement can be found in our Midrashic literature, where a rabbi declares
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Tana DeBei Eliahu Rabbah 9), I call heaven and earth as witnesses: Any individual, whether gentile or Jew, man or woman, servant or maid, can bring the Divine Presence upon himself in accordance with his deeds.
————————————————————————————————————————
The Jewish attitude toward non-Jews is most clearly expressed in King Solomon’s prayer, where he says
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(I Kings 8:41-43), When a stranger, who is not of Your people Israel, but comes from a distant land . . . turns in prayer toward this Temple, then listen to his prayers.
————————————————————————————————————————
Jsus, however, was not so broad minded. When he sent out his twelve disciples, he charged them
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Matthew 10:5, 6), Do not take the road to gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan city. Go only to the lost sheep of Israel.
————————————————————————————————————————
The Rabbis who lived in Jsus’ time taught
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Avos 4:3), Do not despise any man.
————————————————————————————————————————
They likewise declared
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Baba Kama 38a), Even a gentile who studies Torah is equal to a High Priest.
————————————————————————————————————————
These Rabbis saw G-d’s salvation freely available to all men. Contrast this with the terrible sentence proclaimed by Jsus
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(John 15:6), He who does not abide in me is thrown away like a withered branch. Such withered branches are gathered together, cast into the fire and burned.
————————————————————————————————————————
This terrible statement was later used by the Catholic Church to justify their practice of burning non-believers at the stake.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jsus preached
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Matthew 5:43:44), You have been previously taught to love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you: Love your enemies and bless those who curse you.
————————————————————————————————————————
Jsus may have said this, but the Gospels are aflame with his own words of hatred toward those who did not accept him. Time after time, he displays the same appetite for revenge as any other mortal.
One of the basic teachings of Judaism is
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Leviticus 18:19), You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
————————————————————————————————————————
This commandment is so important that Rabbi Akiva declared that it was the fundamental principle of the Torah. Even though this is openly stated in the Torah, written over a thousand years before Jsus’ birth, many people still think of it as one of Jsus’ teachings.
But even in explaining this commandment of love, Jsus was not above displaying his vindictiveness. The Gospel (Luke 19:29), records that he was asked, But who is my neighbor? Jsus replied with one of the best known parables in the Gospels:
A man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho is attacked by robbers. They plunder and beat him, leaving him half dead by the roadside. A priest comes along and sees the injured man, but he promptly crosses the road to avoid him. A Levite then happens to pass by, and he also crosses the road to avoid him. Finally a Samaritan comes by and is touched by pity. He binds the stranger’s wounds, carries him to a secure spot, and tenderly cares for him. Thus, the Samaritan becomes the perfect example of the good neighbor.
At first glance, this looks like a most beautiful story. But when we look beneath the surface, we see Jsus’ vindictiveness only too clearly.
Let us carefully note the three persons who saw the unfortunate victim. They are a priest (Cohen), a Levite and a Samaritan. Anyone familiar with the three classes of Jews called to the Torah, knows that they are Cohen (priest), Levite and Israelite. We would therefore expect that after the Cohen and Levite passed up the victim, the story would tell us that the third person was an Israelite, an ordinary Jew.
Instead, however, Jsus substitutes a Samaritan, a member of a tribe who had been enemies with the Jews for almost five hundred years. This Samaritan then becomes the example of moral love. The Priests and Levites, who were the religious leaders of the Jews, were thus downgraded, while the hated Samaritan was praised. What Jsus is implying is that every Jew, even a religious leader, is incapable of even a simple act of mercy.
Even in his parable about love, Jsus was not above demonstrating his spite toward the Jewish leaders who rejected him. Good Samaritan is a byword among Chrstians to this very day. Many churches even bear the name, Church of the Good Samaritan. But Jsus’ vindictiveness assured that there would never be a church with the name, Church of the Good Israelite.
Jsus was even able to be vindictive against a tree. When he found himself hungry, he was not able to restrain his too human emotions. The Gospel thus records
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Matthew 2 1:18, 19), In the morning, on his way to the city, Jsus felt hungry. Seeing a fig tree near the road, he went up to it, but found nothing on it but leaves. He said to the tree, `may you never bear fruit anymore.’ The tree then withered and died.
————————————————————————————————————————
The Gospel of Mark (11:13) makes it plain that it was not even the season for figs.
Did this innocent tree deserve such cruel punishment? It was not even the season for figs, and the tree was merely fulfilling its nature. If Jsus merely wanted to show his miraculous powers, as the gospel seems to indicate, why did he not command the tree to bring forth fruit?
Indeed, the Talmud (Taanis 24a) brings a very similar incident, but with a very different ending. Rabbi Yosi’s son once wanted to provide his father’s field hands with food. All he could find was a fig tree, but it was not the season, and the tree was bare. He cried out,
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
Fig tree, fig tree, send forth your fruit so that my father’s workers may eat.
————————————————————————————————————————
The Talmud tells us that the tree produced fruit before its time and the men were able to fill themselves.
If Jsus were truly capable of miracles, he could have done the same. Instead, he chose to display his vindictiveness.
A primary teaching of Judaism is expressed by the Psalmist many generations before Jsus. He declared
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Psalm 145:9), G-d is good to all, and his love extends over all His works. No distinction is made between Jew and gentile.
————————————————————————————————————————
Contrast this with the following event in Jsus’ career
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Mark 7:25-27): A woman whose daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of Jsus, and came in, falling at his feet. She was a Gentile, a Phoenician from Syria. She begged Jsus to drive out the spirit from her daughter. Jsus replied, `Let the children be satisfied first. It is not right to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.
————————————————————————————————————————
From the context, it is obvious that the children mentioned by Jsus refer to the Jews, while the dogs were the gentiles. These dogs must be satisfied with scraps from the table.
Now compare this narrow view with a teaching of the much maligned Pharisees (i.e. rabbis). They declare in the Talmud
Quote:
————————————————————————————————————————
(Gittin 61a), We are obliged to feed the gentile poor in exactly the same manner as we feed the Jewish poor.
————————————————————————————————————————
We can bring many such contrasts between Jewish and Chrstian ethics. In every case, the margin seems to be on the side of Judaism. Jsus may have taught many beautiful ideals, but unfortunately, he never seemed to be able to live up to them himself.
Apparently, it was difficult even for Chrst to be a Chrstian.
Harry Wood
The people in the article were not my coreligionists. They were Arabs, stupid.
Gober
I know I should be studying Talmud but my wife wants me to watch a movie she rented. Meanwhile, study on this:
Anti-Judaism in the New Testament
By: Gerald Sigal
Description
This volume is a systematic critique of the anti-Jewishness of the New Testament. Its primary purpose is to delineate what the New Testament authors intended to convey to their respective audiences concerning the Jewish people. That is, this volume is concerned with the initial meaning intended by the New Testament authors and how this intended meaning directly and with forethought contributed to Christian anti-Judaic1 thought and action. We will investigate how and why the New Testament authors created this anti-Judaic climate. Analysis of the Gospel stories demonstrates that anti-Judaism is woven into the fabric of a significant part of the New Testament narrative. This narrative has provoked bitter condemnation and persecution of Jews. The Jewish people were cast in the role of a dark satanic force as a systematic denigration and demonization of the Jews took place. It is to its harsh and bitter polemic against the entire Jewish people that one must ascribe the accusations of the Jews being Christ-killers and children of Satan and the later embellishments of Jews as host desecrators, ritual murders, and well-poisoners. Post-New Testament developments of Christian anti-Judaism are not central to this study. In pursuing our investigation we will make a distinction between what was originally intended by the New Testament authors and the usage made of their works to meet the anti-Judaic needs of the subsequent church.
Conclusions reached by later interpreters that have often been attributed to the authors of the Gospels are not our primary concern. It is not a question of how, or to what extent, the New Testament passages concerning Jews and Judaism were misused or misread in later centuries, but of what they were meant to mean in the first place. Thus, our focus will be on what the authors meant to convey to their respective contemporary audiences about the Jews.
What would the New Testament’s audience have understood from the information its various authors provided? What meaning would a reader derive from a particular text? Is the New Testament anti-Jewish or is it merely an accurate report of events as they took place? Answers can only come through an examination of the relevant passages in their specific literary contexts, as well as in the context of the struggles, aspirations, and theologies of the early church. Special attention must be paid to the relationship between the church and the Roman authorities, on the one hand, and the synagogue, on the other hand, at the time the various books of the New Testament were written and to polemics within the early church community.
The New Testament was not written solely to condemn the Jews. But, in the process of developing the several story lines that evolved into the four respective canonical Gospels, the early church adopted a decidedly anti-Judaic stance. Consequently, in its final form, instances of anti-Judaic sentiment are found in much of the New Testament, the Gospels in particular. This animosity has to do as much with politics as with theological doctrine, relations with the Roman imperial authorities as with displacing Jews and Judaism. If pre-Gospel traditions already included anti-Judaic elements, they were now systematically exploited. There was a growing need to explain why Israel, God’s chosen people, had rejected Jesus and the message of his disciples. How could this be reconciled with God’s will? In presenting Jesus as the Messiah and Christianity as superseding Judaism, Paul and the authors of the Gospels and Acts, in particular, indict the Jewish people for the death of Jesus and spread antipathy of Jews and Judaism as part of a program to achieve Christian ascendancy. The historicized core myths that provide the basis for the New Testament missionary program were shaped and reshaped to show that the church possessed full authenticity and validity contra Jews and Judaism.
The New Testament authors strive to obscure the dividing line between fact and fiction. Nevertheless, it is clearly a work broadly touched by the craft of fiction. Besides fabrication ex nihilo, the editorial process of creating the Gospels and other books of the New Testament resulted in modification or transformation of the very meaning of the pre-Gospel materials. Whether or not the New Testament represents the view of Jesus’ earliest followers, or even those of Jesus himself, is not our primary concern. What is important is that whatever the origin of the material comprising its contents this is what was incorporated into the text and this is the literary material with which we must work.
The Gospels encourage their readers to develop a negative view of the Jews. This is accomplished through specific statements made throughout their respective narratives. Examples are found in the description of the alleged plot to kill Jesus (Mark 11:18, Matthew 26:3-4, Luke 20:20, John 11:48-53), the emphasis on the supposed “wicked” nature of the Jews themselves (Matthew 23, John 8), and on the moral responsibility of the Jews for the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:25). Thus, the Jews are identified as being evil, guilty of murder, and unrepentant. In contrast, Jesus is identified as the “Christ” and the “Son of God.” He is depicted as good-hearted, interested only in the welfare of others, and innocent of any wrongdoing.
If we let the New Testament speak for itself, we find two themes dominate the New Testament’s concept of the Jews. The first of these concerns a claim to a common biblical heritage for Jews and for the followers of Jesus. Acknowledging the distinctive status of ancient Israel, the New Testament authors claim continuity for Christianity with that biblical faith of Israel. From this perspective, they postulate that prior to the coming of Jesus, Jews had an exclusive claim to spiritual legitimacy—that in a sense, Christianity and Judaism were one. The second theme declares the Jewish fall from grace and the resulting Christian spiritual monopoly. It is alleged that Christianity has become the legitimate inheritor of the true faith and of God’s promises to Israel. Essential to this theme is an enumeration of those acts and events through which Jews are shown to have lost their spiritual prerogative. This second perspective disposes of the unique position of the Jews in God’s providence. It provides an image of Jews as renegades from the true faith, cruel persecutors of the faithful, and the very crucifiers of Jesus, God’s anointed son; it leaves Christianity as the only surviving heir to spiritual legitimacy.
The earliest written Christian polemic against the Jews is found in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. There, Paul declares that “the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men.” It is the Jews, as a nation, that Paul condemns as murderers of both Jesus and the prophets, and as his persecutors. Consequently, God rejects them. The underlying bitterness Paul shows toward the Jews in this passage is unparalleled even in Paul’s other writings. It is also the sole reference in Paul’s letters to the allegation that the Jews were guilty of killing Jesus.3 Paul provides the basis for the recurrent New Testament theme that the Jews, as a nation, are alone responsible for the execution of Jesus. In this earliest known “Christ-killer” polemic to be found in Christian literature, Paul identifies the Jewish national rejection and slaying of Jesus as an endemic trait that had earlier precedent in their killing of the prophets. The Jewish people as a nation is characterized as the archetypal persecutor of God’s messengers be they Jesus, the prophets, or the Christian preachers. This was followed in time by the Gospel of Mark, which introduced the anti-Jewish theme that was later adopted by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. To these was added the Gospel of John, with its intense anti-Jewish viciousness.4
Some readers may feel that this work is overly critical of the New Testament and its authors. Nevertheless, biblical and non-biblical documentation and even the New Testament attest to these facts. One need only investigate the post-New Testament presentation of certain themes—such as the central role of the Jews in the trial of Jesus (Matthew 27:25), the portrayal of the Jews as the devil’s children (John 8:44), the popular meaning attached to the word “Pharisee,”5 and the labeling of Judaism as legalism6—for proof that the New Testament authors achieved their anti-Jewish objectives.
There are some Christians who without examining the question of whether the New Testament itself contains anti-Judaic passages see the anti-Judaic roots of Christianity as stemming, not from that document, but from Christianity’s teachings of its own traditions.7 There are other Christians who, although they know better, would rather keep silent concerning the New Testament’s role in creating the hostile climate in which persecution and degradation of the Jews are perfectly acceptable. They devise stratagems to avoid acknowledging exactly what it is that they know. That is why it is all the more commendable that there are some Christians who admit to the injustice done the Jewish people by the New Testament.8 Nevertheless, there is still great resistance by the majority of Christian theologians, clergymen, and laymen to acknowledging the presence of anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament and the repudiation of those verses.9 It is hoped that with time, honesty will prevail.10
A ray of hope
It should be noted, however, that although the New Testament prepared the way for centuries of persecution of those Jews who did not accept Jesus and church leaders of all denominations of Christendom consistently reiterated its anti-Jewish themes one cannot infer that all Christians hate or persecute Jews. Many are truly embarrassed by the vicious anti-Jewish contents of the New Testament and its results. Many have risked their lives and many have even died protesting against anti-Jewish persecution. It is to their everlasting credit that they were able to resist adherence to the anti-Jewish aspects of the New Testament.
On the other hand, we should address thelarger issue of the Oral Law as a whole:
In the first chapter [of ‘Their Hollow Inheritance by Michoel Drain], Christian authorities were quoted as stating that the New Testament was based on hearsay and conflicting traditions, and was composed, canonized, and made public long after the events depicted therein allegedly occurred.
In direct contrast, the Torah was written and transmitted to the entire Jewish nation by Moses himself:
Deuteronomy 31:9
And Moses wrote this Law, and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the Ark of the Covenant of the L—rd, and to all the elders of Israel.
The Jewish nation that stood at Mount Sinai dedicated itself to the study of the Torah, as have its descendants throughout the generations, in fulfillment of the following directive:
Deuteronomy 6:6—7
And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.
Moses furthermore instructed that the Torah be read before the entire nation every seven years:
Deuteronomy 31:10—12
And Moses commanded them, saying: “At the end of every seven years, during the time of the year of release, during the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the L—rd, your G—d, in the place He shall choose, you shall read this Law before all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and your stranger who is within your gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the L—rd, your G—d, and observe to do all the words of this Law….”
One thousand years later, this practice was still in effect:
Nehemiah 8:1, 3, 8
All the people gathered themselves together as one man into the broad place that was before the water gate; and they told Ezra the Scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the L—rd had commanded to Israel….And he read therein, before the broad place that was before the water gate, from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law….And they read in the Book, in the Law of G—d, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
The learned men who were assisting Ezra the Scribe helped the common people understand what was being read by expounding the Oral Tradition. In the Talmud (Erubin 54b), we learn exactly how these oral explanations were transmitted:
Moses learned it from the mouth of G—d, then Aaron [the High Priest] entered and Moses taught him the chapter. When Aaron had finished, he left the seat of study, taking a seat to the left of Moses, and Aaron’s sons entered. Moses then taught them the chapter. When they finished…Elazar took a seat to the left of Moses, and Ithamar seated himself on Aaron’s right. Rabbi Judah says: “Aaron was always to the right of Moses.” The elders then entered and Moses taught them the same chapter. When the elders were finished…the people entered and Moses taught them the chapter. Thus, Aaron studied the chapter four times, his sons three times, the elders twice, and the people once. Moses then departed and Aaron studied the same chapter with them all. When Aaron finished, he departed and his sons studied the chapter with [the people]. After the sons finished, they departed and the elders studied the chapter with the people. Thus, everyone reviewed the chapter four times.
Josephus also clearly states that the Oral Tradition had been well known since ancient times, and accepted by everyone but the Sadducees, a small group motivated by materialism:
The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moses; and for that reason the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers; and concerning these things great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obedient to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.109
For an insight into the nature of these two factions, we again quote Josephus:
...the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact application of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate (or providence), and to G—d, and yet allow that to [do] what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible; but the souls of good men are only removed into other bodies, [while] the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely, and suppose that G—d is not concerned [with] our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say that to [do] what is good, or what is evil, is…men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to everyone, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades [the World to Come]. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord and regard for the public. But the behavior of the Sadducees towards another is in some degrees wild; and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.110
An oral explanation had to accompany the Written Torah. Otherwise, much of it would be incomprehensible. For example:
Exodus 16:29
See that the L—rd has given you the Sabbath;...let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
What is the meaning of the term “place”? The Oral Tradition stipulates that a Jew is forbidden to walk more than 0.7 miles beyond his city’s perimeter.
Exodus 31:15
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the L—rd; whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
What constitutes work? The Oral Tradition explains that those activities involved in building the portable Tabernacle in the wilderness are prohibited on the Sabbath.
Deuteronomy 6:8
And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.
Without the Oral Tradition, one would never know that this verse is speaking of the tefillin worn by Jewish men during morning prayer. These black, leather boxes contain verses from the Hebrew Bible and are strapped to one’s arm and forehead.
Deuteronomy 6:9
And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates.
This refers to mezuzoth, parchments inscribed with Biblical verses, which are placed in small containers and affixed to the doorposts of Jewish homes.
Numbers 29:1
In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy convocation: you shall do no servile work-it shall be a day of blowing for you.
This description of Rosh Hashanah does not specify what exactly is to be blown on the Jewish New Year, but the Oral Tradition does: a shofar (ram’s horn).
Numbers 29:7
On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation and afflict yourselves; you shall do no work….
Only the Oral Tradition teaches us that “afflicting yourselves” on Yom Kippur means abstaining from all food and drink.
Deuteronomy 12:21
If the place where the L—rd, your G—d, shall choose to put His Name be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the L—rd has given you, as I have commanded you….
The method of ritual slaughter is not found anywhere in the Written Torah, but it is part of the Oral Tradition.
If no oral explanation had been taught to the nation from the outset, the uniform observance of the Torah’s commandments would have been impossible!
To enhance Moses’ comprehension and memory of the Oral Tradition, its intricate details were shown to him in visions:
Exodus 25:8—9
And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all its vessels, so shall you make it.
Numbers 8:4
And this was the work of the candlestick: it was of beaten gold; from its base to its flowers it was beaten work, according to the pattern that the L—rd had shown Moses, so he made the candelabra.
The other books of the Hebrew Bible were also recorded and transmitted to the populace by their authors or other contemporary authorities:
Moses wrote his book, the portion of Balaam [Numbers 22—24], and Job. Joshua wrote his book and the last eight verses of the Torah. Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth. David wrote Psalms, with the assistance of ten elders, viz: Adam the First, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heiman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his book, Kings, and Lamentations. King Hezekiah and his followers wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Daniel, and Esther. Ezra wrote his book and Chronicles-the order of all the generations down to himself.111
Josephus comments:
...because everyone is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of G—d Himself by inspiration; and others have written what has happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing [with] and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty—two books (of the Bible), which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be Divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years;112 but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to G—d, and precepts for the conduct of human life.113
From the Hebrew Bible itself, one can learn how its books were written and transmitted to the people:
Jeremiah 36:4—8
Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the L—rd, which he had spoken to him, upon a scroll. And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying: “I am detained, I cannot enter the House of the L—rd; therefore go and read in the scroll, which you have written from my mouth, the words of the L—rd in the ears of the people in the L—rd’s House on a fast day; also read them in the ears of all those of Judah who come out of their cities. Perhaps they will present their supplication before the L—rd and everyone will repent of his evil way; for great is the anger and fury that the L—rd has pronounced against this people.” And Baruch the son of Neriah did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading in the book the words of the L—rd in the L—rd’s House.
Clearly, the Oral Tradition must be afforded the utmost seriousness, for its explanations of Biblical verses were given to Moses by G—d and have been studied and cherished for generations. In contrast, during the glorious prophetic era (which lasted one thousand years), while the Jewish people pondered the profound Divine messages conveyed by its prophets, Christians were non—existent and most Gentiles were illiterate pagans! The Hebrew Bible, with its revolutionary moral standards, only became known to the world at large in 246 B.C.E. (see p. 23).
Nevertheless, the founding fathers of Christianity had to insist that their interpretations of the Hebrew Bible were as valid as the Jews’. But the basis of these claims is itself founded on misinterpretations:
II Chronicles 34:14
And when they brought out the money that was brought into the House of the L—rd, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the L—rd by the hand of Moses.
This sensational discovery unearthed the Torah scroll Moses himself had written (“the Book of the Law”):
Deuteronomy 31:24—26
And it came to pass, when Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book…that Moses commanded the Levites…saying, “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the L—rd, your G—d, that it may be there for you as a witness.”
This scroll had been hidden from King Ahaz, who had destroyed the holy artifacts one hundred years earlier:
II Chronicles 28:24
And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the House of G—d, and cut in pieces the vessels of the House of G—d….
However, when this scroll was unrolled before King Josiah, he rent his clothes (II Chronicles 34:19) for it fell open to the section containing all the curses destined to befall those Jews who disregard the Torah (Deuteronomy 27—28).
Huldah the prophetess confirmed Josiah’s conviction that this was no mere coincidence but an omen from G—d:
II Chronicles 34:24—25
Thus says the L—rd: “Behold, I will bring evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants, even all the curses that are written in the book they have read before the king of Judah. Because they have forsaken Me and offered to other gods….”
Hoping to move the populace to repent, Josiah read to them this section of the Torah that lists the curses:
II Chronicles 34:30
...and he read in their ears all the words of the Book of the Covenant that was found in the House of the L—rd.
Although the entire Torah is a covenant between G—d and the Jews, this section is called “the Covenant” because they accepted each curse upon themselves as a punishment for violating the Torah.114 The statement that concludes this section affirms their uniqueness:
Deuteronomy 28:69
These are the words of the covenant that the L—rd commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant He made with them in Horeb [Sinai].
It should be noted that of all the Torah’s commands, the only one some of Josiah’s subjects were accused of violating was idolatry:
II Chronicles 34:21
...for great is the wrath of the L—rd that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the L—rd, to do according to all that is written in this book.
Missionaries claim that the Written Torah (and consequently, the Oral Tradition) was lost and forgotten until it was found by Hilkiah. The Jews allegedly, then interpreted it anew, each to his own understanding. Missionaries, therefore, assert that Christian interpretations are as valid as those of the Jews.
Obviously, however, during the seven hundred years between Moses and Josiah, the Jews had innumerable copies of the Torah. As shown, it was their most treasured possession. The Torah is also referred to throughout the Hebrew Bible. For instance, in the same book chronicling the discovery of this scroll, Deuteronomy 24:16 is quoted verbatim with regard to Amaziah:
II Chronicles 25:3—4
Now it came to pass when the kingdom was established unto [Amaziah] that he killed his servants who had slain the king, his father. But he did not put their children to death; rather, he did according to that which is written in the Law in the Book of Moses, as the L—rd commanded, saying: “Fathers shall not die for children, nor shall children die for fathers; but a man shall die for his sin.”
Shalom Benny,
It was you who questioned the very existence of Yeshua of Nazareth. Now you are debating the Man who never was.
That just goes to show how confused you are. So I will let a Messianic Jew answer you.
THE PLACE OF RABBINIC TRADITION IN MESSIANIC JUDAISM
1988 UMJC CONFERENCE THEOLOGY FORUM
by Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.
Every one of us involved in Messianic ministry has thought long and hard on the question of the place of rabbinic tradition in Messianic Judaism. My own thinking has developed gradually over the last few years, but I would like to share with you why I have come to the conclusion that rabbinic traditions have little or no place in our private lives or public services. Let me say first, however, that even though I have given myself to much prayer, study, and discussion over this very issue, I want each of you to consider the arguments I present and then to arrive at your own conclusion. I’m going to divide this talk into three main areas: Biblical Truth, Spiritual Life, and Integrity of Witness.
I. Biblical Truth
It is important to understand that the word “tradition” can have at least two different connotations, one positive (in the sense of “divinely transmitted truth”), the other negative (in the sense of “man-made religious institutions or regulations”). An example of the positive sense is Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians to keep the “traditions” which he delivered to them (2 Thessalonians. 3:6); an example of the negative sense is Yeshua’s warning in Matthew. 15:3 that the Pharisee’s broke God’s commandments for the sake of their traditions, that is, “the traditions of the elders” (v. 2).
Let me state clearly that the very best rabbinic traditions are still man-made, and as far as man-made religion goes, Yeshua spoke with unmistakable clarity: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. . . . And the flesh [i.e., human effort] profits nothing. It is the Spirit that gives life” (John 3:6, 6:63). If we are going to worship and serve God in the Spirit, flesh-born traditions can only get in the way. It is in this vein that Paul asked the Judaized Galatians: “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” (Gal. 3:3b). And so Yeshua contrasted the Pharisee’s humanly derived authority with His own divinely ordained authority by saying: “God said this . . . but you say that.” (Mat. 15:4-5).
Now the point I am making is simple: If we think that we are entering into spiritual life by means of man-made traditions, then we are sadly wrong. While it is one thing to follow the rabbinic calendar as a matter of covenience, it is another thing entirely to pray the prayers of the rabbis or utilize their varied religious expressions and methods.
Although the Siddur may be filled with much beauty, it is utterly devoid of New Covenantal truth. The Siddur gives no hint of the fact that we are already forgiven, that Messiah’s healing blood has already been shed, and that He has already risen from the grave, ascended to heaven, and sent the Spirit to dwell within us and empower us. Its prayers speak nothing of our personal and intimate relationship with Abba, and their high and lofty tone is often equal to distant and far off. Frankly, when I pray the Siddur during worship services, or when I intensively study the Talmud or the Legal Codes from which many of the traditions come, I am keenly aware of the fact that rabbinic Judaism is a religion alien to the New Covenant faith. Also, the exclusive emphasis on the chosenness of Israel through the Torah to the exclusion of the Gentiles is certainly inappropriate in a New Covenant community of believers. I would also note that very little of the Siddur can be positively dated to the first century, and much of it, excluding of course, pure biblical material, is very late. Yet even if it could be argued that there are in fact some pre-Yeshuic prayers, the point is still the same. None of these prayers reflect the new spiritual realities brought about by Yeshua’s death and resurrection and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit. As for the prayers written by the later rabbis, and in consideration of the fact that prayer is the most intimate thing that a human being can do with God, how can we pray the prayers of men whose very faith presupposes that Yeshua is not the Messiah?
Yeshua taught that new wine could only be contained in new wineskins, since if it was poured into old wineskins it would break them and be spilled out onto the ground, ruining both the wine and the wineskins. The nineteenth century rabbi Moses Sofer, nicknamed the Hatam Sofer, coined the phrase hadash ’asur min-hattorah - “Anything new is forbidden by the Torah,” thus the older a thing is, the better it is (see his responsa, Yoreh Deah, no. 19; Orah Hayyim, no. 28; Even HaEzer, no. 29; cited by Louis Jacobs, A Tree of Life, 255f.). I believe that this phrase, although of relatively recent date, accurately reflects the spirit of rabbinic Judaism, setting it in stark contrast to our Messianic faith. Our emphasis on the new covenant, the new creation, and the new song that God has put in our mouths bursts out of the bounds of the old wineskins of tradition.
While it is possible that the very first disciples lived in harmony with some customs of their people, this really has nothing to do with a believer today following rabbinic tradition. Although some of rabbinic Judaism’s roots are pre-Yeshuic, for the most part it is a religion developed after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., and more particularly, after the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem in 135 C.E. Since that time the rabbinic expression has gone its own way, with its Talmud-centered life orientation and its massive legal system. Because the early Mishnaic sages were not the true heirs of the biblical-prophetic faith, it was inevitable that, as the Messianic faith began to flourish, a split would have to come. While we have much common ground with our people today (as Jews in a largely non-Jewish world), we must never forget that, as far as our walk with God goes, life in the Spirit is not consonant with expressions of the flesh. There is a qualitative spiritual difference between the Messianic faith and the Rabbinic faith.
II. Spiritual Life
Let me move on to the subject of spiritual life. First I must say that before I had ever attended a Messianic service of any kind, I was warned by the Spirit of God that “the whole Jewish temptation is in the soul realm. It will fascinate, stimulate, complicate, suffocate.” Of course, you are free to accept this or reject this as a word from the Lord, but I have seen many dear believers fall into this very trap. It may begin with a fascination with midrashic stories or rabbinic sayings, or it may take on the form of a soulish affectation for the Siddur or for some rabbinic Shabbat customs. But soon life is not as simple as it used to be! Questions of Messianic halakha seem to dominate, and side issues like how we can incorporate rabbinic traditions in our celebration of the Feasts become central. Pretty soon the believer finds himself spiritually stifled, praying less in the life of the Spirit, witnessing less to Jewish souls for fear of saying the wrong thing in the wrong way, and praising Yeshua less and less.
What has happened? We have gotten our eyes off of Yeshua and onto religious forms. And for many, the problem has been an overemphasis on the mind and academic study coupled with an under emphasis on prayer and life in the Spirit. Rabbinic Judaism, with its stress on study and intellectual prowess, and with the soulish beauty of many of its customs, has lured some believers away from the simplicity of their faith in Yeshua.
Of course, I recognize that there are many challenging problems for those of us who understand our need to recover our true biblical roots, and I myself have spent many hours pursuing issues such as Messianic halakha and the like. Yet what I am saying is extremely important to hear: To the extent that we do not draw our nourishment and life from the true vine, we are going to die. As Yeshua said: “NO BRANCH CAN BEAR FRUIT BY ITSELF; IT MUST REMAIN IN THE VINE . . . APART FROM THE VINE YOU CAN DO NOTHING. IF ANYONE DOES NOT REMAIN IN ME, HE IS LIKE A BRANCH THAT IS THROWN AWAY AND WITHERS” (John 15:1-6).
Please understand this. As I began to attend Messianic services, and then as a member of Beth Messiah Congregation in Rockville, I was decidedly neutral on the whole question of rabbinic tradition in our services and personal lives. In fact, I was ready and willing to embrace these things to the extent that they were not in clear opposition to faith in Yeshua. And in times past I have argued for our right to observe these customs and pray these prayers if we so desired. However, I am now certain that in our emphasis on solidarity with the Jewish community (and that has unfortunately meant to many of us, solidarity with rabbinic traditions), we have retreated from emphasizing the centrality of the True Vine and our uniqeness in Him. It is one thing to have our faith grounded in Torah and focused on Yeshua; it is another thing to follow rabbinic traditions.
Let me be more specific. Why is there no evidence of real spiritual revival in most all of our congregations? (And when I say revival, don’t think that I mean some kind of worked up Pentecostal Charismania. What I mean is a major influx of Jewish men and women into the Kingdom, and a powerful evidence of the Spirit’s work in our midst.) Why are there churches with thousands of solid believers, and in some cases, hundreds of Jewish believers, while the biggest congregations we can speak of have only several hundred? If you say, “Mike, you’re being unfair. We’re still brand new, in our infancy,” then I would respond by saying that this is the very time that we should be showing our greatest signs of vitality and life!
Our movement has written almost no new songs that exalt the finished work of the Messiah or the power of His blood. Simply stated, we have had a Jewish fixation instead of a Jesus fixation. In fact, I have been in numerous Messianic worship services where Yeshua was not mentioned in song even once. I have counted the choruses found in some of our Messianic songbooks and discovered on occasion that while songs about Jerusalem and Zion are commonplace, songs exalting Yeshua have numbered as few as one in ten!
What is our glory? The Cross! Where is our power? The Name of Yeshua! Where has our proclamation fallen short? THE CROSS AND THE NAME!!
Let me make a strong statement. If we are spiritually more at home with a prayer written by a traditional rabbi then with a great hymn written by a committed Gentile believer then our orientation is dangerously wrong. Isn’t this why many of our congregations are spiritually anemic, because we have not cooperated with the Father’s central purpose, i.e., “that in everything Yeshua might have the supremacy” (Coloaaians. 1:18)? Didn’t Yeshua teach us that as He was lifted up, He would draw all men to Him (John 12:32)? And in the limited time that we have for our public services, can we justify the inclusion of material that knowingly leaves Yeshua out? In the busyness of our lives, do we have room for prayers and customs devoid of the Spirit of God?
I believe that we have been misled into thinking that we cannot identify with our people outside of rabbinic tradition. In fact, some of you listening may have already concluded that I am saying: “Throw away your Jewishness! Quit praying for Israel! Who needs Torah anyway?” But that is absolutely not what I intend to get across. My point instead is this: What real connection is there between our life in Yeshua the Messiah and the traditions of those whose faith is built upon His rejection? Yeshua said that His truth was from above, hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed to babes (John 3:31. 8:23; Mat. 11:25). Yet a leading rabbinic scholar said: “Let the truth emerge from the earth. The truth be as the sages decide with the human mind” (Aryeh Leib, introduction to his Kesot HaHoshen on Hoshen Mishpat, quoted by Berkovitz, Not in Heaven, 55). How can we harmonize these words?
I can only say that Biblical Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism are two very different faiths. One is based on the once and for all sacrifice of the Lamb of God; the other has substituted prayer, repentance, and good deeds. One is based on the witness of the indwelling Spirit and the revelation of the divine Word; the other is based on logical deduction and human tradition. One is based on the demonstration of the power of the living God; the other is based on majority rule. One releases its people into a free expression of praise, adoration, and prayer; the other legislates when and how to pray, and even what to say.
It is a plain fact that the Jewish people who have been the most devoted to rabbinic orthopraxy have been the hardest to win to the Lord, and the early rabbis associated with the beginnings of traditional Judaism were those who most clearly rejected the Messianic faith. Many of our Orthodox people who have come to know Yeshua as Lord have first become disoriented with their traditional faith and only subsequently received the Messiah. Why is this? Because the rabbinic religion is contrary to the Gospel, in content and in spirit. And if you might say, “I believe that there are features of Rabbinic Judaism which can be redeemed with some effort,” I would reply, “Why look for silver amidst the dross when there’s plenty of pure gold to be found?”
Should we wear a Tallit in our services? Obviously, this is a matter of personal and/or congregational conviction. But realize this: If we do it as a religious duty or service, remember that we are wearing a garment that does not fulfill the Scriptural requirements for the fringes (because it lacks the color blue and it is not part of our regular daily clothing), and we are putting on something whose intricate fabric of knots and strands reminds us of just how far the rabbis have gone in legislating religious life.
Should we light the Shabbat candles and pray the traditional prayer? Again, this is a matter to be decided individually. But I have always wondered why we have taken over a traditional custom, prayed an untrue prayer (viz., that God has commanded us to light the candles, although I realize that many Messianic Jews have revised that part), and then tried to fit Yeshua in as the “light of the world”! What has any of this got to do with the Sabbath? How does this highlight the true rest that we now have in Yeshua? And if we are seeking to honor Torah, why are we lighting a fire after dark on Friday night?
III. Integrity of Witness
All this leads me to my last point, viz., integrity of witness. You may say, “I agree with you completely. There is no spiritual life in rabbinic tradition. I only do this to be a Jew to the Jews.” But is it really working? Are we really doing what Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 9?
Over the years I have been very friendly with a number of rabbis, some Orthodox and others Conservative. Their primary complaint with Messianic Judaism was that it was deceptive and superficial. While they were willing to talk to me about Yeshua, they were deeply upset with Messianic Jews.
I believe that their charges are basically correct, although it has never been our intent to be deceptive in the least, and I am sure our motives have been pure. Let me try to explain this to you from the rabbinic perspective.
Traditional Rabbinic Judaism is just that: the Judaism based on rabbinic traditions. These traditions, recognized by the Orthodox as being providentially transmitted and developed through 3500 years of Torah history, are considered to be the very essence of Jewish life. They are binding on all who recognize the authority of the rabbis. That’s why, from a traditional perspective, it is totally sacrilegious and almost blasphemous to follow one custom, revise another law, and then discard whatever other traditions we choose. Doing this violates the very essence of rabbinic halakha which seeks to legislate a Jew’s life before God from his first waking moments to his midnight meditations.
What are we saying to the rabbinic community (and let’s face it, if we want to influence our people, we must influence the rabbis) when we pick and choose from the traditional liturgy in our services, wear talliyot on Friday night, and walk around donning yarmulkes while eating at Macdonalds? Can’t you see how offensive this is? Instead of drawing attention to Yeshua, it diverts attention to side issues. We have unwittingly been guilty of making a mockery of the Oral Law by accepting a few of its traditions while rejecting almost all of its authority and relevance. Believe me, Rabbinic Judaism is an all encompassing religion, dealing with every possible area of a Jewish person’s life. It takes years of study for a newcomer to traditional Judaism to learn even the basics! And we’re still mispronouncing “Messiah” and “Holy Spirit” in Hebrew. Who are we fooling?
Yes, let us boldly proclaim the true Jewishness of our faith. But why run roughshod over traditional sensitivities with our piecemeal borrowing of that which is sacred to them? As for our non-traditional Jewish friends, why are we trying to win them with tradition? Why put forth mixed signals as to who we really are?
How would we feel if a new group came to us and said: “Don’t think that we don’t believe in Yeshua. We do! In fact, we sing ‘He is Lord’ in our services. Of course, we also believe that Krishna is Lord, and that Sun Moon is Lord too!” We wouldn’t be impressed! We’d say that they were a cult, plain and simple. But that’s how we appear to the Jewish community. It’s hard for them to take us seriously. Our public services give one impression and our private lives give another. What message are we conveying? And when we call our leaders “Rabbi” (and please don’t get angry with me – listen to my heart), aren’t we unnecessarily provoking the rabbinic community, especially when some of our men can’t even read and understand Hebrew, let alone identify the Six Orders of the Mishnah? But that is the very thing that “Rabbi” means to our people – the learned spiritual leader of the community, expert in all matters of Jewish law and interpretation.
It’s also interesting that among the early Jewish believers, as far as I know, the title “Rav” or “Rabbi” was never used for the teaching elders, even though it was widely used in traditional circles. And, if you would like to do some research, see if you can find any evidence at all that these first Messianic Jews (generally called Nazaraeans) were ever accused by the Church Fathers of keeping any rabbinic traditions. This point is important! Sooner or later we will have to realize that being Jewish does not mean being rabbinic.
Let me turn closer to home. I am now the head of a Messianic Yeshiva, yet I’ve lost some friends in the Orthodox community because they feel that the name “Yeshiva” is deceptive. And I understand their point. In the Jewish community Yeshiva has a certain meaning. A newly saved Orthodox Rabbi from Israel came to me in Maryland and said that we didn’t have a true Yeshiva. The name meant something specific to him, and if effective communication is our goal, then let’s be sensitive to using words super-charged with emotion. Maybe our school should be called “Messiah Study Center”, or “Messiah Training Center”? I’m open to suggestions, seriously. [In 1989, the school name was changed to Messiah Biblical Institute and Graduate School of Theology.]
But I need to close now. It will be up to all of us to work through these issues and decide for ourselves. I recognize your right to have your own definite convictions. I hope you recognize my right to have mine!
Yet my point is simple and clear: I believe that the Word of God is our Guide, that the Spirit of God is our Teacher, and that we have a huge task set before us: the salvation of our people Israel and our personal faithfulness to God’s call. Rabbinic tradition can only get in the way of fulfilling that call. In fact, two of our leaders have independently come to the conclusion that the phenomenon of Messianic Jews praying rabbinic prayers is like the children of Israel defeating their enemies at war and then turning around and worshiping their idols! Strong words, for sure; but filled with truth nonetheless.
In John 16:2 Yeshua told us that we would be put out of the synagogues for our faith, and tragically this has been the case. Yet there is a change in the air and something new is happening. But it is not time for us to bring rabbinism into the Body, nor is it time for us to seek reentry into the traditional camp. Rather, as we go to Yeshua “outside the camp, bearing the disgrace He bore” (Hebrews 13:13) it is time for the synagogue to come to us.
Y E S H U A IN THE TENACH
Arthur E. Glass
In dealing with my Jewish brethren for the past many years in Canada, the United States, Argentina, and Uruguay. I had one great difficulty, and it was this: My Jewish people would always fling at me this challenging question,
“If Jesus is our Messiah, and the whole Old Testament is about Him, how come His name is never mentioned in It even once?”
I could never answer it satisfactorily to their way of thinking, and I admit I often wondered why His name was not actually written in the Old Bible. Oh, yes, I could show them His divine titles in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 and Jeremiah 23:5, 6, and even the word MESSIAH in several places; but the Hebrew name that would be equal to Jesus, that I could not show. Then one day the Holy Spirit opened my eyes, and I just shouted. There was the very NAME, Jesus, found in the Old Testament about 100 times all the way from GENESIS to HABAKKUK! Yes, the very word - the very NAME - that the angel Gabriel used in Luke 1:31 when he told Mary about the Son she was to have. “Where do we find that NAME?” you ask. Here it is, friend: Every time the Old Testament uses the word SALVATION (especially with the Hebrew suffix meaning “my,” thy,” or “his”), with very few exceptions (when the word is impersonal), it is the very same word, YESHUA (Jesus), used in Matthew 1:21. Let us remember that the angel who spoke to Mary and the angel who spoke to Joseph in his dream did not speak in English, Latin, or Greek, but in Hebrew; and neither were Mary or Joseph slow to grasp the meaning and significance of the NAME of this divine Son and its relation to His character and His work of salvation. For in the Old Testament all great characters were given names with a specific and significant meaning.
For example, in Genesis 5:29, Lamech called his son “Noah [Comfort], saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and tell of our hands.” In Genesis 10:25, Eber calls his firstborn son, “Peleg [Division]; for in his days was the earth divided.” The same is true of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob (changed to Israel-God’s Prince), and all of Jacob’s sons (see Genesis, chapters 29-32). In Exodus 2:10, Pharaoh’s daughter called the baby rescued from the Nile, “Moses [Drawn-Forth]: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.” And so we can go on and on to show the deep significance of Hebrew names.
Now then, when the angel spoke to Joseph, husband of Mary, the mother of our Lord, this is what he really said and what Joseph actually understood: ” And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus [YESHUA (SALVATION)]: for he shall save [or salvage] his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). This text was so forcibly brought home to my soul soon after I was converted over 24 years ago, that I saw the whole plan of the Old Testament in that one ineffable and blessed NAME.
So let us proceed to show clearly the Hebrew name YESHUA (Greek = Iesus: English = Jesus) in the Old Testament.
When the great Patriarch Jacob was ready to depart from this world, he by the Holy Spirit was blessing his sons and prophetically foretelling their future experiences in those blessings. In verse 18 of Genesis 49 he exclaims, “I have waited for thy salvation, 0 Lord!” What he really did say and mean was, “To thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am looking, 0 Lord”; or, “In thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am hoping (trusting), Lord!” That makes much better sense.
Of course YESHUA (Jesus) was the One in Whom Jacob was trusting to carry him safely over the chilly waters of the river of death. Jacob was a saved man, and did not wait until his dying moments to start trusting in the Lord. He just reminded God that he was at the same time comforting his own soul.
In Psalms 9:14, David bursts forth, “I will rejoice in thy salvation.” What he actually did say and mean was, “I will rejoice in (with) thy YESHUA (Jesus).”
In Psalm 91:14-16 God says, “Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high [raise him above circumstances], because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honor him. With long life [eternal life] will I satisfy him, and show him my [YESHUA (Jesus)] salvation.” Of course. That promise is realized in Revelation 22:3,4: “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it: and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see HIS face.”
In Isaiah 12:2, 3 we have something wonderful. Here SALVATION is mentioned three times. The reader will be much blessed by reading these glorious verses in his Bible, but let me give them as they actually read in the original Hebrew with Jesus as the embodiment and personification of the word SALVATION:
“Behold, might (or, God the mighty One) is my YESHUA (Jesus-in His pre-incarnation and eternal existence); I will trust and not be afraid:, for JAH-JAHOVAH is my strength and my song; He also is become my YESHUA (Jesus).... And the WORD (Jesus incarnate) became flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1: 14). ... Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of YESHUA [Jesus - waters of salvation flowing forth from Golgotha].”
Something very interesting occurred one spring in St. Louis: I was visiting in the home of our friends, Brother and Mrs. Charles Siegelman, and another Jew was present there. He claimed Jewish orthodoxy for his creed. Of course the conversation centered around Him Who is the Center of all things—Jesus. This good Jewish brother opposed the claims of Yeshua in the Old Testament verbally, and in a friendly fashion, most violently. His best offensive weapon, he thought, was to fling at me and at all of us there the well-known challenge: “You can’t find the name of ‘Jesus’ in the Old Testament;” and this he did.
I did not answer him directly, but asked him to translate for us from my Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 62:11. Being a Hebrew scholar, he did so with utmost ease, rapidly, and correctly; and here is what and how he translated that text verbatim:
“Behold, Jehovah has proclaimed unto the end of the world. Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold thy YESHUA[ Jesus] cometh; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him.”
Just then he crimsoned as he realized what he had done and how he had played into my hands, and he just fairly screamed out, “No! No! You made me read it ‘thy YESHUA’ Jesus], Mr. Glass! You tricked me!” I said, “No, I did not trick you, I just had you read the Word of God for yourself. Can’t you see that here SALVATION is a Person and not a thing or an event? HE Comes, ‘HIS reward is with HIM, and His work before Him.’ ” Then he rushed at his own Old Testament, talking away frantically saying, “I’m sure mine is different from yours.” And when he found the passage, he just dropped like a deflated balloon. His Old Testament was, of course, identical. All he could use as an escape from admitting defeat was to deny the divine inspiration of the book of Isaiah.
Then skipping on to Habakkuk, we have the greatest demonstration of the NAME “Jesus” in the Old Testament; for here we have both the name as well as the title of the Savior. In 3:13 we read literally from the original Hebrew:
“Thou wentest forth with the YESHA [variant of ESHUA-Jesus] of [or for] thy people; with YESHUA thy MESSIAH [thine Anointed One: i.e., with Jesus thy Anointed] thou woundest the head of the house of the wicked one [Satan].”
Here you have it! The very NAME given to our Lord in the New Testament - JESUS CHRIST! So don’t let anyone - Jew or Gentle - tell you that the Name JESUS is not found in the Old Testament. And so when the aged Simeon came to the Temple, led there by the Holy Spirit, and took the baby Yeshua in his arms, he said, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation [YESHUA (Jesus)]” (Luke 2:29-30). Certainly! Not only did his eyes see God’s Salvation - God’s YESHUA (Jesus) - but he felt Him and touched Him. His believing heart beat with joy and assurance as he felt the loving heart of God throbbing in the heart of the holy infant YESHUA.
“And thou shalt call his name Jesus (SALVATION = YESHUA: for he shall save [salvage] his people from their sins!”
I S A I A H 5 3
How about you? Have you received your Redeemer, the Stone whom the builders rejected? In Him is life, light and joy and in His sacrifice is forgiveness of sin.
Y E S H U A (Jesus) lS THE MESSIAH!
As a religious Jew raised in the yeshivot of Poland, like my peers, I knew that the secrets of Israel’s redemption and the Messianic Days lay hidden in the book of Daniel. I also knew that some of the great Talmudic and post-Talmudic Rabbis had plunged into the study of this book and even plummeted the hidden secrets of its symbolic signs and cyphers. The Talmud and Midrash, discussing Israel’s redemption, often refer to the book of Daniel as the revealer of the secret time of Messiah’s coming. However at the yeshiva I was ominously reminded of a warning and a curse pronounced against those who try to figure out the end. The Talmud says:
May they drop who try to figure out the end; for they say, since the time of his [Messiah’s] coming has already arrived yet he did not come, therefore he will not come at all. 1
This extreme condemnation can be understood when the error of Rabbi Akibah designating Bar Kosiba the Messiah is considered :
Rabbi Akibah made the inference, from the verse. ‘Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land’ (Haggai 2:6), that Simon Bar Kosiba was the Messiah, though he reigned only for two and a half years.2
In the yeshiva I was therefore, forewarned that the secrets are in the Scriptures, but that it was dangerous to make assumptions or to figure them out lest we come to the wrong conclusion, as did Rabbi Akibah. The Midrash even states:
Two men had the end revealed to them; namely Jacob, as stated in Genesis 49 : 1, ‘... that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days.’ and Daniel (12:1,4), ‘And at that time thy people shall be delivered… .
But thou O Daniel shut up the words… .’ So even these two men were forbidden to reveal what they knew. ...3
W hen Will Messiah Come?
The study of our greatest sages brought them to the conclusion that if the dates in the Scriptures are correct, then Messiah should have come in the first century of our era or thereabouts. In a Talmudic portion it is written concerning the timing of the Messianic Age :
The school of Elijah taught: The world is to be for six thousand years; two thousand years empty without Torah; two thousand years with Torah; and two thousand years Messianic Times… .4
The many Messiahs who flourished during that period, claiming themselves to be redeemers, were all great disappointments. Finally Simon Bar Kosiba, whom Rabbi Akibah called “Bar Kochba,” came. Though he was active in the first part of the second century, Rabbi Akibah nonetheless adjusted him to the Messianic claim. For the majority of the Jewish people Bar Kosibah was a tragedy and a disappointment. Apart from the loss of tens of thousands of Jews at his defeat in Betar A.D. 135, his activities resulted in untold sufferings for the surviving , Jews.
In an eleventh century rabbinic portion, we read:
Woe, for the salvation of Israel has perished! But a voice came from heaven saying,
Elijah, it is not as you think, but He will be 400 years in the great Sea, and eighty years with the Sons of Korah where the smoke ascends, and eighty years at Rome’s gate, and the rest of the years He will travel about the great Cities until the end.5
In another rabbinic portion, based in part upon a scripture in the book of Lamentations, [“she has none to comfort (Menachem) of all her friends,”]6 the name of the Messiah is identified as Menachem Ben Ami-e1.7 Messiah, then, is clearly “alive and well” for the last nineteen hundred years, according to these rabbinic writings. His name is Menachem (the Comforter) Ben Amiel (God is with his People). He started to work around the great Mediterranean Sea. went to Samaria (Korah), then Rome and the ends of the world. We may ask : Why was He expected during the first century? Clearly there was a certainty that Messiah had to appear at that period. This conviction was probably based upon the following passages in the book of Daniel:
Seventy weeks (or heptads - weeks of years) are determined upon the people and upon the Holy City, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy. and to anoint the most Holy. Know, therefore. and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks; the street shall be built again: and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary and the end of it shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.8
This revelation was a result of Daniel’s prayers given to him by the angel Gabriel to explain the time, substance and circumstance of Israel’s redemption. The time embraced was “seventy sevens.” Within the sixty nine heptads (weeks of years), that is within 483 years, there will be a building up of Jerusalem’s streets and canals, though in troublous times. After these 483 years, “Messiah is cut off, the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple will be destroyed “by the people of the prince that shall come.” Messiah was to come before the destruction of the Temple. This is the picture that the archangel Gabriel gave to Daniel.
Who is the Messiah?
It was Daniel’s prophecy that challenged me many years to consider the Messiahship of Yeshua the Nazarene. Rabbinic authorities to whom I consulted said that the reference to Messiah in Daniel’s prophecy was to King Agrippa, Herod’s descendant, who is called “Messiah” here and who was ” before the Temple’s destruction. Hence, the term “Messiah” is transferred to a carnal king, like Agrippa, or to the unknown Menachem Ben Amiel as recorded in the Midrash. On the other hand. I learned of Yeshua the Nazarene, who was “cut off” forty years before the Second Temple was destroyed.
The revelation given to Daniel also deals with the substance and the circumstances of Messiah’s activity, “to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness.” In other words, Messiah’s death is distinctly connected with the atoning work that the Temple sacrifices were to accomplish, except that it would be a work of completion and fulfillment far greater than any Temple sacrifices could possibly secure. I was thus enabled to lay aside my fears and prejudices and to open the Brit Hadasha (NT) and learn more of him, who, as the Prophet says:
Hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions.
He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. 9
Yeshua indeed fits perfectly into Daniel’s timetable. No one else qualifies;
neither King Agrippa nor the mystical Menachem fulfills Daniel’s prophecy. Yeshua is the Messiah! He came to give peace to the individual who repents and accepts his atoning sacrifice. He is coming again in might to establish his Kingdom l’olam va ‘ed. 10 Amen!
References:
1 Sanhedrin 97b 2 Ibid. 3 Midrash Rabbah Gen. 98:3
4 Ibid. 5 B’reshit Rabbati, pp. 130-131; see Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Wayne State Univ. Press 1979) p. 125
. [hereafter referred to as Messiah Texts] 6 Lamentations 1:2 7 Messiah Texts at 26-27, 122-23 8 Daniel 9:24-26
9 Isaiah 53:/1-5 10 forever and ever
Dear Mr Plonie,
Dr Michael Zis was was/is an ISRAELI JEW not an Arab.
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth
Folio 59a
what [is the law]:1 Are we guided by the marriage2 or by the betrothal?3 — The other replied to him: You have learned it: IF THEY BECAME WIDOWS OR WERE DIVORCED AFTER MARRIAGE THEY REMAIN INELIGIBLE; IF AFTER BETROTHAL THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE.4 The first said to him: With reference to rendering her a halalah,5 I have no doubt that it is the forbidden cohabitation6 that causes her to be a halalah. My question is only: What is implied by, And he shall take a wife in her virginity:7 Is the ‘taking’ of betrothal required,8 or is it the ‘taking’ of marriage that is required?9 The other replied, You have learned this also: [A priest who] betrothed a widow, and was subsequently appointed to be a High Priest, may consummate the marriage!10 — There it is different because it is written, Shall he take to wife.11 Here also it is written wife!12 — Only one13 but not two. And what is the reason?14 — In the case of the one,15 her body has undergone a change;16 in that of the other her body underwent no change.
MISHNAH. A HIGH PRIEST SHALL NOT MARRY A WIDOW17 WHETHER SHE BECAME A WIDOW AFTER A BETROTHAL OR AFTER A MARRIAGE. HE SHALL NOT MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT.18 R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON PERMIT HIM TO MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT,18 BUT HE MAY NOT MARRY ONE WHO IS WOUNDED.19
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A widow … shall he not take,17 whether she became a widow after a betrothal or after a marriage. Is not this obvious?20 — It might have been assumed that [the meaning of] widow21 is to be inferred from widow22 in the case of Tamar; as there22 it was one after marriage, so here21 also it is one after marriage; hence we were taught [that any widow was meant]. But might it not be suggested that it is indeed so?23 — [It is compared] to a divorced woman:24 As ‘divorced woman’24 [includes any divorcee] whether after betrothal or after marriage,25 so also ‘widow’24 [includes any widow] whether after betrothal or after marriage.
HE SHALL NOT MARRY ONE WHO IS ADOLESCENT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take a wife in her virginity26 excludes one who is adolescent, whose virginity is ended; so R. Meir. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon permit the marriage of one who is adolescent. On what principle do they differ? — R. Meir is of the opinion that virgin27 implies even [one who retains] some of her virginity; her virginity28 implies only one who retains all her virginity;29 in her virginity30 implies only [when previous intercourse with her took place] in the natural manner,31 but not when in an unnatural manner.32 R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, however, are of the opinion that virgin would have implied a perfect virgin; her virginity implies even [one who retains] only part of her virginity;33 in her virginity implies only one whose entire virginity is intact,34 irrespective of whether [previous intercourse with her was] of a natural or unnatural character.35
Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: A woman who was subjected to unnatural intercourse is disqualified from marrying a priest.36 Raba raised an objection: And she shall be his wife,37 applies to a woman eligible to marry him. This excludes [the marriage of] a widow38 to a High Priest,39 of a divorced woman38 and a haluzah38 to a common priest. Now, how is one to understand [the outrage]?40 If it be suggested that it was one of natural intercourse, what [it may be asked] was the object of pointing to her widowhood41 when [her prohibition] could be inferred from the fact that she had had carnal intercourse with a man?42 Must it not consequently [be assumed to be] a case of unnatural intercourse; and the only reason43 [why the woman is forbidden44 is] because she is a widow, and not because she had had carnal intercourse!45
1. May he marry her despite her advanced age?
2. When she was already of age and consequently forbidden to him.
3. When she was still permitted.
4. From which it appears that, in respect of those who are ineligible to marry priests, marriage is the main factor. Had not the marriage to be taken into consideration a widow, for instance, who was betrothed to a High Priest would also be ineligible after his death.
5. ‘Profaned’ and forbidden to a priest.
6. I.e., the consummation of marriage.
7. Lev. XXI, 13.
8. And as at that time she was eligible he may now marry her.
9. As by that time she is already forbidden, he may not marry her, despite their permitted betrothal.
10. Infra 61a, which proves that betrothal is the main factor.
11. Lev. XXI, 14. From the superfluous word wife it is deduced (v. infra 61a) that in the case mentioned the High Priest may consummate the marriage. This, however, supplies no answer to the question under consideration.
12. Lev. XXI, 13.
13. Deduction may be made from the term ‘wife’.
14. Lit., ‘what do you see’? Why should the deduction be made to permit the marriage of the widow to a High Priest and not that of the minor who became adolescent?
15. The minor who became of age.
16. And she may, therefore, be regarded as a different person.
17. V. Lev. XXI, 14.
18. [H] one over twelve years and six months of age. Cf. supra p. 393, n. 5.
19. [H] lit., ‘struck by wood’, one who lost her hymen as the result of a blow.
20. The expression widow surely does not imply any distinction between the one and the other!
21. Spoken of in connection with a High Priest (Lev. XXI, 14).
22. Gen. XXXVIII, 11.
23. That only one after marriage was meant, as in the case of Tamar.
24. Spoken of in the same context in connection with a High Priest (Lev. XXI, 14).
25. So Yalkut. Cur. edd. reverse the order.
26. Lev. XXI, 13.
27. [H].
28. [H].
29. Which excludes the one who is adolescent, whose virginity has ended.
30. [H], (Lev. XXI, 13).
31. Is she forbidden to a High Priest.
32. The superfluous [H] (= in), in [H] excludes unnatural intercourse, whereby ‘virginity’ is not affected.
33. Which includes the one who is adolescent.
34. Is permitted to be married by a High priest.
35. Even if it was unnatural she is forbidden, unless her virginity remained completely intact. Cf. supra n. 7. As, according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, one who is adolescent is permitted it was necessary to have the Scriptural text to exclude this case. According to R. Meir, however, who excludes one who is adolescent, there is no need any more to exclude this case which is easily inferred a minori ad majus from the former.
36. I.e., a High Priest who is permitted to marry a virgin only.
37. Deut. XXII, 29, referring to a virgin who had been outraged.
38. After her betrothal.
39. If it was he who committed the outrage.
40. If committed by a High Priest.
41. Lit., ‘on account of widow’.
42. With the High Priest himself, who is forbidden to marry an outraged or seduced woman even if he himself had committed the offence.
43. Lit., ‘yes’.
44. To the High Priest.
45. Which proves that unnatural intercourse does not cause a woman to be forbidden to marry a High Priest. How then could Rab state that a woman in such circumstances is forbidden?
Yebamoth 59b
— This1 represents the view of2 R. Meir,3 while Rab holds the same view as R. Eleazar.4 If [Rab holds the same view] as R. Eleazar, what was the object of pointing to her previous carnal intercourse5 when [her prohibition] could have been inferred from the fact that she was a harlot,6 R. Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot!7 — R. Joseph replied:8 When, for instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of ‘previous carnal intercourse’ may be applied but not that of harlot.9 Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld], If she is a be’ulah10 she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot11 she cannot be a be’ulah either! And were you to reply: This case is similar to that of a wounded woman,12 [it may be pointed out] that if [the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also,13 you will find no woman eligible to marry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way wounded14 by a splinter! No, said R. Zera,15 in respect of a minor who made a declaration of refusal.16
R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest.17 Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being,18 though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning,19 is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest.20
When R. Dimi came21 he related: It once happened at Haitalu22 that while a young woman was sweeping the floor23 a village dog24 covered her from the rear,25 and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest. But was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi?26 — Rather, [Samuel meant]: Fit for a High Priest.
Raba of Parzakaia27 said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? — It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog,28 and yet we learned that the hire of a dog29 and the price of a harlot30 are permitted31 because it is said, Even both these,28 two only but not four.
Our Rabbis taught: [A High Priest] shall not marry the woman he himself has outraged or seduced.32 If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid.33 He shall not marry a woman whom another man has outraged or seduced. If he did marry her, the child, said R. Eliezer b. Jacob, is profaned:34 but the Sages said: The child is legitimate.35
‘If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid’. Said R. Huna in the name of Rab: But he must put her aside by a letter of divorce. What, then, [is the explanation] of the statement ‘If, however, he married her, the marriage is valid’? — R. Aha b. Jacob replied: It was meant to imply
1. The Baraitha cited by Raba.
2. Lit., ‘this, according to whom’?
3. Cf. supra p. 395, n. 7.
4. Cf. supra p. 395, n. 10.
5. As a reason for prohibition.
6. Who is forbidden not only to a High Priest but also to a common priest (v. Lev. XXI, 7). Why, then, did Rab refer to a High Priest only?
7. Infra 61b, 76a, Sanh. 51a, Tem. 30a.
8. Rab’s reason of ‘previous carnal intercourse’ was necessary.
9. A term which is not applicable to bestial intercourse. V. infra.
10. [H] one who had experienced carnal intercourse.
11. Presumably because her act cannot be regarded as ‘sexual intercourse’.
12. V. supra p. 394, n. 8. As in her case marriage with a High Priest is forbidden (v. our Mishnah), though she is no harlot, so also in the case of bestial intercourse.
13. I.e., if injury to the anus is to be subject to the same restrictions as injury to the hymen.
14. Cf. supra p. 394, n. 8.
15. Rab’s reason of ‘previous carnal intercourse’ was necessary.
16. Mema’eneth, v. Glos. Unnatural intercourse with her by her husband places the minor in the status of be’ulah (v. Glos.) but not in that of harlot, while her refusal to live with him does not give her the status of divorcee or widow but that of mema’eneth. Hence the necessity for Rab’s statement that such a minor also is forbidden to marry a High Priest.
17. Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either.
18. A beast.
19. If the offence was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.
20. In the absence of witnesses and warning.
21. From Palestine to Babylon.
22. [Babylonian form for Aitalu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v, S. Klein, Beitrage p. 47].
23. Lit., ‘house’.
24. Or ‘big hunting dog’ (Rashi), ‘ferocious dog’ (Jast.), ‘small wild dog’ (Aruk).
25. A case of unnatural intercourse.
26. Judah ha-nasi (the Prince or Patriarch) I, who flourished 170-217 C.E., above a hundred years after the destruction of the second Temple.
27. So Bomberg ed.; MS.M., ‘Parazika’ (cf. Golds.); Cur. edd., ‘Parkin’.
28. Deut. XXIII, 19.
29. The beast which a harlot receives for her intercourse with a dog.
30. A beast received as the price of a harlot who has been sold.
31. To be consecrated to the altar.
32. Cf. Lev. XXI, 14: But a virgin … shall he take, i.e., she must be a virgin at the time he marries her.
33. Lit., ‘he is married’.
34. Halal, v. Glos.
35. He is not subject to any disabilities, religious or civil,
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth
Folio 54a
that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law!1 But when accidental insertion occurred?2 Surely Rabbah stated: One who fell from a roof and his fall resulted in accidental insertion, is liable to pay an indemnity,3 for four things,4 and if the woman was his sister-in-law no kinyan is thereby constituted!5 — It is6 when, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and7 his sister-in-law seized him and he cohabited with her.
How is one to understand, ‘Both under compulsion’, taught at the School of R. Hiyya? — When, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and idolaters seized him,8 brought him and her9 into close contact and he cohabited with her. Whence these words?10 — From what our Rabbis taught: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her11 is a commandment.12 Another interpretation: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will.13 But, surely, deduction has already been made from this text that it14 is a commandment!15 — That it14 is a commandment16 may be inferred from And if the man like not17 which implies that if he likes he contracts the levirate marriage;16 so that the other text11 may serve the purpose of deducing,18 ‘whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will’.19
Another [Baraitha] taught: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her,11 in the natural way; and take her,11 even though in an unnatural way;20 and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto21 her,11 only the cohabitation consummates her marriage, but neither money22 nor deed22 can consummate her marriage; and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her,11 even against her will.23
The Master said:24 ‘Another interpretation: Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her whether in error etc.’ But, surely, deduction has been made from this text11 that it25 must be in the natural way! — This may be deduced from To raise up unto his brother a name,17 [i.e.,] only where a name is raised up;26 so that the other text11 may be employed for the deduction,27 ‘whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will.‘28
[To turn to] the main text. ‘Rab Judah ruled that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law, for Scripture stated, Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her,29 only when the cohabitation was intentional’.30 But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep! — Read: Whether she was awake or asleep. But, surely, it was taught: Whether he was awake or asleep; or whether she was awake or asleep! — This statement refers to one who was in a state of drowsiness. What state of drowsiness is hereby to be understood? R. Ashi replied: When a man is half asleep and half awake31 as, for instance, when he answers on being addressed but is unable to give any sensible reply, and when he is reminded of anything he can recall it.
[To turn to] the main text. Rabbah stated: One who fell from a roof, and his fall resulted in accidental insertion, is liable to pay an indemnity for four things, and if the woman was his sister-in-law no kinyan is thereby constituted. [He must pay her for] bodily injury, for pain inflicted, for enforced unemployment, and for medical expenses; but he is not liable to indemnify her for indignity, for a Master said, ‘One is not liable to pay any indemnity for indignity unless it was intentionally caused’.32
Raba said: If a levir’s intention was to shoot33 against a wall and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, no kinyan is thereby constituted;34 if he intended, however, to shoot at a beast and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, kinyan is thereby constituted, since some sort of intercourse had been intended.
WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST … STAGE. ‘Ulla stated: Whence is it proved that the first stage of contact is pentateuchally forbidden?35 — It is said, And if a man shall lie with a menstruant woman,36 and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath made naked her fountain37 it is deduced from this text that the first stage of contact38 is pentateuchally forbidden. Thus the case of a menstruant has been arrived at; whence that of other forbidden unions?39 And were you to suggest that [their case] might be inferred from that of the menstruant, [it might be retorted] the menstruant is different since she causes the defilement of the man who cohabited with her.40 — Rather the deduction39 is made from ‘a brother’s wife’ concerning whom it is written, And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, she is a menstruant.41 Now is a brother’s wife always menstruant?42 But [the meaning is] ‘like a menstruant as with a menstruant the first stage constitutes the offence, so does the first stage constitute an offence with a brother’s wife. But a brother’s wife [it may be objected] is different since it is in his43 power to increase the number, for should he wish, he could go on betrothing as many as a thousand!44 — The deduction45 is rather made from the ‘father’s sister’ and ‘the mother’s sister’. For it is written in Scriptures And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister, for he hath made naked his near kin.46 But it may be objected that a father’s sister and a mother’s sister come under a different category, since the prohibition in their case is natural.47 — If it45 cannot be deduced from one category48 then let it49 be deduced from the two categories.50 From which51 however shall deduction be made? Were it made from a brother’s wife52 and a father’s sister53 and a mother’s sister,53 [it might be objected that] those stand in a different category, since the prohibition of these is due to relationship!54 — Deduction is rather made55 from the menstruant56 and a father’s sister and a mother’s sister. Those however [it may be objected] are in a different category since the prohibition is natural!57 — The deduction55 is rather made from the menstruant and a brother’s wife; since no58 objection can be raised [against the two].59
R. Aha son of R. Ika demurred: A menstruant and a brother’s wife are different,60 since marriage with them cannot be permitted during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition! Would you, then, apply [their restrictions] to a married woman who might be permitted to marry even during the lifetime of the man who caused her prohibition?61
Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Are a menstruant and a brother’s wife forbidden to marry only during the lifetime of the man who caused their prohibition but permitted after that?62 With a menstruant, surely,
1. An unconscious act having no legal validity.
2. When in a state of erection the levir fell from a raised bench upon his sister-in-law who happened to be below (v. Rashi).
3. To the woman with whom the accidental contact had taken place.
4. Bodily injury, pain, medical expenses and unemployment during illness. The damages or indemnity must be paid even if the injury was inflicted accidentally or under compulsion (v. B.K. 85b). An indemnity for the indignity caused by the injury is payable only when the act was wilful. V. infra.
5. By the accidental contact. She does not thereby become his lawful wife.
6. Intercourse under compulsion is possible.
7. While he was in the state of erection.
8. While he was in the state of erection.
9. His sister-in-law’.
10. The statement in the first clause of our Mishnah.
11. Deut. XXV, 5.
12. Halizah is a substitute only, and preference must always be given to levirate marriage.
13. Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid.
14. The levirate marriage. v. supra note 5.
15. How then may a second deduction be made from the same text?
16. V. supra note 5.
17. Deut. XXV, 7.
18. Lit., ‘comes’.
19. Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid.
20. Whatever the nature of the intercourse the sister-in-law is thereby acquired by the levir as his lawful wife.
21. v. Emden, a.l. and cf. M.T.
22. Whereby kinyan of betrothal is usually executed.
23. V. Kid. 14a.
24. So BaH a.l. Cur. edd. omit.
25. The cohabitation.
26. From unnatural intercourse there is no issue and no name, of course, can be raised.
27. Lit., ‘comes’.
28. Whatever the circumstances the kinyan is valid.
29. Deut. XXV, 5.
30. Emphasis on ‘shall go in’.
31. Lit., ‘asleep and not asleep, awake and not awake’.
32. Which was not the case here.
33. A euphemism.
34. The act of the intercourse having been accidental and unintentional.
35. In the case of forbidden unions.
36. [H], rendered by E.V. ibid., having her sickness.
37. Lev. XX, 18.
38. [H] (first stage) is of the same rt. as [H] he hath made naked (ibid.).
39. That with the other relatives also, or with any woman one is forbidden to marry, the first stage constitutes the offence.
40. He, like herself, remains levitically unclean for seven days (v. Lev. XV, 24). As the restrictions of the menstruant are more rigid in respect of the defilement of the man they may also be more rigid in respect of the first stage of contact. What proofs however, is this that prohibition of the first stage of contact extends to other forbidden unions?
41. Lev. XX, 21. [H] E.V., it is impurity.
42. Surely not. Why then was she so described?
43. The brother’s.
44. The number of relatives forbidden through marriage may be indefinitely increased. Hence only such relatives (e.g., a father’s wife, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law) may be inferred from a brother’s wife who also is a relative forbidden through marriage. What proof, however, does this provide that restrictions applicable to these are also applicable to relatives forbidden from birth (e.g, a mother, sister, daughter) whose number it is not in one’s power to increase?
45. v. supra note 3.
46. Lev. XX, 19.
47. I.e., they are relatives forbidden from birth. What proof, however, does this supply in the case of relatives by marriage? (Cf. supra p. 359, n. 8).
48. Either from that of relatives from birth or from that of relatives by marriage.
49. Cur. edd. insert in square brackets ‘one’.
50. Any objection that might be raised against the one could not possibly apply to the other. (Cf. p. 359, nn. 8 and 11).
51. Particular case or cases in the categories mentioned.
52. A relative by marriage.
53. A relative from birth.
54. No proof would consequently be available that the same restriction is applicable to intercourse, for instance, with any married woman who is neither a relative from birth nor by marriage.
55. V. supra p. 359, n. 3.
56. Who may be a stranger.
57. It is not due to any human act.
58. Lit., ‘for what’.
59. A brother’s wife is a relative forbidden through marriage and consequently the second objection (v. supra p. 359. n. 1) cannot be advanced; while the first objection (v. supra p. 359, n. 8) and the third objection (v. supra n. 7) cannot be raised in view of the law of the menstruant.
60. From the other women one is forbidden to marry.
61. I.e., her husband, if he divorced her.
62. When the man died.
As for Yeshua in the Tanach, there are two simple explanations. One is that a couple of thousand years ago, Yeshua was a very common name, along with a few other minor variants of Yehoshua (Joshua). The Bethlehem phone book for the year Zero alone lists 43 people named Yeshua, the Nazareth book lists 37, and the Jerusalem book over 300!
More to the point, Yeshua was not a proper name in the days of the Tanach events. The messianic article is strained and childish. Do you really think someone like that knows more than the Pharisees of the day? Most people that attend messianic Jewish synagogues are not Jews, only people who think they can find greater authenticity by praying with Jews. Many of the most idealistic of these go on to convert to Orthodox Judaism. The messianic Jewish effort has backfired and sizzled.
Harry Wood
The Jewish Tanach was a closed and private communication of the Jews, until the king of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus forced the Jews to translate it into Greek so he could put it into the library at Alexandria. Egypr had spoken Greek since the days of Alexander the Great, and of course the clumsy blundering Romans later burned down the library.
However, it is still forbidden to teach non-Jews the Oral Law, as they lack a certain je ne sais quois to penetrate the meaning of it. So it is unlikely that I could put the meaning across. Ask these questions in a sincere and humble manner to your LOR (local Orthoxo rabbi).
Did not Jesus himself say:
“Jesus then left Galilee and went north to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Gentile woman who lived there came to him, pleading, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! For my daughter has a demon in her, and it is severely tormenting her.” But Jesus gave her no reply—not even a word. Then his disciples urged him to send her away. “Tell her to leave,” they said. “She is bothering us with all her begging.” Then he said to the woman, “I was sent only to help the people of Israel—God’s lost sheep—not the Gentiles.” But she came and worshiped him and pleaded again, “Lord, help me!” “It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs,” he said. “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even dogs are permitted to eat crumbs that fall beneath their master’s table.” “Woman,” Jesus said to her, “your faith is great. Your request is granted.” And her daughter was instantly healed.”
Now whgy would Jesus say that? Was he a bigot? Maybe.
Dear Mr Plonie,
It is possible that you are not aware of the use of PARABOLIC language in the NEW COVENANT. But I would also point out a few things to you:
1. The women knew He was a son of David.
2. He was sent to the LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL.
3. The woman WORSHIPED Him.
4. She recognized that her situation.
5. He recognized that she had GREAT faith.
6. He miraculously healed her daughter.
In TORAH we read about what the Israelites did after PASSOVER. Here it is CLEAR that Yahweh wanted to make another CHOSEN PEOPLE & WIPE OUT the people He brought out of Egypt. They were offering HUMAN SACRIFICES in the wilderness to DEMONS. In Talmud we read:
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
Folio 64a
‘Be silent, for one must not make mention of the name of the Lord.‘1 [He said this] because his father and mother had not taught him [to serve the Lord], and straightway he brought forth an idol from his bosom, embracing and kissing it, until his stomach burst, his idol fell to the earth, and he upon it, thus fulfilling the verse, And I shall cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols.2 — That too was after they became addicted thereto.
Come and hear: And they cried with a loud voice unto the Lord their God.3 Now what did they say? — Rab Judah, or as others maintain R. Jonathan said: [They cried this:] ‘Woe, woe, it is that [sc. idolatry] which destroyed the Sanctuary, burnt the Temple, slew the righteous, and exiled Israel from their land; and still it sports amongst us! Hast Thou not set it before us that we might be rewarded [for withstanding its allurements]? But we desire neither temptation nor reward!‘4 — That too was after they were seduced by it. [Continuing Rab Judah’s statement:] They fasted for three days, entreating for mercy; thereafter their sentence fell from Heaven, the word emeth [truth] written upon it. (R. Hanina said: This proves that the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is emeth.) The shape of a fiery lion’s whelp issued from the Holy of Holies, and the Prophet said to Israel, That is the Tempter of Idolatry. Whilst they held it fast, a hair [of its body] fell out, and his roar of pain was heard for 400 parasangs.5 [In perplexity] they cried: ‘What shall we do? Maybe Heaven will pity him !’ The prophet answered: Cast him into a lead cauldron, and cover it with lead to absorb his voice, as it is written, And he said, This is wickedness; and he cast it into the midst of the ephah: and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.6 Then they said, ‘Since the time is propitious, let us pray that the Tempter of Sin [may likewise be delivered into our hands].’ So they prayed and it was delivered into their hands. They imprisoned it for three days; after that they sought a new laid egg for an invalid in the whole of Palestine and could not find one.7 Then they said, ‘What shall we do? Shall we pray that his power be but partially destroyed?8 Heaven will not grant it.’ So they blinded it with rouge. This was so far effective that one does not lust for his forbidden relations.
Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: A gentile woman once fell sick. She vowed, ‘If I recover, I will go and serve every idol in the world.’ She recovered, and proceeded to serve all idols. On reaching Peor, she asked its priests, ‘How is this worshipped’? They replied, ‘People eat beets, drink strong drink, and then uncover themselves before it.’ She replied, ‘I would rather fall sick again than serve an idol in such a manner.’ But ye, O House of Israel,9 were not so [as it is written, Slay ye every one his men] that were joined unto Baal Peor:10 ye were attached to it like an air-tight lid.11 Whereas, Whilst ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God,12 implies merely like two dates sticking to each other.13 In a Baraitha it has been taught: that were joined unto Baal Peor: [loosely] like a bracelet on the hands of a woman;14 whereas Whilst ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God indicates that they were firmly attached.15
Our Rabbis taught: Sabta, a townsman of Avlas,16 once hired an ass to a gentile woman. When she came to Peor, she said to him, ‘Wait till I enter and come out again.’ On her issuing, he said to her, ‘Now do you wait for me too until I go in and come out again.’
‘But,’ said she, ‘are you not a Jew?’ He replied, ‘What does it concern thee?’ He then entered, uncovered himself before it, and wiped himself on the idol’s nose, whilst the acolytes praised him, saying, ‘No man has ever served this idol thus.’
He that uncovers himself before Baal Peor thereby serves it, even if his intention was to degrade it. He who casts a stone at Merculis thereby serves it, even if his intention was to bruise it.
R. Manasseh was going to Be Toratha.17 On the way he was told, ‘An idol stands here.’ He took up a stone and threw it at the idol’s statue. Thereupon they said to him: ‘It is Merculis’. He said to them, ‘But we have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE FOR MERCULIS18 THEREBY SERVES IT.’ So he went and inquired at the Beth Hamidrash [whether he had done wrong, since his action was a gesture of contempt]. They informed him, We have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE AT MERCULIS19 [thereby serves it] — that is to say even if it is merely to bruise it. He said to them, ‘Then I will go and remove it.’ But they replied, ‘Whether one casts a stone or removes it, he incurs guilt, because every stone thus removed leaves room for another.’
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
GEMARA. The Mishnah20 teaches idolatry and giving to Molech.21 R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.
Abaye said: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and R. Hanina b. Antigonus said the one and same thing. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, that which has just been stated. R. Hanina b. Antigonus — as it has been taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.22 Rabina23 said: The difference between them is in respect of a temporary Molech.24
1. Amos VI, 10.
2. Now this too shows that the child had really been taught to believe in it.
3. Nehem. IX, 4. This was on the fast-day held by the newly established community in Palestine.
4. This also proves that it had a strong hold upon them.
5. A parasang is 8000 cubits.
6. Zech. V. 8.
7. Through the imprisonment of the Tempter sexual lust was dormant throughout creation.
8. Lit.. ‘half and half’. That it may arouse only legitimate sexual desire.
9. This is Rab’s comment.
10. Num. XXV, 5.
11. This connects the Heb. [H] hanizmadim, who cleaved, with zamid [H], an exactly fitting lid.
12. Deut. IV, 4.
13. [H], dabak, used in this verse, does not imply so strong an attachment as zamad; thus they clung more fervently to Peor than to the Lord.
14. Deriving hanizmadim from zamid, a bracelet.
15. This reverses Rab’s interpretation.
16. In Cilicia, mentioned as one of the northern border places of the Land of Israel; Targum Jerus. Num. XXIV, 8; Targum Jonathan b. Uzziel a. I. (Jast.).
17. A town in Babylonia, on the road to Pumbaditha, ‘A.Z. 26a. It may perhaps be identified with Bithra, on the south of the royal canal, on the Seleucian road (A. Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, p. 363).
18. [H] i.e., as act of worship.
19. [He was told that the reading in the Mishnah is [H] AT MERCULIS, implying even as a gesture of contempt.]
20. On 53a.
21. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
22. Molech is connected with the idea of kingship. This shews that he too regards any fetish as a Molech.
23. In his view they did not say the one and the same thing.
24. I.e., anything which was only temporarily worshipped as Molech, such as a pebble which would obviously not be a permanent idol.] According to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, he is executed even then. But R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the law applies only to a permanent idol worshipped as Molech.
Sanhedrin 64b
R. Jannai said: Punishment is not incurred unless one delivers his seed to the acolytes of Molech,1 for it is said, And thou shalt not give of thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech.2 It has been taught likewise: I might think, that if one caused his seed to pass through the fire to Molech, without first delivering it to the priests, he is liable: therefore the Writ teaches, Thou shalt not give. If he gave it to the priests, but did not cause it to pass through the fire, I might think that he is liable: therefore the Writ states, to pass through. If one delivered it [to the priests of Molech], but caused it to pass through to some other deity, I might think that he is punished: therefore the Writ teaches, to Molech. Now, if he delivered it to the priests and caused it to pass to Molech, but not through the fire, I might think that he is liable: but, as here is written, to pass through; and elsewhere it is stated, There shall not he found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire:3 just as there, the reference is to fire, so here too; and just as here the reference is to Molech, so there too.
R. Aha the son of Raba said: If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to Molech, he is exempt from punishment, because it is written, of thy seed implying, but not all thy seed.4
R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through,5 or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech.6 Why is this stated?7 — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire.8 From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]9
Now the Tanna commences with the verse, ‘because he hath given of his seed’, but concludes with ‘when he giveth of his seed’? — This is to intimate another deduction.10 Thus: [because he hath given] of his seed: From this I know only that the law applies to legitimate seed [that being the normal meaning of the word]; whence do I know that it also applies to illegitimate seed?11 — From the verse, when he giveth of his seed.12
Rab Judah said: He is only liable to punishment if he causes his seed to pass through in the normal way. How is that? — Abaye said: There was a loose pile of bricks in the middle, and fire on either side of it.13 Raba said: It was like the children’s leaping about on Purim.14 It has been taught in support of Raba. Punishment is incurred only for causing one’s seed to pass in the normal fashion; if he caused him to pass through on foot, he is exempt.15 He is liable only for his own issue; e.g., for his son and daughter, he is punished; but for his father or mother, brother or sister, he is not. If he passed through himself, he is free from punishment.16 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled that he is liable. Further, whether to Molech or to any other idol, he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.
Ulla said: What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon’s reason? — Scripture saith, There shall not be found among thee …17 ‘among thee’ means in thyself.18 And the Rabbis? Do they not interpret ‘among thee’ thus? Surely we have learnt: If one must search for a lost article of his own and of his father’s, priority is given to his own. And we observed thereon: Why so? — To which Rab Judah replied: Scripture saith, Save that there shall be no poor among thee,19 teaching that one’s own loss has priority over that of any other man?20 There the deduction follows from ‘save that’.21
R. Jose, son of R. Hanina said: Why is extinction thrice threatened for idolatry?22 — One teaches extinction for the normal worship of idols; one for abnormal; and one for the service of Molech.23 But on the view that Molech worship is included in general idolatry, why is extinction mentioned in its case? — To apply to one who causes his son to pass through to an idol [not Molech], where such is not the normal mode of worship. Now, on the view that a megaddef24 is a worshipper of idols,22 why is extinction stated for it?25 — Even as it has been taught:26 That soul shall surely be cut off from among his people;27 he shall be cut off in this world and in the next: this is R. Akiba’s view.28 R. Ishmael said: But the verse has previously stated ‘that soul shall be cut off’:29 are there then three worlds?30 But [interpret this:] ‘and [that soul] shall be cut off’ — in this world: ‘he is to he cut off’ — [of the following verse, and denoted by the infinitive]31 in the next; whilst as for the repetition [the finite form of the verb],32 that is because the Torah employs human phraseology.33
1. He explains this to be the meaning of the Mishnah UNLESS HE GIVES IT TO MOLECH.
2. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (i) formal delivery to the priests, and (ii) causing the seed to pass through the fire.
3. Deut. XVIII, 10.
4. Probably because this would not be accounted a normal mode of Molech worship: cp. pp. 438, 440.
5. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
6. Lev. XX, 2f.
7. Since the passage commences by explicitly referring to this offence, why is it repeated?
8. Deut. XVIII, 10.
9. Lev. XX, 4. Hence the law applies also to grandsons.
10. I.e., from the first verse, because etc. we learn that the law applies to one’s grandsons too; when he giveth is stated in order that another law may be deduced.
11. Not in the modern sense, but seed from a woman forbidden to him.
12. This is superfluous, since it has already been stated twice in that passage that the reference is to this effect. Hence it indicates the application of the law to illegitimate seed.
13. The victim walked along that pile to Molech, but was not burnt. The statement that Hezekiah was smeared with the blood of the salamander to render him fireproof (63b), shewing that the victim was actually burnt, does not refer to Molech, but to the divinities of Sepharvaim (Rashi).
14. Probably referring to a game played on Purim when children jump over a fire lit in a pit. According to this, a pit was dug and a fire lit therein, and the victim leaped over it (So Rashi). Jast. translates: ‘like the stirrup (a ring suspended from a frame) thrust over a bonfire on Purim;’ cp. Aruch.
15. This proves that the victim did not walk, but leaped to it.
16. This too proves that the victim was not burnt in passing through the fire to Molech.
17. Deut. XVIII, 10.
18. Hence his view that one is liable if he passes through himself.
19. Deut. XV, 4.
20. The questioner understood this to be deduced from ‘among thee’ — in thyself. Since this is not taught in the name of any particular Tanna, it should agree with the Rabbis too.
21. Heb. [H], implying an admonition to avoid any action which may lead to poverty. Naturally, this is not to be interpreted as permitting dishonesty, but merely insists that poverty must not be courted.
22. Twice in Lev. XX, 2-5: Whosoever be he … that giveth of his seeds to Molech … I will cut him off from among his people … And if the people of the land … kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man … and will cut him off. Once in Num. XV, 30f. But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously … the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord. This refers to idolatry.
23. Which is not included in general idolatry, as stated above.
24. In Num. XV, 30, the Heb. for ‘he reproacheth’ is megaddef.
25. The meaning of megaddef is disputed in Ker. 7b. By a ‘worshipper of idols’ is meant, e.g., one who sings hymns in a heathen Temple.
26. Since, being a normal part of idolatry, it is understood.
27. Num. XV, 31. Continuing the verses quoted in note 3. In the Heb, as usual, this emphasis is denoted by the repetition of the verb, [H]
28. He interprets the doubling of the verb as referring to two worlds.
29. Ibid. 30.
30. Rashi explains that this question is not put to R. Akiba, because he interprets megaddef in that previous verse as referring to blasphemy, not idolatry. But this question is rhetorically stated by R. Ishmael on his own assumption that megaddef means an idol worshipper.
31. [H]
32. [H]
33. In ordinary human speech, such repetition is quite common.
Now you know why it is written in Exodus:
EX 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
EX 32:2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
EX 32:3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
EX 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
EX 32:5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
EX 32:6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
EX 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
EX 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
EX 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Was Yahweh ANTISEMITIC? He told Moses He wanted to make a GREATER NATION than Israel, but Moses pleaded with Him not to.
NUM 14:11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have showed among them?
NUM 14:12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.
NUM 14:13 And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;)
NUM 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
NUM 14:15 Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying,
NUM 14:16 Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.
NUM 14:17 And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying,
NUM 14:18 The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
NUM 14:19 Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.
NUM 14:20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:
NUM 14:21 But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.
NUM 14:22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;
NUM 14:23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:
NUM 14:24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.
NUM 14:25 (Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwelt in the valley.) Tomorrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.
NUM 14:26 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
NUM 14:27 How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.
NUM 14:28 Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
NUM 14:29 Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me.
NUM 14:30 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
NUM 14:31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
NUM 14:32 But as for you, your carcasses, they shall fall in this wilderness.
NUM 14:33 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness.
NUM 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
NUM 14:35 I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.
NUM 14:36 And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
NUM 14:37 Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.
NUM 14:38 But Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, which were of the men that went to search the land, lived still.
NUM 14:39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly.
NUM 14:40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned.
NUM 14:41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper.
NUM 14:42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies.
NUM 14:43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you.
NUM 14:44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp.
NUM 14:45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.
Now in 2009 the very same thing is going to happen to the Israelis.
Dear Mr Plonie,
You don’t need a rabbi to explain these talmudic passages. They are self explanatory & they are pure FILTH.
What is the Talmud?
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? - Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilty (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be beastally abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”
(footnotes)
“(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor; i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.
(2) Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(4) Lev XVIII, 22
(5) Rashi reads (“xxx”) (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of (“zzz”) (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day, who commits etc. There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first-a male aged nine years and a day - refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning: because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab’s contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.”
In that official statement made by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer on behalf of The American Jewish Committee, informed the 20,000,000 readers of “Look’ magazine that the Talmud is “THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS”. Please bear this in mind as you read further.
Confirming the official view of Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, the New York ‘Times’ on May 20, 1954 ran a news item under the headline “Rabbis Plan a Fund to Endow Two Chairs”. The news item itself ran as follows:
“Special to the New York Times, Uniontown, Pa. May 19 - Plans for raising $500,000, for the creation of two endowed chairs at the ‘Jewish Theological Seminary of America’ were announced today at the fifty-forth annual convention of the ‘Rabbinical Assembly of America’. THE PROFESSORSHIPS WOULD BE KNOWN AS THE LOUIS GINSBERG CHAIR IN TALMUD…”
The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:
With the conclusion of the first volume of this work at the beginning of the twentieth century, we would invite the reader to take a glance over the past of the Talmud, in which he will see… that not only was the Talmud not destroyed, but was so saved that NOT A SINGLE LETTER OF IT IS MISSING; and now IT IS FLOURISHING TO SUCH A DEGREE AS CANNOT BE FOUND IN ITS PAST HISTORY…THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH… The colleges for the study of the Talmud are increasing almost in every place where Israel dwells, especially in this country where millions are gathered for the funds of the two colleges, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in which the chief study is the Talmud… There are also in our city houses of learning (Jeshibath) for the study of the Talmud in the lower East Side, where many young men are studying the Talmud every day.”
SANHEDRIN, 55b: “A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea).”
(footnotes)
“(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving.
(3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
(4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction ‘to his wife but not to his neighbor’s wife’ is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse.”
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69a ” ‘A man’; from this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse, And ‘if a man’? (2)-He replied: Such a minor can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3).”
(footnotes)
(2) ‘And’ (’) indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day.
(3) Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow.”
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declare her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.
(footnotes)
(1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev XXL,7.).
(2) so that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not.”
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 5b. “The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18).
(footnotes)
“(15) Lit., ‘how is it’?
(16) When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf)
(17) And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no would having been made.
(18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden.”
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 10a-10b. “Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, ‘my master I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood (7). She (the wife) to him, ‘My master, I am still a virgin’. He (then) said to them; Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of ) the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on the cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined her from the beginning (8).”
(footnotes)
“(1) i.e., the smell of wine.
(2) One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi).
(3) One could not smell the wine from the mouth.
(4) i.e., the smell of wine.
(5) Rabban Gamaliel
(6) To the husband.
(7) The test showed that the wife was a virgin.
(8) Why did he first have to experiment with the two handmaids.”
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as ‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’”.
(footnotes)
“(5). Lit., ‘says’.
(6) Lit., ‘here’, that is, less than three years old.
(7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
(footnotes)
“(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
(Book)
HAYORATH, 4a. “We learnt: (THE LAW CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT A WAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain. But, surely it is written, (1)- They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5) has reference to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah (7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8).”
(footnotes)
“(13) Lev. XV, 28.
(14) Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt?
(15) Lev XX, 18.
(1) Ibid. 13. The plural “xxxx” (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and unnatural intercourse.
(2) Why then was the case of ‘a woman who awaits a day
corresponding to a day’ given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustration. (3) The first stage of contact.
(4) In the case of one ‘who awaits a day corresponding to a day’; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case. (5) Cf. Lev XX, 18.
(6) Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit.
(7) A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev XV, 25ff).
(8) Lev XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days.”
(Book)
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. “R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it…From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.
(footnotes)
(2). Even through he suffered from no issue.
(Book)
SOTAH, 26b. “R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) - the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?”
(footnotes)
“(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.
(5) farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name.
(6) Deut. XXIII, 19.
(7) Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery.
(8) If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.
(9) Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid).
(10) Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi.
(11) In Num. V. 13. since the law applies to a man who is incapable.
(12) Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for ‘lying’ is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse.
(13) With the other man, although there is no actual coition.”
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 55b. “Raba said; for what purpose did the All- Merciful write ‘carnally’ in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a married woman (10< and a sotah (11)? That in connection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12). That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13). This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated (14); what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is) guilty? The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman (15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for (intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are taught (that one is exonerated).
(footnotes)
(9) Lev. XIX,20.
(10) Ibid. XVIII,20
(11) Num. V, 13.
(12) SUPRA 55a.
(13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur.
(14) Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a
(15) Even though she dies as a married woman.
(16) In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one’s wife.”
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 103a-103b. “When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to an end, the lust of idolators who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.”
(footnotes)
“(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition.
(15) i.e., the human species.
(16) And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation.”
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 63a. “R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
(footnotes)
“(5) Gen. II, 23. emphasis on This is now.” (emphasis appears in original soncina Edition, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 60b. “As R. Joshua b. Levi related: ‘There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Ramanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day (14), and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest (15).”
(footnotes)
“(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
(14) And was married to a priest.
(15) i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband.”
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. “R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest (4). Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being (5), though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning (6), is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest (7).
(footnotes)
“(4) Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either.
(5) A beast.
(6) If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.
(7) In the absence of witnesses and warning.”
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 12b “R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (categories of) woman may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor (10) because (otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might die…And what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
(footnotes)
“(7) (so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v.Tosaf s.v.)
(8) Hackled wool or flax
(9) To prevent conception
(10) May use an absorbent.
(11) Lit., ‘perhaps’.
(14) Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death.
(15) When no conception is possible.
(16) When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences.”
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. “When R. Dimi came (8) he related: It once happened at Haitalu (9) that while a young woman was sweeping the floor (10) a village dog (11) covered her from the rear (12) and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.
(footnotes)
“(8) From Palestine to Babylon
(9) (Babylonian form for Aitulu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S. Klein, Beitrage, p. 47).
(10) Lit., ‘house’.
(11) Or ‘big hunting dog’ (Rashi), ‘ferocious dog’ (Jast.), ‘small wild dog’ (Aruk).
(12) A case of unnatural intercourse.
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 6b. “Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside. (7), but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) ‘anxious.? (10)- for one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled is forbidden? -Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye’ If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12) why (have) a sheet? (13)- He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).
(footnotes)
“(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without causing a bleeding.
(8) Thus no blood need come out, and ‘Let his head be cut off and let him not die!’ does not apply.
(9) If the bridegroom is skilled in ‘moving sideways’.
(10) He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema’ on account of such anxiety.
(11) Therefor the principle regarding ‘Let his head be cut off and let him not die!’ does not, as a rule, apply.
(12) The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding, the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity.
(13) To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut. XXII,17.
(14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi).
Harry Wood
I know where you are getting those passages. Assuming for the sake of argument that your pasted translations are authentic (which I don’t), then all I can say is that your goyische head cannot comprehend the principles elucidated in context. There is also the fact that you are looking at a glimpse of a culture of 2000 years ago, which is not necessarily inferior to the current one. A third factor is that you are not a scholar capable of apprehending what that means even in secular terms but some idiot as amply proven in your prior postings.
The main thing is that the Jews are the most advanced civilization on the planet in all of time, and you are not. Prove otherwise if you think you can. Let’s not play around with the Talmud which you and your fellow weak-minded bums are incapable of discussing. Let’s talk here and now. The proof is in the pudding. We are the best. You are scum.
Whoops. Forgot about the PARABOLIC LANGUAGE. Nobody but an idiot thinks that passge is cool. It means you can be an asshole but somebody will make excuses for you. It means the great and holy divine loving one can act like a jerk. Why the hell would a Syrian-Phonecian woman worship some Gallilean kook? You have to understand; a few gullible illiterate rubes out of millions followed this guy around. These are not trustworthy sources. This woman was probably some superstitious and impressionable simpleton.
There is not one opinion or statement by anyone anywhere that the Jews in the wilderness worshipped Molech. And you still cannot account for the fact that the Jewish people are the most successful and advanced of any other nation in spite of your best efforts to impede us.
Dear Mr Plonie,
Your vitriolic language becomes you, an ignorant bum. See Amos 5:23-27 for your forefathers worship of Moloch of Moloch in the Wilderness. Also reread Numbers chapter 14. Now read who was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust. hows that for an advanced civilization? The quotes from Talmud are from the Soncino Edition, which I have.
THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST
“Spiritually and Physically Responsible “
From its’ inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.
We were given the Holy Land by G-d in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, “Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu” - “Because of our sins we were expelled from our land”.
We have been forsworn by G-d “not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time”, “not to rebel against the nations”, to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; “not to leave exile ahead of time.” On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. To violate the oaths would result in “your flesh will be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest,” and the redemption will be delayed.
(Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).
To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.
All of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish Law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs.
It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who “decided” that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish “nation”. In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce “amendment” or “innovation” without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to “modernize” ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses who received the Torah from Almighty G-d Himself. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up.
It was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism. This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism “the work of Satan”, “a sacrilege” and “a blasphemy”. He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d.
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER’S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.
But it doesn’t end there. It wasn’t enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called “leaders” were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the “statesmen” who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist “statesmen” forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back.
“No Shame”
President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews.
[Source]
On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that “Palestine cannot be flooded with… old people or with undesirables.”
[Source]
It is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.
The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.
The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a “Jewish State” at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid
This response to the Gestapo’s offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.
These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!
In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).
The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The “Jewish Agency” leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.
On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endagered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.‘s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was ommitted.
[Source]
On Feb. 16, 1943 Roumania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers.
Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said, “when they asked me, “couldn’t you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!...one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance.”
On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified.
In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committeeof Congress objected to this proposal.
[Source]
During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first “Jewish statesman” stated: “The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important”. Weizman’s cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”.
And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist “statesmen” lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.
In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership.
[Source]
These facts are read with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed “Jewish leaders” did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?
On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons “would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees”. He replied “the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel….does not wish us to do so”.
[Source]
In 1972, the Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States.
Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities.
[Source]
The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.
There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as “Jewish statesmen”, we could list many more example, but for the time being let anyone produce a valid excuse for the above facts.
Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.
1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).
2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.
3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.
Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler
It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, “Tel Aviv”, while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a “metaphysical absurdity”. Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler’s Third Reich.
In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”, better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist “National Military Organization” (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group’s attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.
This remarkable proposal “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany” is worth quoting at some length:
“The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that:
1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry.
3. The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.
“On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.
“This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the “Jewish” men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.
“The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.
“The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England”.
(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58.
Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).
On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.
This is just one example of the Zionist movements’ collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.
And to top it all up, brainwashing!
How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: “Traitor,” “Enemy of the Jewish People.”
Source for paragraphs marked “[Source]”:
The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976
Shalom Benny,
Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”
Mark Twain
Shalom Benny,
Regarding your comments about Yeshua, I would like you to answer this question: Is the God of Israel a JERK?
“Whoops. Forgot about the PARABOLIC LANGUAGE. Nobody but an idiot thinks that passge is cool. It means you can be an asshole but somebody will make excuses for you. It means the great and holy divine loving one can act like a jerk. Why the hell would a Syrian-Phonecian woman worship some Gallilean kook? You have to understand; a few gullible illiterate rubes out of millions followed this guy around. These are not trustworthy sources. This woman was probably some superstitious and impressionable simpleton.
There is not one opinion or statement by anyone anywhere that the Jews in the wilderness worshipped Molech. And you still cannot account for the fact that the Jewish people are the most successful and advanced of any other nation in spite of your best efforts to impede us”.
Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/09/09 at 8:59 pm
EX 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
EX 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
EX 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
EX 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
Is the God of Israel acting like a JERK here?
NUM 14:21 But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.
NUM 14:22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;
NUM 14:23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:
NUM 14:24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.
NUM 14:25 (Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwelt in the valley.) Tomorrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.
NUM 14:26 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
NUM 14:27 How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.
NUM 14:28 Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
NUM 14:29 Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me.
NUM 14:30 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
NUM 14:31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
NUM 14:32 But as for you, your carcasses, they shall fall in this wilderness.
NUM 14:33 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness.
NUM 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
NUM 14:35 I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.
And what about here, Benny. Was the God of Israel acting like a JERK?
Shalom Benny,
Benny, the Jew that doesn’t know TORAH/TANACH & makes stupid, ignorant statements like this one:
“There is not one opinion or statement by anyone anywhere that the Jews in the wilderness worshipped Molech. And you still cannot account for the fact that the Jewish people are the most successful and advanced of any other nation in spite of your best efforts to impede us”.
Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/09/09 at 8:59 pm
AMOS 5:16 Therefore the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD, saith thus; Wailing shall be in all streets; and they shall say in all the highways, Alas! alas! and they shall call the husbandman to mourning, and such as are skilful of lamentation to wailing.
AMOS 5:17 And in all vineyards shall be wailing: for I will pass through thee, saith the LORD.
AMOS 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
AMOS 5:19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.
AMOS 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
AMOS 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
AMOS 5:22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
AMOS 5:23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
AMOS 5:24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
AMOS 5:25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?
AMOS 5:26 BUT YE HAVE BORNE THE TABERNACLE OF YOUR MOLOCH & CHIUN YOUR IMAGES, THE STAR OF YOUR GOD, WHICH YE MADE TO YOURSELVES.
AMOS 5:27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.
Dear Mr Plonie,
More information on your Jewish Moloch HUMAN SACRIFICES:
The Moloch Prohibition
Let us now look at two passages from the Old Testament concerning child sacrifice to the idol Moloch (or “Molech”). In the following passages, the words “seed” and “children” are synonymous. First, from Leviticus 18:
King James Version
21. And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 18:21 (KJV)
English Standard Version
21. You shall not give any of your children to offer them (1) to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 18:21 (ESV)
An ESV footnote gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase: “1. Hebrew to make them pass through [the fire].” Now let’s look at Second Kings 23:
King James Version
10. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
2 Kings 23:10 (KJV)
English Standard Version
10. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech. (1)
2 Kings 23:10 (ESV)
An ESV footnote gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase: “Hebrew might cause his son or daughter to pass through the fire for Molech.”
Now let’s look at the relevant cite from the Babylonian Talmud.
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:
3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:
5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)
5. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)
Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages concerning:
* the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,
* which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,
* which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and
* how children may be sacrificed without violating Leviticus.
The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death.
The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably “place of abomination”), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected “a temple” for Moloch “on the hill over against Jerusalem”, and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel.
The custom of causing one’s children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezekiel. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of