While the results have been drowned in "Jewish" spin, all polls over the past few years are clear, consistent and agree. There are many people today who identify themselves as Jewish. Many of these also identify themselves as a Jew. Orthodox rabbinic Halakhah defines a Jew as one who is either born of a Jewish mother or has converted under Orthodox auspices and, in either case, hasn't converted to another religion.

Non-Orthodox definitions include those born of a Jewish father and, beyond that, anyone who identifies himself or herself as a Jew. This definition includes not only Christian Jews but even gentile Christians who take their "spiritual Jewishness" seriously.

Those who accept non-Orthodox, extra-Biblical definitions aren't concerned about extinction because there are millions who satisfy these invalid definitions of a Jew. Without Torah, however, there would be no such thing as a Jew. Torâh' defines the Jew, and Torâh' stipulates that a Jew is one who does his or her utmost to keep the B^әrit. According to Torâh', the B^әrit is NOT circumcision. Circumcision is merely the sign of the B^әrit. B^әrit means pact, and each party to a pact must fulfill his or her obligations in order to obtain the benefit promised by the other party.

The B^әrit in Torâh' requires each person to do his or her utmost to practice the mitzwot.

One who isn't doing his or her utmost to practice the mitzwah doesn't satisfy the B^әrit and, therefore, is explicitly defined by Torâh' as not a party to the B^әrit and in need of making t^әshuvah and obtaining kipur in order to restore his or her inclusion in the B^әrit – with its accompanying portion in ha-olam ha-ba.

A person, whether Jew or non-Jew, who is party to the B^әrit Torâh' is part of Israel, part of a meta-Jewish, meta-Orthodox Remnant. The Remnant is meta-Jewish because, according to Talmud, it includes geirim. It is meta-Orthodox because logic (by which we mean "formal logic") supersedes the rabbis as the ultimate earthly authority for interpreting Torâh'. Thus, the Remnant is identical with the ancient, meta-Orthodox (meta-Jewish) definition of Y^әrei-ha-Sheim.

One who isn't party to the B^әrit Torâh', in contrast, isn't part of Israel – and isn't part of the meta-Jewish, meta-Orthodox Remnant according to the only truly authoritative definition – Torâh', unless and until he or she makes t^әshuvah.

Now, as the reader will see from all major polls, below, the kind of Jew defined in Torâh' as party to the B^әrit and part of the Remnant is already critically close to extinction. When we consider that many ultra-Orthodox, and even many Orthodox, follow Medievalism, Europeanism, and often ritual or simple racist hatred of goyim masqueraded as "Torâh'," the even fewer number of Torâh'-defined Jews approaches far more closely the precipice of falling below critical mass.

The Remnant's flame has become a Pishtah Keihah, Flickering-Out on the verge of going out. However, the Mashiakh is prophesied (Y^әshayahu 42.3) to avert this damaged reed from falling over, this Pishtah Keihah from going out.

"…an intriguing new portrait of American [non-Orthodox; ybd] Jews that has emerged from a groundbreaking study of ethnic America. Conducted last winter by Zogby International in cooperation with the New Jersey Jewish News, the studies, the Zogby Culture Polls, attempt to shed new light on a variety of American ethnic groups by examining them side by side."

Thus, this study is groundbreaking both because it's not, like most earlier polls, a predominantly Jewish self-study or self-poll (subject to interpretational biases of American Jewish reform perspectives; though one must beware of Arabist biases in the Zogby poll) as well as because it is fixed within the setting of several minority American groups, anchoring a more meaningful comparision. "The result is perhaps the first fully rounded statistical snapshot of America's ethnic mosiac…" I will be excerpting primarily only those aspects illuminating American Jews. The surveys were all conducted between 99.12 to 2k.02.

While education and wealth among American Jews isn't all myth, the group more deserving of being singled out for education are the Asians. "Six out of 10 Jewish adults have a college degree, more than any group except Asians. More than 41% [of American Jews] report a household income of $75,000 or more, far above any other group surveyed."

"Nearly 60% [of Jews surveyed] report having experienced discrimination because of their ethnic heritage, more than any other group except blacks.

"Fully half of Jews report having a 'stong emotional tie' to their 'country of ethnic heritage' - less than Hispanics, at 62%, or Arab Americans, at 56%…

"What is particularly striking is that unlike the other groups, the country to which Jews are attached is not one their grandparents came from, but Israel, one which for the most part they have only read of in books or heard of in synagogue.

"The researchers pointed to the very distinctiveness of the Jews as an identifiable community, with its own patterns of behavior and values, as the most striking finding of the poll of Jews.

"'Jews have retained their own identity,' said John Zogby, president of Zogby International.

"'I'm not an expert in Judaism, and as an Arab American I wouldn't claim to be, but the findings suggest that there's plenty within the context of Judaism as a spiritual force that generates a commitment to community spirit and communal values.' Zogby, who is of Lebanese-Christian descent, is best known as a New York-based Republican pollster. He is the brother of Arab American lobbyist James Zogby…

"Both Zogby and [Belio Martinez Jr., Zogby's director of international marketing] cited … liberalism as the most important finding in the Jewish survey… Some 49% of Jews called themselves 'liberal' or 'very liberal,' compared to 42% of blacks and about 1/3 of every other group. By contrast, about 19% of Jews called themselves [politically conservative, not religiously "Conservative"; ybd] 'conservative' or 'very conservative…" [I'm center-right politically-conservative (not religiously "Conservative"); ybd] "About 2/3 of Jews are registered as Democrats…" [I'm a Republican-leaning independent; ybd]

"Jews" on Feticide (abortion)

"The lopsided liberalism of the Jews shows up in their responses to issues on the public agenda, particularly on abortion. Jews are overwhelmingly pro-choice, with 61% saying the decision should always be left to the mother…" [emphasis added; ybd]. "Similarly, fewer than 50% of Jews believe in notifying parents when a minor seeks an abortion, compared with nearly 80% in every other group." Needless to say, these Jews arent guided by Torah.

"Jews are the most supportive of letting the federal government set education policy, the most supportive of campaign donation limits and the least supportive of increasing the military budget. In general, Jews showed a greater faith in the power of the federal government to do good than any other group.

"For Zogby, the specific characteristics marking American Jews - attachment to Israel, distinctive political values, mistrust of the United Nations - all point to the enduring influence of Judaism on the Jews' inner lives… But one thing is certain - wherever it comes from, they're not getting it in synagogue. [emphasis added; ybd]

"Jews attend worship services less regularly than any other group surveyed. That, in fact, was one of the most striking differences the survey found between [non-Orthodox] Jews and the other [minority group]s.

"Just under ¼ of the Jews polled said they attend services at least once a week…" About 30% attend, on average, about once/month. "This matches other surveys that show 25-30% of American Jews maintain a deep, ongoing involvement in communal Jewish practice" (New Jersey Jewish News).

And 70% who don't!

All responsible Jewish leaders decry the rampant exodus of Jews from Judaism. Yet, contrary to all of the hype, there's little, if any, assimilation. The problem is a modern Y^әtziah from intractably contradicting rabbinicisms; not assimilation! There is little attraction to other religions, only intractable conundrums in rabbinic foolishness, which other religions force Jews to confront and result in a modern Y^әtziâh. Jews aren't attracted to rival theologies, they are repelled by intractable rabbinic contradictions.

The American Jewish Identity Survey (AJIS) of 2001, conducted by the Center for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Center of the City Univ. of New York (CUNY), yet again confirms the wildfire Y^әtziah of American Jews. Y^әtziah was already a runaway train in 1990. Yet, the number of non-Jewish households who have assimilated a Jew into their family has increased from 3.2 million families in the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey to 3.7 million families in this 2001 CUNY poll, about 16% increase in Y^әtziah since 1990.

Of the 5.5 million "adults who report themselves as either Jewish by religion or of Jewish parentage and/or upbringing," only 51% indicated their religion as Jewish.

"Perhaps the most striking finding in the current survey is that among adults of Jewish parentage and/or upbringing, nearly 1.4 million [25+%; Paqid Yirm^әyahu] self-identify with a non-Jewish religious group or profess a religion other than Judaism. That number is more than double the 625,000 persons reported by NJPS 1990." The number of Jews who identify themselves with Judaism ("Jewish by religion") is actually down from 1990.

Thus, around 25% are likely 'Messianics' – Christians. That compares with only 30% who were Reform, 24% who were Conservative, and 8% who were Orthodox. Note that we know of many Reform and some Conservatives who are actually "closet 'Messianics'." (The remainder listed Zionist, humanist, etc.) Thus, 'Messianics,' though actively ignored, are vying to predominate Conservatives and even Reform. They passed the Orthodox a long time ago.

AJIS 2001 found that the intermarriage rate is now 33%, up from 28% in NJPS 1990.

"'The findings of this survey suggest that the time is long overdue when those Jews who do not identify with the main religious streams of Judaism can be dismissed as if their numbers were insignificant or vestigial with the label 'just Jewish',' said Felix Posen of the Posen Foundation, which underwrote the survey."

The number of American Jews actually practicing Judaism is down to 440,000 (8% of 5.5 million).

No matter how you trim the figures to count viable American Jews, the American Jewish community is clearly no longer the largest Jewish community in the world. Israel is now the largest Jewish community in the world.

The complete report is accessible at www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/studies-index.htm

"The numbers are in, and they don't look too good. Earlier this month, the results of the National Jewish Population Survey 2000-2001 were released and they confirmed everyone's worst fears. American Jewry, it seems, is shrinking faster and more profoundly than even the gloomiest of pessimists might have imagined.

In just a decade, the number of Jews in America has shrunk by 5.45 percent, from 5.5 million in the 1990 survey, to just 5.2 million now. To put it even more starkly: on average, American Jewry lost about 100 Jews per day, every day, over the past 10 years. And with the median age rising, and Jewish birthrates declining, that statistic seems almost certain to grow worse.

But despite the crisis, there is no atmosphere of crisis. Ironically, America's Jewish leadership continues to devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to fighting anti-Semitism, as if that were the community's No. I concern. But the real question they fail to address is: will there be any Jews left in America for the anti-Semites to hate? There are undoubtedly many reasons behind American Jewry's decline, but the primary factor is a plague of Jewish ignorance that has reached epidemic proportions." (Jerusalem Post, 2002.10.23, p. 7).

Ignorance of Judaism by Jews is blamed on the high cost of Jewish education. But what made it so expensive? Answer: no interest by 90+% of Jews in studying medieval superstitions that fail to relate logically and historically to the Tōrâh of Har Sinai and the Creator. Jews still continue to incorrigibly refuse to face up to this reality, adamantly refusing to adopt a logical, historical, archeological and scientific (hard-hitting objective) study of Tōrâh and Judaism. Until this happens the trends above will continue, because intelligent, sensible and educated Jews – like intelligent, sensible and educated non-Jews – opt to relate to the Creator logically, intelligently, sensibly and scientifically.

2003.09.17 – I've long suspected that Jewish surveys in the U.S. deliberately buried the true extent of Y^әtziah. Now I can prove it.

Probably like most people, I always assumed that in the Jewish population surveys, "affiliated" referred to synagogue affiliation. Reading the newly released National Jewish Population Survey for 2000-01 (United Jewish Communities – ujc.org) shows shockingly differently.

"To examine affiliation-related differences in Jewish involvement, a measure of affiliation was constructed based on synagogues, JCCs and other Jewish organizations. Those with no such memberships total 44% of adult Jews and are called 'unaffiliated.'  The affiliated divide evenly into two groups: those with one membership (28%) are called 'moderately affiliated,' and those with two or more memberships (28%) are regarded as 'highly affiliated.' "

Thus, a born Jew who belongs to a local JCC (Jewish Communitiy Center, which welcomes anyone who sympathizes with Jews or Judaism of any persuasion) and GLBT Jews (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender Jews) would report membership in two 'Jewish' organizations and be listed in the new NJPS as "highly affiliated"!!!

Clearly, a better indicator of connection to the legitimate Jewish community is observance of kashrut – only 8% of unaffiliated, 25% of 'moderately affiliated' and 36% of 'highly affiliated' observe kashrut. An undetermined, but significant number, of these keep kâsheir only for relatives and aren't religious themselves. So, doing the math [(.44x.08) + (.28*.25) + (.28*.36) = 0.206], that works out to a maximum 20.6% of the American Jewish population who are legitimately Tōrâh-observant. This exposes the wildly inflated figures of the NJPS in concealing 80% of Y^әtziah in the U.S. 'Jewish' community – no longer worthy of being called a community of Jews.

Even with an expanded definition – "anyone who considers him or herself Jewish" rather than born Jews as in past surveys – this 'Jewish' population has shrunk from 5.5 million born Jews to 5.2 million.whatevers "who considers him or herself Jewish." This means that the actual number of American Jews – i.e. Tōrâh-keeping American Jews – is a mere 1,071,200 (20.6% of 5.2 million).

Using the same criterion in both the 1990 and 2000 surveys, intermarriage increased. Using the 'born Jew' criterion, the 1990 survey showed a 52% rate of intermarriage compared to a 2000 rate of 54% (instead of 47% of the expanded criterion). Conversely, using the expanded criterion, the 1990 survey would have shown 43% (rather than 52%) compared with the 2000 rate of 47%.

As Jerusalem Post secular op-ed columnist, Yosef Goell, wrote (2003.09.15, p. 6), "A growing number of young Jews, successfully assimilated into America, are simply not buying what their elders have to offer in regard to the meaning of being Jewish, which means, by definition, different from mainstream America."

Goell then goes on to write his perspective. "The problem to my mind is that so much of the message the older generation is trying to transmit revolves around the more anient aspects of our history and heritage instead of instilling knowledge and pride in the more recent achievements of so many Jews worldwide. That and the insistence on defining Judaism by the more mumbo-jumbo aspects of religious ritual rather than on how to live ethically and successfully in a fast changing world."

However, Mr. Goell's perspective is contradicted by the grossly disproportionate of secular Jews who become estranged contrasted with the religious Jews.

The facts imply, rather, that modern educated and intelligent young secular Jews, having no access to religious Jews who have answers – and I have answers if no one else does, are turned off by their elders who demonstrate a complete failure to grasp of Judaism and ignorantly and blithely dismiss it as "mumbo-jumbo" and resort to well known logical fallacies in order to impose a false dilemma between "mumbo-jumbo aspects of religious ritual" and "how to live ethically and successfully in a fast changing world" – attempting to divorce Judaism from ethics and success in a fast changing world, in order to recast the latter as secular attributes. On the contrary, these are unalterably rooted in Tōrâh.

Typical of secularists, Mr. Goell sees the problem as sending young Jews to college where they may encounter questions rather than equipping young Jews with answers to those questions. Young Jews don't have to be Einsteins to recognize that Mr. Goell's "best solution" is a cop-out and conclude that the Jewish community has no worthwhile answers to offer.

Only when Jews become willing to overcome their laziness and fears to grapple with the difficult questions in life instead of hiding their heads in the sand will they become able to contribute to stemming the tide of Y^әtziah among their offspring.

"Overall, the JPPPI said the future for Jewish growth looks bleak: 'Trends clearly move in the direction of decline.'"

But even this is a positive spin glossing over the harsh truth. "It's hard to escape the impression that we are people puffing out our chests and sucking in our guts in a vain and unsustainable attempt to hide our real state of health… we also happen to be disappearing as a people, which most would take as a sign of decay… look carefully in the JPPPI study and you'll find this: 'World Jewry faces a prolonged trend of stagnation and decline. Steady population growth in Israel is hampered by a decline in most Diaspora communities.'"

In fact, however, the decline, and gloss-over, is already discernible from as early as 1970. "The study's statistics show that in 1970 the number of American Jews stood at 5,686,000, while in 2003 there was a slight drop to 5,671,000." This is in contrast to the realization that "A growth rate of just one percent means a doubling every 72 years." In contrast to a growth rate, however, the Jewish community has suffered a decline rate that began way back in 1970 and has continued, unabated, since with no remedy in sight.

Except for the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzarim, which reorients Halakhah from dead-in-the-water medieval "tradition" to vibrant, dynamic and thriving Halakhah harnessed to the historical truth of Torâh' interpreted according to logic (by which we mean "formal logic") and science.

Torah is true and reliable. That's why I try my utmost to follow it. But no mortal is perfect — which is why logic, not mortals, must be the ultimate interpreter of Torâh'. The rabbis who interpret Torâh' are, only sometimes, either untrue or unreliable. Rule by untrue and unreliable rabbis, adding to Torâh' in contravention of D^әvarim 13.1, is the primary cause that has driven away more than 95% of the Flock.

Unlike the stereotype that many Orthodox Jews have of non-Orthodox and secular Jews, the lax observance and lack of attendance of non-Orthodox and secular Jews at an Orthodox Beit-ha-K^әnësët is often NOT due to laziness, lack of commitment or ignorance. Even secular Jews who are ignorant of rabbinic teaching are so because their parents, and the school system their parent generation developed, had become exasperated with the rabbis. When they are finally exposed to rabbinic teachings, most – specifically the most intelligent and most educated – reject them. I've met many non-Orthodox Jews. Most work extremely hard for Israel, both people and state, and for Judaic causes in which they believe; often harder than the Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox. Non-Orthodox Jews, searching for answers, combine with moderate Orthodox Jews (including geirim) to constitute a fragmented and vanishing Remnant – the flickering-out wick of Y^әrei-ha-Sheim.

The conundrum is that while non-Orthodox and secular Jews typically believe Torah and love י--ה, they just don't know what, or how much, they can believe of the mixture of Torâh' and fairytales – אגדות (agadot) – that the rabbis tell them. They recognize that Torâh' Is True, but fables – אגדות (agadot) – that men have interpreted from Torâh', is a large part (along with rabbinic excess, rabbinic hypocrisy and rabbinic injustice) of what has driven 98% of the flock away. This is especially true of young Jews as they become old enough, and educated enough, to question rabbinic decisions and insist on intelligent, logical answers for life's questions; rational answers that ensure justice and give their own life real – in the real world – meaning and purpose. The countless examples of long-term, continuing rabbinic injustice toward agunot, Ethiopian Falashas and converts reveal many rabbis to be a רעי האליל (ro·i ha-elil), Z^әkharyah 11.17).

Having driven between 95-98% of Jews away from Torâh', Orthodox Judaism has fallen below critical mass as an element of Israel. Torâh' requires that the Jew have only One Master: י--ה, NOT the rabbis! Even the Beit-Din, which is also not ruled by rabbis, is limited to rendering justice according to Torâh', not ruling Jews. To revive the Remnant, therefore, requires finding a meta-Orthodox solution that unifies these two facets of Y^әrei-ha-Sheim.

Fable-ization of Torah is the primary cause that has driven 98% of the Flock astray. Torâh' relates, for example, that, after being separated from Elisha in a storm (סערה [s^ә·arah; storm, not "whirlwind"]) by a series of lightning strikes ("horses of fire and chariots of fire") that sent them scurrying in different directions, Eiliyahu disappeared in the storm (M^әlakhim Beit 2.1, 11). Torâh' doesn't state that Eiliyahu flew off into the sky in a chariot of fire pulled by horses of fire; shallow men choose to interpret figurative language literally.

People, whether Jew or gentile, want to commune with the real Creator of our universe, our Maker; not a Medieval, Rumplestilskin-type, children's fairy tale, whether of Yitzkhaq's servant, Eliezer, "miraculously" making a 5-week caravan trip in a matter of hours (according to the Brisker Rav, Artscroll Bereishis, Vol. 1.836-7), Christians flying off into the heavens in the "Rapture," or Muhammad flying off into the sky on a white horse. It's way overdue to shed fables of men; to seek, and relate to, the real Creator of His Perfect Laws of the universe – the real world, not an irrational pretend utopia. You can only do that by relating directly, through logic and science, to the Creator; not through belief in the fables of men. The application of logic and science to the Perfect Laws of the universe point inexorably to the Prime Cause; and eventually, for those who are determined and persistent, to Torâh' – excluding rabbinic fables.

The only counter the rabbis have is to keep their followers' heads in the sand of their own little ghetto, prohibiting secular newspapers, television, the web and all other media that might cause their puppets to inspire them to ask difficult questions; and to pass laws prohibiting religious discourse outside of their cult. This is explicit admission of intellectual bankruptcy and no one should be surprised that young people reject it; unfortunately, along with the Torah the rabbis profess to represent. Rabbis who resort to this approach misrepresent Torâh', incurring the guilt of khilul י--ה, and making them complicit in driving the Remnant of the Flock astray from Torâh'.

The two largest sections of this book are devoted to these issues, which fall into two general categories: issues that everyone finds challenging and issues that, until now, represented nothing more than a hell-bent, blind rabbinic insistence on Medievalism and Europeanism that has driven 98% of the flock astray from Torah and caused the near extinction of the Remnant. If Torâh' were interpreted in a rational, intelligent, logical and scientific way, so that intelligent and educated non-Orthodox "secular" Jews believed in it, they would make t^әshuvah in droves. Indeed, the whole world is looking for this. It would bring about fulfillment of the prophecies mentioned in the Aleinu.

The problem is compounded by the racist nature of the definition of Jew that ensues from an absolute insistence on stretching the definition of Jew to continue recognizing a born Jew as a Jew even when he or she is non-religious, non-Orthodox, anti-religious, ultra-Orthodox, or even Hindu, Buddhist or other religion. (The sole exception, contrary to all logic, is the Jew who adopts Christianity.) The only determinant that all of these diverse categories of people share in common is DNA – a racist definition that contradicts the b^әrit, which defines Israel (and, supposedly, the Jew) according to Torah. Consequently, there are millions of Jews while Israel as defined by the B^әrit has fallen below critical mass, perhaps the most realistic definition of extinction.

The lesson of the Golden Calf is sufficient to demonstrate that Israel as a people isn't infallible. Consequently, none of today's rabbinic practices that lack logical basis in Torâh' can be defended simply because it's a tradition throughout the people of Israel. Further, neither Torah nor the n^әviyim included apostates or idolaters in their prophecies concerning preserving the Remnant. Therefore, in order to formulate how to preserve the Remnant, it is first necessary to clearly define the Remnant that is to be preserved.

To address the problem requires distinguishing between Jews defined by the b^әrit, the Biblical people, and all other Jews. The b^әrit-defined class is, necessarily, meta-Orthodox because it is stricter than the Orthodox definition. As defined in Talmud (Q^әdushin 69a-b), meta-Orthodoxy includes geirim — and is synonymous with the 1^st-century definition of Y^әrei-ha-Sheim. This meta-Orthodox definition set forth in Talmud defines Israel as contrasted with Kohein and Leiwi as one of ten categories that constitute Y^әrei-ha-Sheim, a more comprehensive definition of Israel.

We will attempt to formulate a rough draft that describes the Remnant defined by the b^әrit and clarified in Talmud: the meta-Orthodox Y^әrei-ha-Sheim.

The first obstacle is to develop a "can do" attitude. Some are doing it. Read excerpts of the extreme Leftist ha-Aretz Israeli Hebrew daily newspaper:

G*o*d is cool again

Chaim Levinson, ha-Aretz, 2005.12.23-25)

"It's the hottest new trend to strike secular Israel – 'Connecting to Judaism' and 'being inspired'. It includes Bar Mitzvah musicals, visits to the Western Wall, Talmud study and driving on Shabbat, all without becoming 'religious.' Thousands of 'secular' Jews crammed into the Western Wall over the holidays, Talmud classes are full, and it's in to wear a trendy kippah. A passing phase or a new romance between religious and secular?"

ha-Aretz Article, Part I of III (excerpts)

A taste of Judaism Similar Bar Mitzvah ceremonies, like the drastic increase of children who want to celebrate their Bar Mitzvahs at the Western Wall, are only a small part of the new trend being sold to a non-observant community thirsty for Jewish tradition in a pleasant and non-threatening framework.

This new connection to tradition is different from the 1990's trend of connecting to religion as part of a process of becoming Orthodox. Many people hesitated to define themselves as "religious [= Orthodox in Israel]," but they were being led safely by people who openly declared their intention to transform them into a member of ultra-orthodox society.

Today, in comparison, people are enjoying religion without being overshadowed by a commitment to observe traditional mitzvot (commandments). It's Judaism without pressure, without preachers, without seminars and without an ultra-Orthodox destination. Adherents are usually from bourgeois, middle class, secular homes looking to infuse meaning to their Jewish identity, without being overshadowed by restrictions and without lifestyle changes.

It's like sampling the religious menu without getting fat: Bar Mitzvahs, Sukkot, synagogue and occasional prayers, visits to graves of the righteous, and also… yes, here it is… belief in G*o*d.

The word "religious" has become a curse. "Becoming religious" a fatal illness that everyone is careful to stay away from. But connecting? Becoming inspired? It almost sounds elegant.

[Note: the article doesn't explain why non-observant Israeli Jews would choose to practice Torah selectively but not opt for Conservative or Reform. The difference is that while non-observant Israeli Jews recognize that they come up short in their practice of Torah, they cope with it and recognize that what Torah stands for cannot be compromised to accept their shortcomings, which is essentially the strategy of all non-Orthodox movements. The key is to differentiate people from their shortcomings and embrace the people who are trying to keep Torah but come up short, encouraging them for the mitzvot they keep rather than rejecting them for their shortcomings – which are rarely worse than many rabbis.]

Social trend Connecting to religion is one of the most interesting social trends in the Jewish world today, an unexpected outcome of various factors such as the weakening of the secular framework, cutting off the ultra-Orthodox politics from the udder of the government and the need for the religious and secular to connect strategically.

Dr. Neri Horowitz, an expert in religion and society, explains "we are talking about a trend that in the eighties existed amongst the Sephardic middle class. The mechanism is "cheap religion"- high religious feeling with a low religious price in terms of commitment. It fits in the new age and lifestyle and is reaching new levels of society. It is possible that in a global society, where solitude is shrinking and people create spaces for themselves where they can express their own identities. In a society that is undergoing the process of individualization, people are drawn towards religion."

The newly inspired gather around rabbis that convey happiness, where their appealing rules are more important that their Talmudic brilliance. According to Yossie Elituv, assistant editor for the popular ultra-Orthodox magazine "Mishpacha" (Family), these rabbis convey their messages without the typical rabbinic pestering.

"The longing for spirituality in circles that have not experienced Judaism for three generations has been answered by the "new Rabbis". These spiritual personalities have chosen to establish themselves in areas far from the ultra-Orthodox population and dedicated their lives to one sole purpose: Making the name of G*o*d loved by his creations and to market Judaism at eye level, in the appropriate language for each Jew.

"I prefer to say that I am 'observing'," says Aharoni. "In the past few years I have been returning to my roots. It is primarily a spiritual issue, not practical. After learning many subjects such as Buddhism, I see that the source of all things is in Judaism. I find a lot of spirituality in Judaism, a lot of wisdom and a lot of logic".

Is there any chance that you will become religious [= Orthodox in Israel]?

"No way. Judaism motivates intellectual things for me. The chance that the practical will spark in me is very weak. I don't keep all the mitzvot, but I eat only Kosher, because it is important to me to eat healthy, clean food. I don't eat pork, because pig has dirty energy. On Shabbat we don't watch TV or use the computer. I prefer to take the car to see the country, so that Shabbat will have a culture of recreation. It is not a secular or religious Shabbat. Between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur I went to the Western Wall. I hadn't been there for 20 years. There were many secular people there and the prayers really spoke to me."

"I define the new 'connected' as people looking for a new dimension spiritually and searching for the truth", says Zeev Pearl, the former Mayor of Tzfat. "They are not finding it from the classic rabbis and spiritual leaders, they are not prepared to be herded like sheep, but the secular social order doesn't provide all the answers."

ha-Aretz Article, Part II of III (excerpts)

"In our sophisticated and intelligent generation, delving into the depths is a requirement. The moment you take something like secular Zionism and search for its foundation – you don't find it. You see that there are no roots. I searched in many different places, and in Judaism I found it all. Shushan says his interest in God and Judaism has nothing to do with being religious. "I see this trend as a process of social healing. People lack happiness, wealth, truth and identity. It's not connected to being secular or religious. Whoever fills this void will be healthy, and one can find this in the internalization of the Torah. Judaism is an entity with best survival tips.

"Where is Greece today? In a museum. Where is Rome? In a museum. Judaism is alive and kicking. It has something that works. It is an endless source of spiritual and physical healing."

"The light that comes out of darkness is much brighter that the light that comes out of the flame. The secular are more spiritual than the religious," says Shushan. All the great rabbis spoke about the "middle way," that everything happens slowly. Those people forgot that.

But the fear of religion has subsided, and in the past year-and-a-half a wave of religious inspiration has been washing over the town. The latest joke goes, "There used to be a Sephardic synagogue and an Ashkenazi synagogue. Now, there's also a secular synagogue."

Last Yom Kippur, [Khabad rabbi] Cohen organized prayer services attended by "400 people that had never set foot inside a synagogue before. We explained each prayer. The atmosphere was warm and pleasant. This was lacking here. Following Yom Kippur many people wanted more."

Cohen does everything: he explains each prayer, leads the prayers and reads the weekly Torah portion. "People want this. They come and enjoy the tunes.

ha-Aretz Article, Part III of III (excerpts)

To the newly inspired there are events that are of equal status to receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai. For the past year, Rabbi Yankele Gloiberman has been teaching an exclusive Talmud class for Tel Aviv businessmen at the home of a sports legend in. Pinni Gershon attends on a regular basis and even Dudu Topaz pops in from time-to-time.

"People connect through the class. They start lighting candles on Shabbat, preparing a Shabbat table. I am against returning to religion, I am for returning to roots. Every Jew is close to God, some more, some less," says Gloiberman.

The new movement towards "connecting" to Judaism has actually encouraged Orthodox groups to change their strategic outlook towards secular groups. The disengagement was the breaking point: Sections of religious society isolated themselves from the secular population, condemning its establishment and treating it with contempt. [And ha-Sheim exposed many rabbis and their followers by their false prophecies as charlatans!]

Yossi Elituv, political editor of the ultra-Orthodox Hebrew-language weekly 'Mishpacha' says the Orthodox community has changed in recent years.

I think the redemption of the world is Judaism without coercion. The national-religious society today understands that you cannot coerce people in Israel. Even if you're successful, it's the wrong type of success, it's not true success. A person needs to discover Judaism independently, from within."

But as a rabbi, how can you accept people that put on tefillin in the morning and eat non-kosher food in the evening?

"Connecting to Judaism is a phase. As a method, of course it's not okay. But as a process I accept it. (ha-Aretz, 2005.12.23-25).

Logic

Why Logic & Science?

Since fable-ization of Torâh' is the primary problem within the Jewish community, it's essential to recognize that Rambam was right: logic is both the ultimate earthly authority for interpreting Torâh' and is the solution. A priori, irrationality (rejecting logic and science to perpetuate fable-ized interpretations) is the path to straying. Placing fable-ized interpretations above Torâh' is a form of Avodah Zarah, another Golden Calf.

It isn't the purpose of this book to resolve all of the issues raised herein. The United States certainly hasn't resolved all of their social, moral or legal issues. That's an impossibility, a work in progress that's never finished. Yet, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court remain widely respected. There's no reason that Torâh' and the Rabbinate shouldn't earn even greater respect. They certainly don't, however, and that's an indictment of the rabbis. Raising these issues serves to focus attention, prompt discussion and suggest new ways to look at many logical and scientific flaws in rabbinic reasoning, rabbinic fables and rabbinic excesses that have caused, and continue to cause, most – more than 50% according to the polls – intelligent and educated young Jews to roll their eyes and walk away from Torâh' in justified disbelief.

The solution is recognition of the preeminence of logic, by which we mean "formal logic" (see definitions of terms, below) as the arbiter of Scriptural interpretation and the formulation, and correction, of Halakhah. In the days when the masses were illiterate, clerics trained in logic were essential. Today, however, anyone can go to the computer science or mathematics department of their local university and take courses in discrete mathematics – logic. Torah was always intended to be grasped by the individual, not intermediated by other mortals (D^әvarim 30.11-14).

Everyone Follow "Own Eyes" Versus the Beit-Din, A Conundrum?

In Mosheh's day, apparently only the elite – the Kohanim – were literate, including an education in the knowledge of logic as it was perceived in that era. In medieval times, the rabbis were the only group trained in logic and Torâh'. Like the court systems today, the decisions of the jurists weren't arguable except by a higher court.

In this 21^st century, however, obtaining the skills of logic and Torâh' is within the grasp of many. Rather than unarguable authority resting in the elite, who is on the Beit-Din, I assert that there are many Jews today who are skilled both in formal logic and Torâh. Therefore, the authority rests with logic, to which even the Beit-Din must accede. The Beit-Din is still the authority, all cases may only be argued before the Beit-Din and the finding of the Beit-Din is still final.

Consequently, today the Beit-Din, while still the court of authority, is no more an inarguable authority than any other court. The argument of any person, even a non-Jew, who is skilled in both formal logic and Torâh', must be given fair hearing by the Beit-Din. No individual or halakhic question can be precluded from review and debate simply because "settled issues aren't reviewable" or an individual isn't part of some elite.

As I will explain shortly, formal logic is not subject to opinion. The solution can be calculated and proven. This precludes any rebellion (particularly from those who can't even read Torâh') against a Beit-Din that recognizes formal logic as the ultimate authority for interpreting Scripture.

Rambam Recognized Logic as Supreme Authority.
Why Are Today's Rabbis Adamant in Rejecting Logic As Authority?

The same authority respected by rank-and-file Orthodox Jews must also be respected by all true teachers of Torah, the Orthodox rabbis. This is the core of a paradigm shift. Authority of logic dictates that any decision of any Beit-Din (even the ancient but defunct Beit-Din ha-Jadol) that contradicts scientific fact or the rules of formal logic does not reflect the Creator of the real universe and, therefore, cannot be valid Halakhah! Anyone able to demonstrate such contradiction according to scientific fact and logic obligates every Beit-Din, in order for it to retain its legitimacy, to conform to scientific fact and formal logic in interpreting Torah she-bikhtav.

This represents a paradigm shift because, presently, it is easily demonstrated that Orthodox Jews, despite practicing Halakhah as they understand it and despite their declarations, DON'T believe in Halakhah. To see this, one must first understand that Halakhah is built mishpat upon mishpat. Since any invalid mishpat would invalidate all offspring mishpat based on it, their fear is that conceding that even one mishpat might be wrong would bring down the entire framework of Halakhah like a house of cards.

Now, if Orthodox rabbis and Jews really believed in Halakhah they would be confident that Halakhah would not merely survive being corrected, they would understand that it would be improved. Rabbis might even understand that excising the hypocrisy from halakhic practice would have a beneficial effect on Jewish youth. Their fear that Halakhah would collapse, however, demonstrates that not even the rabbis believe Halakhah. In other words, they practice Halakhah without believing in it. In fact, their fear proves that they really believe that Halakhah is too riddled with error and contradictions of scientific fact and logic to survive being fixed.

Despite this, the rabbis continue to require Orthodox Jews to practice wrong "halakhah," uncorrected and refusing to correct it, while knowing full well that it's wrong. That's another reason that young Jews reject rabbinic Judaism. Though this is a reason it has to corrected, it isn't the primary reason. Simply being contrary to scientific fact or formal logic perverts what must reflect the Creator, misrepresenting the Creator to be riddled with error, unjust and corrupt. Beyond simply being wrong, invalid Halakhah is khilul י--ה.

Underneath a number of invalid mishpatim, however, is the solid and invulnerable framework – the Truths of י--ה, which comprise the real Halakhah. Blowing away the cards won't cause Truth to collapse. Rather, blowing away the chaff will expose the solid and reliable framework that is the true Halakhah. Formal logic and adherence to the rational – real – world of scientific and documented fact is the tool that can blow away the false mishpatim. This repairing of Halakhah is required to make it what it should be, what it has to be in order to be valid: the Instruction Manual that accurately reflects י--ה.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the current generation is destined to parallel the Israelis who, with only two exceptions, wandered 40 years in the northern Sinai where they eventually died without ever entering the promised land. The next generation has already reached the point in their education that they have asked why the preceding generation is mired in superstition and fables instead of pursuing an educated, intelligent and rational approach to life and relating to the Creator-Singularity. Cosmology points one to the Intelligent Creator-Singularity of the universe. Fables point one to fiction for children, rejected by intelligent and educated young people, whether Jews or gentiles. The current generation has no answer except to attempt to suppress the search – and make it illegal where they can. While we also hope to inspire some of the older generation to be like Y^әhoshua Bin-Nun (see Y^әhoshua 24.15), a logical, historically documented, scientific and archeological approach to understanding Torâh' will be far more relevant to today's younger generation.

Logic Doesn't Include Flawed Reasoning, Intuition or Opinion

People have endless misconceptions about logic. Therefore, it's essential to define some basic terms as they are used in this work.

Logic

By logic, I reject the flaw-riddled intuition called "informal logic" or "philosophical logic" and always refer, instead, to "formal logic," which is the study of logical inference whose validity derives from its explicitly formal structure and can be expressed in symbolic logic (i.e. mathematical equations) that can be solved by a computer.

Definition

Problems can be abstracted by definition of terms, then solved using mathematical models. Logicians, mathematicians and scientists find abstraction to be a useful tool in solving problems. 2 + 2 = 4 derives from the mathematical definitions of numbers.

a → b ("If a then b" or "a implies b") derives from the logical definition of terms and logical operators.

Imply / Deduce: p → q or p ⇒ q (p implies q, also if p then q; the two symbols are mathematically equivalent)

For any two propositions p and q, if p → q says that p materially implies q, then (p → q) dictates that p strictly implies q; that is, if p is true then q has to be true. These can also be expressed as a syllogism.

Implication form: If Socrates was a man, then Socrates was mortal. Then, where p = "Socrates was a man" and q = "Socrates was mortal": p → q. If p = true the q must be true. Conversely, however, if p = false (Socrates might be a painting or a ceramic dog), this implies nothing about q. (Whether Socrates was mortal depends on more information about what Socrates is meant.)

Syllogism form:
Premise #1: All men are mortal
Premise #2: Socrates was a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

Infer / Induce

Inference or induction, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is very likely to be true, but not certain, given the premises. Inductive reasoning is generalization, which, while unavoidable in practice, precipitates most errors in reasoning. While this is the fallacy that caused the erroneous belief that "everything that goes up comes down," it is also the only way we can predict the temperature at which water boils or metal melts, the orbit of satellites or design anything from an automobile to a computer chip. Thus, we desperately need to harness the usefulness of induction while limiting its abuse.

See, for example, the two proofs, logical and discrete mathematical, for the Prime Cause in the Cosmology section.

This is the kink in the implementation of logic as the interpretive authority for Halakhah. This is easily illustrated with a popular example. Torah she-bikhtav requires writing the mitzwot on one's m^әzuzah, but doesn't instruct how. The rabbis inferred from this that they should instruct every little detail concerning how. Inference, however, isn't logic (i.e. logical implication).

Compounding the problem, individuals are fallible. They make mistakes in logic. While the Beit-Din must submit to the authority of logic, a Beit-Din trained in both Torâh' and (mathematical) logic remains essential to establish initial logical precedents. Consultation and cooperation between receptive Batei-Din and Orthodox rabbis – under the common authority of logic – is essential. In effect, all of Israel, recognizing the same authority of logic, would then constitute the next Beit-Din ha-Jadol. Every man or woman of Israel who is adept in logic must be granted access, with logical representation where appropriate before their Beit-Din to argue logic, and to obtain redress for injustice and remedies to errors of logic. The attitude that questioning is heretical must be dispelled. Intellectual laziness must give way to welcoming and dealing with questions.

The key to logic as the solution is that, to be valid, i.e. to be Halakhah, the Beit-Din must demonstrate that any decision being questioned by Israel is logically derived from Torah she-bikhtav. Otherwise, a rabbinic decree constitutes addition or diminution to Torâh', contravening D^әvarim 13.1 and, therefore, invalid. Authority follows logic rather than following a consensus to wrong, contravening Torâh' (Sh^әmot 23.2).

It is essential, as well, to distinguish logic from the intuition ("informal logic") that many people wrongly think of as logic. I will give a very simple example of pseudo-logic and legitimate logic.

The "informal logic" of "Occum's Razor" (the simplest answer is correct) is philosophy and hopeful intuition cited by those who are ignorant of logic (by which we mean "formal logic"). According to "Occum's Razor," the earth is flat, everything that goes up comes down, if one sails too far from land he will fall off of the edge of the world, man cannot fly, the earth is the center of the universe, sickness is due to demons, relativity is impossible, etc.

Logic, by contrast, is a mathematically correct science that can be learned in any university that has a math department or a computer science department. Just ask for a course in discrete mathematics. The following is an example of rudimentary logic.

Take the statement: "You are reading this book and you are married." This is so simple it doesn't require conversion to a mathematical statement for a computer to solve. But going through that exercise will demonstrate the mathematical precision of true logic.

Let c = the statement in the previous paragraph. Now break apart statement c into three parts with the following designations:

1. clause a = <You are reading this book>
   
   
2. <and>
   
   
3. clause b = <you are married>
   
   

In logic, <and> is the mathematical operator * (multiplier) while <or> is the mathematical operator + (plus). Further, by convention, 0 = false and 1 = true and calculations are done in binary math, where there are only ones and zeroes. (Humans developed a counting system based on ten fingers, but computers only know if a switch is on or off, 1 or 0 = true or false.)

Now, we can examine statement c mathematically. It's true that you are reading this book. So clause a = 1. If you are married then clause b = 1, else clause b = 0.

At this point, we could feed the statement into a computer and there is only one correct answer; no room for differing opinions, no "ifs," no "ands," no "buts":

a * b = c

We have already established that a = 1 ("you are reading this book" is true).

If you are married: then substitute 1 for "b" yielding 1 * 1 = c. Clearly, 1 times 1 = 1. Thus c, the statement under investigation, is 1 = true.

If you aren't married, then substitute 0 for "b" yielding 1 * 0 = c. Clearly, 1 times 0 = 0. Thus c, the statement under investigation, is 0 = false.

There is no equivocation about logic, no doubt about the correct answer. Even a computer can solve it. If a computer cannot solve it then it is opinion, wishful thinking, hope, belief, faith; it can be a lot of things, but not logic — and if it isn't logic then it either adds or detracts from Torah in contravention of D^әvarim 13.1. It may be ok as a convention (tradition), but doesn't qualify as Halakhah to be required or imposed — and where Halakhah doesn't require or impose, wa-Yiqra 19.18, tolerance and accommodation, must prevail to reunite Yisra·eil and the Name.

Recognizing logic as authority is the opposite of the chaos introduced by rule by intuitive opinion, where every rabbi has an intuitive, and often differing, opinion. Intuitive opinion ranges from Orthodox to Reform – all claiming the authority of Halakhah. Logic as authority locks in the latest logical and scientific understanding of Torah she-bikhtav irregardless of what the rest of society is doing. Thus, while Reform is embracing homosexuality, that's impossible under a logical understanding of Torah she-bikhtav.

While Orthodoxy has been pulled toward Y^әtziah as well (e.g., Europeanism and medievalism), nevertheless, with jarring clarity a logical understanding of Torah she-bikhtav jerks the endangered Remnant back to the reality of Torah that Mosheh would recognize.

Judaism hypocritically boasts that questions are encouraged while condemning those who pose serious questions as "secular" (or worse). Too often in practice, difficult questions are evaded and ignored; allowing them to fester and cause Y^әtziah. The following sections ask the difficult questions that are too often glossed over and ignored. Solutions proposed herein require consultations with the brightest Torâh' and logical minds in Israel to ensure that solutions satisfy both Torâh' and logic. These are the solutions that satisfy intelligent and educated questioners, stemming, and even reversing, Y^әtziah.

A solution cannot even be addressed without first correcting a nearly universal misconception perpetrated by Christianity. When a P^әrushi Ribi condemned hypocrites and רעי האלילים (ro·ai ha-elilim, cf. Z^әkharyah 11.17) within his ranks, who were driving Israel away – astray – from Torâh', it's impossible that he was condemning P^әrushim Ribis generally — that would have been self-condemnation!

Similarly, when I, as an Orthodox Jew, point out that Torâh' condemns rabbis who are hypocrites, corrupt or feckless at adjudicating tzedeq today as well, it isn't a blanket condemnation of all Orthodox rabbis; only a condemnation of the too-many ro·ai ha-elilim within the ranks — who have already driven more than 95% of the Flock astray from Torâh' — Yirm^әyahu 23.1! The crisis is preserving the Remnant among them before they self-extinguish.

By permitting the disengagement from Gaza, י--ה demonstrated His displeasure, exposing many of these ro·ai ha-elilim, who, like the rebels at the battle of Kharmah (D^әvarim 1.42-45), arrogantly and presumptuously followed their own eyes, not Torâh'.

The solution is two-pronged:

1. Questions raised by increasingly educated and internationally-connected youth about philosophy and other religions, unanswered by the rabbis while Christians and Muslims answer compellingly, dictates that Judaism must develop better answers to these questions in order to prevent self-extinction. Only the most famous Ribi in the history of the world, around whom the whole world measures time, can reverse the current Y^әtziah into the displacement theologies of the predominantly Christian and Muslim world to prevent the impending extinction of the Remnant because millions are (already) irrevocably committed to follow his teaching — and it turns out that, historically, his authentic teaching was NOT the displacement theologies of Hellenist Christianity and Islam but, rather, to keep the mitzwot Torâh' (and fulfill the prophecy of Z^әkharyah 14.16-19, et al.).
   

   How inane is it to grovel before Joseph Ratzinger (the current Catholic "pope"), successor to the counterfeit displacement of the N^әtzarim Paqid, when you can point, over Ratzinger's head, straight to Ratzinger's true boss – Ribi Y^әhoshua (not J*e*s*u*s) – who required obedience to Torâh'? Of course, it's impossible to expose J*e*s*u*s as a Hellenist Roman idol counterfeit without revealing the true, historical, Ribi Y^әhoshua. Denying the true, historical, Ribi Y^әhoshua out of sinat khinam, therefore, is self-destructive; and tolerating the rule of sinat khinam contributes to self-extinction.

   Why fawn over the imposter, Ratzinger, instead of exposing the historical fraudulence of Ratzinger's idol, J*e*s*u*s, and Ratzinger's title, pope, in their gentile displacement community of "spiritual Jews" – by pointing Christians, instead, directly to the historical truth: the true historical followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua, the N^әtzarim, and the true leader of Ribi Y^әhoshua's followers: the N^әtzarim Paqid, restored within the same Jewish, not goyim, community — who teach that Torah is valid and authoritative?

   Why bootlick the imposter, who advocates displacement theology, when the true N^әtzarim and their Paqid have been restored still keeping and teaching Torah?

   Why make enemies of Christians when you could, instead, expose the counterfeit, J*e*s*u*s, by revealing to them their true teacher, Ribi Y^әhoshua and his legitimate representative, the Paqid, who enlighten them to abandon the idolatry of Christian displacement theology and, instead, embrace Torah?

   Why continue to lose the Flock to Y^әtziah due to sinat khinam when you could reverse Y^әtziah simply by pointing Christians – and assimilating Jews, instead, to well-documented historical truth: Ribi Y^әhoshua, his authentic N^әtzarim followers, and their Paqid, who turn them to Torah — instead of repeatedly reconfirming and perpetuating the idolatry of J*e*s*u*s and its displacement theology by recognizing and toadying to the successors of the counterfeit who ousted and usurped the fifteenth N^әtzarim Paqid?

   I have demonstrated (Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)) that Ribi Y^әhoshua and, l^ә-havdil, J*e*s*u*s are polar opposites. While J*e*s*u*s has been responsible for great persecutions of Israel, its polar opposite, Ribi Y^әhoshua, if redeemed from the slanderous misojudaic misrepresentations of gentile Christianity, offers salvation from self-extinction to the flickering-out wick (Remnant) of Israel (Y^әshayahu 42.3).

   That will, inexorably and inevitably, also confirm that Ribi Y^әhoshua is the Mashiakh.

   There is an even more insidious implication. Recognition that Ribi Y^әhoshua is the Mashiakh implies, inescapably, that his polar opposite, J*e*s*u*s, is the anti-messiah – or, in Christian parlance, the "antichrist"!!! I demonstrated in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) how the number 666 identifies J*e*s*u*s. Preventing assimilating Jews, and turning Christians, from following the anti-messiah is the straightforward result and unavoidable product of recognizing that the true Mashiakh is Ribi Y^әhoshua. Christianity, and Jews assimilating into the Christian world, will diminish in inverse proportion to the recognition that Ribi Y^әhoshua is the Mashiakh (because it correctly implies that J*e*s*u*s is a counterfeit). Conversely, Christianity, and Jews assimilating into the Christian world, will continue to increase in direct proportion to denial that Ribi Y^әhoshua is the Mashiakh – which allows Christians to continue to maintain, and persuade Jews, that their man-g*o*d, J*e*s*u*s, is Christ, Son of G*o*d, etc., ripping them away from Torah into displacement theology.

   
   
   
2. Restore logic and science to the interpretation of Torâh'. The implementation is daunting, however, because of the addiction that both too many rabbis and too many dati – "religious" – lay Jews have for their fables.
   
   

Logic Resolves the Judaic-Christian Debate

Christianity was established subsequent to 135 C.E. by gentile Hellenist Roman apostates who redacted the teachings of Ribi Y^әhoshua to syncretize them with Hellenism, in order to assimilate into Roman society. The redacted and assimilated Hellenist image they developed (an "it" counterfeit, as distinguished from "he," an historical Jew) was Ιησους (Ieisous – Anglicized to J*e*s*u*s; see Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)). Educating Christians to the authentic teachings of Ribi Y^әhoshua reveals to them that he requires them to abandon their Hellenist-based Christianity with its false image, J*e*s*u*s, to embrace Torah. Not only are Christian apologetics (causes of Jewish Y^әtziah) debunked, the Jew whom Christians profess to follow requires that Christians abandon Christianity – with its Hellenist counterfeit image, J*e*s*u*s – to follow Torâh'.

Logic resolves the Judaic-Christian debate because it demonstrates the fallacy of a Displacement Theology that intractably contradicts the Scripture upon which it depends. Intelligent Christians who grasp logic must then abandon Islam and adopt the well-documented Torah.

Logic Resolves the Judaic-Islamic Debate

If Muslims deny the veracity of the Jewish Bible then they have no legitimate foundation to even claim that Abraham existed, much less their descendency or any legitimate basis whatsoever for Islam. If, on the other hand, Muslims acknowledge the integrity of the Jewish Bibile, then logic resolves the Judaic-Islamic debate because it demonstrates the fallacy of a Displacement Theology that intractably contradicts the Scripture upon which it depends.

Logic also demands that Islam address, inter alia, (1) the documentation of their completely pagan history before Muhammed, (2) the complete lack of any documentation for their claims of a "True" Abrahamic religion before Muhammed, (3) documentation of the religious claims of Muhammed and (4) the logical requirement that the burden of proof rests entirely upon Muslims to disprove #1 and to prove (not assert, suggest, infer, insinuate, etc.) #2 & #3 in order for Islam to have any legitimacy whatsoever. Intelligent Muslims who grasp logic must then abandon Islam and adopt the well-documented Torah.

.

"[Orthodox Rabbi Eliezer] Berkovits held that if it isn't logical it isn't halakhic, and if it violates basic moral values, it isn't correct." He also declared, "We have plenty of Orthodoxy, but very little Halakhah." (Jerusalem Post Magazine, 2002.09.06, p. 10-11).

Logic as authority implies that if something isn't logical then it cannot be valid Halakhah. Therefore, we have too much Orthodoxy and not enough Halakhah! The n^әviyim prophesied (see, inter alia, Y^әshayahu 42.1 with 6-7) that י--ה would give His Mashiakh לברית עם לאור גוים (li-v^әrit am, l^ә-or joyim; for a b^әrit to the am, for a Light to the goyim).

To appeal to all educated and knowledgeable intellectuals (goyim as well as Y^әhudim — as prophesied), the b^әrit l^ә-am must define Halakhah by discrete mathematical logic that follows directly from the historical documentation of Har Sinai – especially written Torah. The consensus of the Sages, especially Rambam, is that logic is the ultimate earthly authority defining Halakhah. Therefore, this definition of Halakhah, because it relies upon discrete mathematical logic, supersedes any Medievalist and European-assimilated rabbis, whether Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox. In other words, this Halakhah is meta-Orthodox and constitutes the b^әrit of the Mashiakh. Interestingly, this is exactly the Halakhah and b^әrit taught by Ribi Y^әhoshua ( The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 12.15-21 & 3.1-2; 15.29-31).

Logic exacts a price. The conundrum that causes the most perplexity, and resulting Y^әtziah, is the sanctimonious contradiction of a corrupt and hypocritical rabbi, meticulously observant of ritual and minutiae while slandering and dispensing injustice, having a place in ha-olam ha-ba – supposedly promised by the b^әrit – while a kind, decent, compassionate and caring non-Jew doesn't. Most Jews recognize that this conundrum isn't compatible with Torâh'.

Rather than deal with the explicit Torâh' standard, which excludes such sanctimonious selective observance of Torâh' (whether Jew or goy), however, rabbis have, instead, introduced a false modern "spin" on an ancient concept – B^әnei-Noakh – to represent, contrary to Torâh', that both Jew and goy selective observers of Torâh' have a place in ha-olam ha-ba!

Yet. this stands in brazen contradiction of Torâh'. The only Biblical promise to B^әnei-Noakh (Biblically defined as every homo sapien, even Hitler) is a rainbow and no recurrence of the Mabul! While goyim argue from one side of their mouthes that works cannot earn a place in ha-olam ha-ba, they vacantly clamor to accept that same contra-Torâh' premise when it issues from the mouthes of rabbis in the guise of the modern rabbinic innovation.

The core element of a b^әrit, which rabbis consistently ignore because they cannot logically deal with its implications, is what Torâh' stipulates about כרת (krt). This is a verb root that, depending on its vowels / pronunciation, means "cut-in" or "cut-out." A b^әrit is initiated by כרת (karat; "cutting-in," inscribing) parties. Conversely, a party is eliminated from a b^әrit by כרת (kareit; "cutting-out," excision).

Torâh' explicitly dictates – unless and until t^әshuvah is accomplished – kareit from the B^әrit for specific transgressions of Torâh':

1. b^ә-Reishit 17.14 — failure to circumcise according to Halakhah (medical circumcision is unrelated to the b^әrit and, therefore, doesn't satisfy the mitzwah)
   
   
2. Sh^әmot 12.15, 19 — Eating khameitz during Khag ha-Matzot
   
   
3. Sh^әmot 30.33 — Formulating holy anointing oil or anointing a זר (zar; foreigner, non-Jew) with it
   
   
4. Sh^әmot 31.14 — Profaning Shabat
   
   
5. wa-Yiqra 7.27 & 17.10-11 — Eating meat that hasn't been kasheired of blood, i.e. eating halakhically non-kasheir meat.
   
   
6. wa-Yiqra 18 & 20.10-19, Sexual transgressions —
   
   
   • Seeing nakedness of certain relatives
     
     
   • Incest
     
     
   • Adultery
     
     
   • Homosexuality
     
     
   • Bestiality
     
     
7. wa-Yiqra 19 — Eating sacrificial meat after its expiry date
   
   
8. wa-Yiqra 20.1-5, — allowing your child to receive non-Torâh' religious training (i.e. "consigning your child to 'Molekh'"; a pagan cult that, as part of a religious induction, required children to learn to walk across hot coals, "passing through [not "consumed in"] the fire")
   
   
9. wa-Yiqra 20.6, 27 — occult
   
   
10. wa-Yiqra 20.9 — given to exclusively Yisra·eil, this requirement implies, and applies exclusively, to Torâh' parents: יקלל (y^әqaleil; slighting – from קלל (qalal;to make light of, slight) and קל (qal; light, slight), by extension: insult, offend or curse) one's Torâh'-observant parents
    
    
11. wa-Yiqra 23.29 — whomever doesn't תענה בעצם (t^әuneh b^ә-etzem; cause himself to respond, usually interpreted as "afflict") on Yom Kipur. תענה derives from the root verb ענה (anah; 1. to answer, reply, respond; 2. to be occupied, busy oneself, be engaged or absorbed in; 3. to sing; and 4. to be bowed down, afflicted. Because of the fast, the assumed meaning has always been #4. However, even the traditional interpretation may be the consequences of #1 rather than the principle intent. In any case, though fasting is explicitly required, the central theme remains #1.
    
    
12. b^ә-Midbar 9.13 — failure to keep the Pesakh Seider (post-Beit-ha-Miqdâsh counterpart of the Pesakh lamb)
    
    
13. b^ә-Midbar 15.29-31 — any Jew or geir who, ביד רמה (b^ә-yad ramah; with a high hand; i.e. rebelliously against the Beit-Din), transgresses a mitzwah of the one Torâh' – which is here stipulated to apply equally to both Jew and geir – thus, מגדף (m^әgadeiph; has hurled-abuse at, reviled, blasphemed) י--ה
    
    

Thus, any Jew who is guilty of any of these transgressions has accrued not merely pecuniary fines or minor penalties but has incurred כרת (kareit; "cutting-out," excision). Until he or she accomplishes t^әshuvah, that person is no longer party to the B^әrit and, therefore, no longer part of Israel and, therefore, no longer a legitimate Jew! Denominational distinctions, then, lose their meaning – from Orthodoxy to Christian Jews, giving way to a more strictly logical understanding of Torâh': meta-Orthodoxy.

Every Jew transgresses Torâh', but not every Jew commits these specific transgressions that incur kareit. Contrary to original and innate misojudaic displacement theology from which Christianity dangles for validity, while every Jew is periodically in need of t^әshuvah, not every Jew has incurred kareit.

The converse isn't true for non-Jews, who, at best, reject most of Torâh' "b^ә-yad ramah" when not even partial (i.e. selective) observance is acceptable. Having not been born as Jews a first time, gentile Christians clearly have no grasp of the meaning "born (implying into Israel, i.e. as a Jew) again"! Until they are admitted to Israel under the terms of the B^әrit, as stipulated in Torah (i.e. according to Halakhah, by a Beit-Din, non-Jews remain outside of the B^әrit, without a place in ha-olam ha-ba.

Jews guilty of these specific transgressions of Torâh' who haven't made t^әshuvah are, like the goyim, without a place in ha-olam ha-ba! The difference is that while excised Jews need only make t^әshuvah to be fully reinstated in Israel with their place in ha-olam ha-ba, goyim cannot "return" to a non-selective Torâh'-observance they have never known and don't understand. Goyim must learn Torâh' from scratch, abandon their old religion and implement Torâh' fully and non-selectively – which implies halakhically, i.e. under the supervision of a Beit-Din. (For details, see our Syllabus. Click on the Khavrutâ link in the appropriate ministry, which you'll find in the left panel in the N^әtzarim Village.)

Medieval-blinkered and European-assimilated middlemen preclude their resulting view of Torâh' ever becoming intellectually viable and relevant to intelligent and educated people in the modern world. However, those who are meta-Orthodox eliminate the dead-ender intermediaries who have driven away 95% of the flock from Torâh'. Thus, meta-Orthodoxy presents Torâh as fresh, always up-to-date and relevant to everyone.

Neither Moses and the Israelis, nor the principles י--ה gave him on Har Sinai, were Medieval or European. Written Torâh' explicitly prohibited additions to it or deletions from it (D^әvarim 4.2; 31.1). Rabbinic authority is limited to interpreting written Torâh' logically. Logic, not the rabbis, is the ultimate authority in interpreting Torâh'. Rabbinic authority derived from, and is limited to, their logical skill. Rabbi originally meant a "master," referring specifically to his training in logic (applied to interpretation, exegesis, etc.). The rabbi's authority derived from his mastery of logic (relative to Torâh'). When rabbi and logic diverge, authority follows logic – not rabbi.

Therefore, those rabbinic traditions that either contradict written Torâh' or trace only to medieval Europe, rather than having a demonstrated solid logical basis scientifically rooted in Torâh' of Har Sinai, are prohibited by Torâh' and, therefore, cannot be Halakhah! It then follows that when any rabbi presumes to displace Moses and the Israelis of Har Sinai with medievalism and Europe-Y^әtziah it constitutes displacement theology – idolatry no less serious than the Egyptian-Y^әtziah of the Golden Calf!

By definition, meta implies not a relaxing of Torah values like the Conservative and Reform (or its more extreme perversion, Christianity) but, rather, an even higher standard of adherence to Halakhah – but as defined to a more rigorous logical and scientific standard. Unlike the Medieval mindset of the European-assimilated Ultra-Orthodox, meta-Orthodox implies Halakhah derived logically and scientifically (according to historical documentation, archeology, etc.) — directly from Har Sinai. Derived thusly, Halakhah will always be as modern and relevant as tomorrow, to every person in their personal daily life practice and challenges.

In the same way that all horses are animals but not all animals are horses, so, too, all N^әtzarim are meta-Orthodox but not all meta-Orthodox are N^әtzarim. There are many Orthodox – most of whom aren't N^әtzarim – who are, by definition, meta-Orthodox; but not all Orthodox are meta-Orthodox. Similarly, there are likely some Conservatives, disgusted with Orthodox masquerading Medievalism and Europeanism as Torâh', who are, at heart, meta-Orthodox. Geirim are also included in the meta-Orthodox. Thus, the meta-Orthodox are identical to the ancient Y^әrei-ha-Sheim! Meta-Orthodox and Y^әrei-ha-Sheim are equivalent.

This most emphatically doesn't point to the Ultra-Orthodox, whose tunnel-visioned focus on simplistic European Medievalism represents the worst part of the problem. On 1998.09.16, IBA radio news reported this afternoon that a World Jewish Congress study has concluded that the khareidim / Ultra-Orthodox are "no longer part and parcel of the world Jewish community." According to Executive Director of WJC in Israel Avi Becker: "There is a growing Khareidization… in some Jewish communities. But at the same time, the Jews who are becoming Ultra-Orthodox, and they are strengthened because of their natural growth and also because there is a process of return to Judaism in some communities. But the problem is that they are really closing themselves in willing ghettos… they are choosing it because this is the place where they can live as Jews when they have walking distance to synagogues. And unfortunately, more and more of these khareidi communities are losing the context and the touch with the mainstream community, and they are not really part and parcel of the Jewish community at large."

As I've been predicting for some time, the only way that the fanatic extremist element of Orthodox Judaism can continue their medieval mindset is by avoiding increasing education, scientific and archaeological facts, the "Information Highway" and the "Shrinking Global Village." All of these make inroads into their communities, confronting them with inconvenient information that contradicts their irrational (illogical) Medieval mindsets. The only alternative to these modernities, however, is to withdraw from the real world into closed ghettos. The direction the ultra-Orthodox are taking is toward selective education, in hopes the rabbis can control and censure what their puppets learn. Even the selective education, however, is having the effect of increasingly boomeranging from חזרת בתשובה (khazarat bi-t^әshuvah; return to the answer, the traditional call to "repentance") to חזרת בשאלה (khazarat b^ә-sh^ә·eilah; return to the question) — a rethink.

Many issues are challenging to everyone, of every religious persuasion and every walk of life. The object of Case Law – Halakhah, which hasn't been orally transmitted for millennia – is to imbue Torah with the dynamic quality needed to progress side-by-side with the progress of humanity and technology. While there is no excuse for becoming desensitized with age, rendering one increasingly unfeeling to victims of injustice over time, nevertheless, young people are generally more outraged by injustice than the supposedly wise older generation, whose defense is of the status quo out of fear, not a defense Torah as they claim. The issues in this section are challenges that must be engaged and negotiated by Halakhah in order to remain relevant to young Jews. Concurrently, making Halakhah Tzadiq will make Torah relevant to, and admired by, the goyim as well as Jews.

Other issues don't even merit being described as challenging. They're simply indefensible Medieval decisions over which rabbis seem hell-bent on self-destructing rather than addressing and remedying.

Progress depends upon an openness to learn and understand the other side of issues. Only medievalists with a terminal case of Ostrich Syndrome and intellectual bankruptcy advocate for forcing people's head into the sand. This is virtually identical to the Christian-like response of "no answer so believe blindly." Ever stronger dosages of this same medicine – from Medievolatry & Europolatry to injustice and hate-mongering to adamantly ignoring questions and issues – are already responsible for alienating 98% and, if the situation isn't changed, extinction waits at the door.

The following article, which I posted on my website back in 2000, outlines the general problem.

Orthodox Rabbis Slander Orthodox Rabbis

The Agony of the Agunot

"The great agunah debacle (Part II)

Naomi Ragen, Jerusalem Post, 2000.06.16, p. B9; posted 2000.06.16

"When [Yoseiph] slandered his brothers, the commentators tell us, he didn't lie. He just told the truth with an evil intent.

"Rabbi Moshe Morgenstern, head of a special court that has been freeing agunot (women whose husbands refuse to give them a halakhic divorce) when all attempts to reason with their husbands have failed, has been slandered, mostly by pious hypocrites who present their sin as a good deed, by saying they're defending the true faith.

"I [Naomi Ragen] wrote to Rabbi Morgenstern and asked him to answer his critics. I leave my intelligent readers to draw their own conclusions.

Dear Mrs. Ragen,

I did keep my first wife an agunah for seven years, 42 years ago, because I loved her very much and we have a son. I turned over heaven and earth to save our marriage. I then went to college, Columbia University, and got a BS degree in accounting. Nothing that I tried to save our marriage helped.

It was then that I realized that you cannot force any human being – man or woman – to live with someone they do not want. I consider what I did – not to give a gêt for any period of time – a crime. I was one million percent wrong. It was then that I decided I wanted to make sure that other women did not have to suffer the way my former wife did.

I have spent the last 40 years mastering the four parts of the Shulkhan Ârukh. I received haskamah – approbation – from Rav Piekarski – a top rosh yeshivah at Lubavitch in Brooklyn, NY and hala[k]hic poseiq to the Lubavitcher Rebbi on the four parts of the Shulkhan Ârukh. [He had earlier been ordained by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein – N.R.]

All my learning has been geared to finding a solution in accordance with halakhah to free agunot.

It is precisely because Rav Rackman and I do not earn our livelihood from the rabbinate and allied professions that we have the independence to be honest and defy the rabbinical mafia, whose tentacles extend across the ocean to Europe and Israel. It is our observation that there are very few rabbis who are hard-core opponents. But it is these few who intimidate all others.

Our greatest opponents are those who have suffered financially because of the existence of our court, which has freed many agunot from their control and blackmail. All the rabbinical courts link the granting of a gêt to an agunah with her acceptance of their arbitration in all domestic issues. The rabbinical courts, as a rule of thumb, shortchange the agunah on all issues, favoring the husband.

Thus, the agunah is forced to settle for a fraction of what she needs for survival and has to agree to give up custody of her children or otherwise remain celibate for eternity.

For this [dubious; ybd] service, five rabbis each charge $200 minimum per hour; There are three rabbis in the Beit-Din; a rabbi who represents the husband and a rabbi who represents the wife. Thus, the minimum cost of the Beit-Din is $1,000 per hour. To arbitrate all the domestic issues takes 10 to 50 hours. Thus each agunah represents a source of $10,000 – $50,000.

Our Beit-Din for agunot has freed over 300 agunot and we are slowly approaching the 400 figure. We have thus cost our critics over three million dollars in lost revenues.

Rather than find a solution to the blackmail and agony of the agunah, our critics turn heaven and earth to destroy Rav Rackman and myself, hoping in that way to again put all agunot under their control and mercy.

No, not all our critics are dishonest, unreliable, irresponsible, and uncaring. But even those critics, whose hands are not stained by direct collusion with blackmail and coercion of agunot are to be faulted for not only doing nothing from the point of view of halakhah to free these women, but for doing nothing against the husbands and the rabbis who are corrupt.

The coercion, insults, and threats dircted towards not only my reputation, but my life, have not been duplicated towards recalcitrant husbands and those rabbis who are granting these men special dispensations to remarry (hêeir meiê rabênim) without first giving their wives a gêt – until she settles on their terms.

The agunah has a choice to free herself from the chains crafted by these husbands and such rabbis. There are 30 or 40 hala[k]hic solutions which our Beit-Din uses to free agunot who would otherwise be forced to remain celibate for eternity.

The problem is particularly severe in the United States and Europe, where the rabbinical courts do not have police powers as they do in Israel [Note: Israeli religious courts rarely use these powers – N.R.]. It is therefore mandatory for an honest Beit-Din to annul marriages in order to prevent the debacle that agunot face.

Our Beit-Din l^ә-Ba·aiyot Agunot will move heaven and earth to free any agunah…

Mrs. Ragen, I have the greatest admiration and respect for your honesty and commitment to true Torâh' principles.

Rav Moshe Morgenstern.

Halakhah represents the Tzedeq of י--ה, which is Tzadiq to everyone. To reconcile with the Torah definition of tzedeq relative to the agunah, Halakhah supports Rav Moshe Morgenstern in the matter of agunot, condemning those rabbis who perpetuate the current injustices against agunot. Rabbinic decisions that aren't – logically – tzadiq to everyone pervert the Tzedeq of י--ה and aren't Halakhah. Because these rabbis pervert the Tzedeq, and Halakhah, of י--ה in the Name of י--ה, they are also guilty of khilul י--ה.

Rabbis, including Orthodox rabbis, have no more dispensation from obeying Halakhah than anyone else. Any rabbi who isn't adhering to Halakhah that treats agunot justly is ro·i ha-elil – see Z^әkharyah 11.17; Y^әkhezqeil 34.1-23), who is in need of t^әshuvah and kipur in order to restore his place in ha-olam ha-ba!

Every election in Israel is preceded by one or more revered Qabbalist rabbis offering amulets he has blessed to those who agree to vote for the candidate the Qabbalist rabbi endorses. The amulets are believed by his followers to have special protective powers. This is magic that is prohibited by Torâh', plain and simple. The excessive faith that such rabbis' followers have in them, and which these rabbis encourage, is adultery against י--ה, in Whom their faith belongs. Charisma is a deceiver. The greatest that a rabbi can aspire to be is a master of logic who explains Torah. Thus, such idolizing of these rabbis is Avodah Zarah. This is an indefensible practice, which responsible rabbis are obligated to condemn. Failure to speak out against these idolaters and encourage them to make t^әshuvah constitutes implicit complicity in the idolatry. Rambam was the first to actively condemn and oppose the Qabbalists, but for centuries they have been hell-bent to self-destruct.

Miracle

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of G*o*d" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company).

Supernatural

(1) Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. (2) Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. (3) Of or relating to a deity. (4) Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. (5) Of or relating to the miraculous."

Wonder

Something that causes astonishment or admiration.

The operative word in the definition of the English word, miracle, above, is "appears." In English, miracles present a dilemma. Is man arrogant to assume that whenever he or she doesn't understand the physics involved, then a phenomenon has to violate the laws of physics (i.e., be supernatural) to occur? Or, alternately, does the Perfect (?) Creator of the universe contradict His Perfect (?) laws to accomplish His Perfect (?) objectives? Self-contradiction demonstrates imperfection.

In the original Hebrew, the term that is translated into English as miracle is נס (neis), an astonishing sign that is peculiarly fortunate or appropriate and beyond contemporary explanation – as if by divine intervention. In Hebrew, there is no contradiction between neis and the natural laws of the universe. A neis is simply a phenomenon that exceeds contemporary scientific knowledge. If a Biblical person saw a modern cell phone, television, airplane, missile or satellite they would certainly call it a neis. In modern Israel, the term for instant coffee is – neis!

For the Creator to have to intervene in His creation and contradict His natural laws with supernatural corrections in order to achieve His objectives implies self-contradiction and original incorrectness – i.e. imperfection. Alternately, for a Creator to design natural laws that will achieve all of His objectives without intervention implies a level of knowledge far exceeding the natural universe (including time, which is limited to our universe), which both eliminates contradictory supernatural interventions and agrees entirely with the teachings of Torah.

The Hebrew word sometimes translated as "angels" is מלאך (malakh). Other times, however, malakh clearly, sometimes explicitly, refers to a man. This continues to elude rabbinic understanding. In ancient times, a holdover from Egyptian Pharaonic assertions of divinity, tribal leaders and judges were held to be אלהים (elohim; g*o*ds; see b^ә-Reishit 3.5; 6.2, 4; Sh^әmot 7.1; 21.6, 13; 22.7-8; et al.). Belief in "angels" and their evil counterpart, demons, are extensions of the superstitious belief in the supernatural.

This is particularly conspicuous in two passages in which the rabbis have chosen, for simplistic convenience, to understand "angel" rather than a representative of ha-Sheim: the explicitly stipulated men of b^ә-Reishit 18 and the stipulated man with whom Ya·aqov wrestled – his brother Eisaw who, like Ya·aqov, was a tribal chief. Rabbinic superstition in the latter case led to blasphemy (see Lulav & Etrog, Waving On Shabbat). By creating intractable contradictions, rabbinic superstition in the first case has rendered Torâh' — as rabbis interpret it — impossible to defend to Christians. (It is impossible to dispute that Scripture does explicitly stipulate that these visitors ARE ha-Sheim, NOT a malakh of ha-Sheim as the rabbis wish it read. They were ha-Sheim in the same sense that you might announce the cable guy at your front door: "Honey, the cable company is here." Would you mean a spooky angel of the cable company??? Avraham's visitors were human representatives of ha-Sheim, not a divine manifestation of ha-Sheim that presaged the Christian man-g*o*d, which rabbis ignorantly and futilely try to pass off as "angels.")

The Jerusalem Post Metro, 2005.10.28, p. 3 – "In an unusual show of unity, leaders of segments of Orthodox Jewry in Haifa met last week in the office of the Vizhnitzer Rebbe to coordinate their struggle against the activities of the J-----h's Witnesses in the city… The meeting was organized by the Yad L'achim anti-missionary organization… the head of Shas in Haifa noted that his party is working to enact national legislation banning missionary activities in public buildings, in addition to similar municipal bylaws."

Young Jews, including droves of young Jews who have grown up in the Israeli Orthodox school system, are abandoning Torâh' because the rabbis have no answers to the important questions in life. Nothing demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of these rabbis more than the Jewish, usually Ultra-Orthodox, "anti-missionaries" who, lacking effective answers, attempt to enact laws making religious discourse illegal for other religions. Their attitude is if they can't compete with them (and they can't), slander them so they are discredited and suppress them. None of these Jewish "anti-missionary" groups have the first clue how to prepare young Jews to deal with Christianity, Islam or even the important questions of purpose in life. For every Jew they so loudly claim to save, they alienate ten thousand from Torah because of their ineffective and boomeranging tactics.

They're not true Jewish "anti-missionary" groups at all. A few are well-meaning but have no grasp of Christianity (and, so, cannot explain how to counter what they don't grasp). Most are simply hate-mongers, often evidencing a racist perspective, who think they are divinely-ordained saviors of the Jewish people. Because they think they are divinely ordained to save the Jewish people, they feel they have automatic dispensation to use any lie, misrepresentation or slander to achieve their goals. As corroborated by an article (2004 or 2005) in The Jerusalem Post, the most well known "anti-missionary" organization in the Israeli Jewish community is completely feckless and many of their members genuinely think of themselves as Jewish espionage agents, infiltrating "enemy ranks" to spy on their activities. A silly "James Bond" movie-spy complex is what Jewish "anti-missionaries" are about; not preparing intelligent young Jews to deal effectively and successfully with serious religious discourse they will face in the world (unless they're kept, incommunicado, within a cult). Intelligent, thinking, educated young Jews cannot be persuaded by referring them to the Ostrich Syndrome. Torâh' has iron-clad answers to Christian arguments (see Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)); but no rabbi has any grasp of them whatsoever and isn't willing to learn the answers. They are hell-bent to self-destruct.

By their own admission as well as Biblical definition, Arabs are descendants of Avraham through Yishmaeil and Eisaw. No one seriously disputes that Egyptians, Syrians and the other surrounding peoples predated Yishmaeil and Eisaw by millennia. Therefore, neither Egyptians nor Syrians and our other surrounding neighbors are true Arabs.

The picture is further complicated by the introduction in the Middle East of Minoan and Mycenaean Greeks, the "Sea Peoples" – who colonized the Sinai city by the Egyptian border as well as the region of Gaza, both of which they named Pilosim (Hebraized to P^әlishtim Hellenized and anglicized to Philistine and Palestine), after their native hometown: Pilos, Greece. This still hasn't taken into account the Phoenicians (who may also have been Minoan or Mycenaean Greeks), who today, according to DNA studies, predominate Lebanon. Thus, of those who call themselves Arabs today, a true Arab is a rarity – and a product of extensive Y^әtziah. This is important because true Arabs would have a portion of the inheritance of Avraham in the Middle East (though not including Israel); pseudo-Arabs do not.

Nor is Arab synonymous with Muslim. Some who call themselves Arab are Christians, for example. Conversely, not all Muslims are Arabs. Non-Arab Muslims populate much of Asia and Africa.

By not distinguishing Arabs from other surrounding Middle Eastern peoples, particularly those who claim to be Palestinians – which defines them as descendents of Greeks, Jews voluntarily and unilaterally cede land rights, which they have no right to cede, to those having no legitimate claim. By not distinguishing Islam as a second order displacement theology (built upon the acceptance and precedence of the first displacement figure, J*e*s*u*s), Jews cede Biblical validity to Arabs without the accompanying Biblical contradiction of Islamic displacement theology and modern definition of an Arab – which affirm the validity of Torah (negating the Islamic bible) and the rights of Jews to the land of Israel, respectively.

On the other hand, current Jewish religious extremism as a strategy against Arabs, Islam and "anti-Semitism" in the eyes of the world media has been demonstrably censured by י--ה. The disengagement is a fait accompli that demonstrates conclusively that the religious extremists could NOT have been following י--ה: Were the religious extremists wrong or is י--ה impotent? Clearly, the religious extremists, including their rabbis, are the modern counterpart to the rebels defeated by the Amaleqim and K^әna·anim at the Battle of Kharmah (b^ә-Midbar 14.41-44).

Use of the term "Anti-Semitism" is a counterproductive insistence dependent on semantic denial. Arabs are correct in arguing that they cannot be anti-Semitic since they are, themselves, Semites. Insistence on denying this is not only foolish, it detracts from efforts to combat hatred of Jews and hatred of Judaism.

Evidence of Jew-hatred before about 135 C.E. vacillates from sparse to misrepresentation. Before point zero C.E., evidence is sparse. There is no evidence that Jews were hated or persecuted, as a people, more than any other people. Beginning in 135 C.E., hatred of Jews emerged and increased exponentially; but this was hatred of Judaism spilling over into hatred of Jews, not hatred of Jews independent of Judaism. Hence, the accurate description is misojudaism, not anti-Semitism.

Between point 0 C.E. and 135 C.E., the picture is muddy and extremely complicated. Distinction between polar opposites N^әtzarim and Notzrim (Christians), however, has illuminated many misconceptions concerning hatred and persecutions occurring during this period. The Roman persecution of "Christians" turns out to be a persecution not of gentile Hellenist Christians but, rather, of the original N^әtzarim Jews. This throws an entirely different light on the entire situation. It also explains why the Jewish allies of the Romans, the Hellenist pseudo-Tz^әdoqim (see Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)), also persecuted – again, not gentile Hellenist Christians but, rather, N^әtzarim Jews; and explains the otherwise inexplicable: why the P^әrushim defended Paqid Ya·aqov (brother of Ribi Y^әhoshua) after he was murdered by the pseudo-Tz^әdoqim Kohein ha-Jadol. Thus, "the Jews" didn't persecute "Christians." Neither did the Romans. Rather, both Romans and anti-P^әrushim pseudo-Tz^әdoqim persecuted the P^әrushim N^әtzarim Jews.

If only good things happened to good people or only bad things happened to bad people then everyone would be good in order to have only good things happen to them and avoid all of the bad things. There is no essential difference between this and good people able to pray and receive good things and bad people not being able to pray and receive good things. Such scenarios are like seriously promising a soldier that if he cleans his rifle properly he'll be a good soldier and will never actually have to fight. That neither develops nor tests one's nephesh (see the Purpose of Each Person). Such an environment doesn't even allow genuine choice and, therefore, precludes free will – the whole point of our existence (see the Purpose of Each Person). One doesn't find out what kind of soldier they are, or what kind of courage they have or lack, until the bullets start zipping past them, until they or their friend is struck down. Similarly, one cannot develop his or her nephesh without genuine testing free of outside intervention.

The Bible frequently appears to manifest outside intervention. But, when studied more closely, it can be seen that, in every such case, the purpose of the unusual phenomena, miracles, was not because of the goodness or holiness of a person or group (who is almost always explicitly defined as failing to be good and holy) but, rather, so that the purpose of ha-Sheim – given above – would succeed; something that was designed into the normal operation of the universe from the beginning. It appears to be an answer to the prayer of a holy person only because the person was operating within the design of ha-Sheim. When a "good" person isn't operating within the design of ha-Sheim, which can sometimes be subtle and counter-intuitive, then the prayer isn't answered.

Often, bad things that happen to people are caused by the actions of evil people (e.g. the Shoah). Both good choices and bad choices of parents, and even more indirect ancestors, routinely express themselves in newborn babies (e.g. a drug-addicted prostitute contracts HIV and passes it on to her baby). Children born to Torah-observant parents are far more advantaged in learning and practicing Torah than children born of goyim parents who never bothered to seek out truth (as contrasted with merely seeking support for their present beliefs while rejecting information – all around them – that would lead them to Torah). Every child is born with a unique set of advantages and disadvantages to deal with in life. This suggests that, just as two strands of denaturized (unzipped, divided) DNA mirror each other, י--ה has a unique measuring rod for each person that mirrors that specific individual's unique set of advantages and disadvantages, in comparing that person's effort to their potential utmost to keep Torah – which, interestingly, is all that Torah requires of any individual.

Blaming ha-Sheim for the evils of man, however, is clearly irresponsible and unjust. Similarly, blaming ha-Sheim for life's tests, which is the result of impersonal laws of the universe and our whole purpose for being here, demonstrates that the person doesn't grasp his or her purpose in life. Instead, he or she passes the buck, avoiding responsibility for his or her life choices and showing a lack of development of his or her nephesh.

The oldest extant depiction of known Israelis, captured consequent to the Assyrian conquering of Lakhish in B.C.E. 722, reveals their ankle-length robe and the Israeli hair and beard style, as distinct from the Assyrian soldier and other peoples (from the Sennakherib relief, B.C.E. 701).

As mentioned in our section on kashrut, Along with their native land, their language, their g*o*ds and sacrificial (dietary) laws, liturgy and dress, ancient peoples were distinguished by their culture. In addition to distinctive national dress, a people was immediately recognizable, and therefore defined, by their grooming: the length and style of their hair and beard. Thus, Torah includes the length and style of hair and beard as part of the characteristics that define Israel.

Torah leaves room for Israel to progress by defining only certain unique and distinctive characteristics. The rest may change, but the defining characteristics, spelled out in Torah, must never change. There was nothing distinctive or defining about Israeli sandals. Thus, there is no constraint on changing footwear. Aside from the p^әtil t^әkheilet and t^әphilin, there was nothing distinctive or defining about Israeli dress. Thus, except for these two features, there are no constraints on dress other than modesty, which is relative to other contemporary peoples. Grooming, however, is spelled out completely in ancient terms. One may not shave like any of the goyim.

Like kashrut and many of the other mitzwot, the main purpose of prohibitions against shaving was l^ә-havdil between Qodesh and khol – i.e., to prevent Y^әtziah.

However, we find today that Orthodox rabbis, perverting the intent of Torah (by defining electric shaving as "trimming, not shaving"), have given Christian-style "dispensation" to assimilate into the goyim in this respect. This is a direct breach of the b^әrit (the mitzwot Torah).

Sennakherib's Relief shows the length of the hair and beard, demonstrating, too, that no shaving sculptured any portion of the beard or its edges. (What may appear to be corn rows of the hair is the ancient artist's depiction of curly hair.)

The authentic Remnant of Israel will emulate the hair and beards of the earliest depictions identified as Israelis with reasonable certainty. (There is an earlier depiction, which some claim to show Israelis or Hebrews; however, the identification is subject to considerable doubt.)

Shokeling or shok'ling (sometimes corrupted to "shuckling") is a Yiddish term (see section on Yiddish) referring to the continuous reeling or "Dippy Bird"-like bowing of many Ultra-Orthodox Jews while reciting rote prayers.

First of all, in many Orthodox circles, excessive bowing or swaying, more characteristic of the Ultra-Orthodox, is – correctly – considered sanctimonious. Criticism of continuous bowing and swaying during prayer isn't a uniquely gentile sentiment.

There is neither Scriptural nor logical basis for reeling or Dippy-Birding. Rationalization for reeling and Dippy-Birding relies on a mistranslation of T^әhilim 35.10 – "All of עצמותי (atzmotai; my bones, not "my limbs") will say…"; not to mention all of the equally valid ways that bones might "say…" other than reeling or Dippy-Birding. After all, it's "bones," not "limbs." There's no end to the foolishness invited by such misinterpretation of this passage of Scripture. One could make the same argument for waiting until after death so that one's bones can be used to beat out a message on a tom-tom! One could equally well argue any bodily movement from this misinterpretation, e.g., whirling (as in dervishes), somersaulting or rolling one's body across India, walking over fiery coals, dancing, gymnastics, prayer by playing football, boxing or competing in a karate match; even drug aids or drop-down, flop-on-the-floor spasms.

The consensus of scientific research regarding concentration and focus is that the body should be as relaxed and uninvolved as practical. In the case of prayer, this includes conventional decorum and the assigned position (standing, seated or prostrate). No reputable scientific study recommends reeling or Dippy-Birding as an aid to concentration.

The only product of reeling and Dippy-Birding, therefore, is to cause non-Jews to laugh at Jewish repetition of "rote prayer" and Jewish service to ha-Sheim. That makes reeling and Dippy-Birding khilul י--ה!

Just as gentiles tend to perceive religious Jews monolithically, Jews also tend to perceive all Christians monolithically: all "believers in J*e*s*u*s." While this is indeed true of all Christians, it's also true of Muslims, Hindus, even most historians "believe in J*e*s*u*s" in the sense of an historical figure. Clearly, the distinction between Jew and Christian, including "Messianics" (see Christian Jews and Origins of Christianity), requires a more refined and logical definition. In the meantime, however, Reform and many Conservative Jews have assimilated to the point that the only difference between them and the goyim around them – aside from the racist genetic factor – is that they don't believe in J*e*s*u*s. Hence, the majority of Jews can only distinguish themselves from goyim as long as they can point to this factor. If this factor disappears, the bubble, an ephemeral illusion, of large numbers of Jews (who are, in fact, already completely assimilated) bursts and vanishes.

The only thing that defines Jews, Israel, distinct from the goyim is the b^әrit – the mitzwot Torah.

Thus, the properly framed question is: What does Torâh' define as prohibited about Christian doctrines and beliefs? When this question is examined in depth, the only conclusions are that:

• There is no prohibition in Torâh' that identifies anyone by name as "cannot be the Mashiakh."
  
  
• Torâh' precludes any candidate that advocates breaching Torâh' (D^әvarim 13.2-6). That makes J*e*s*u*s an impossible candidate.
  
  
• Torâh' precludes any sharing or division of divinity or anthropomorphosis. That, too, makes J*e*s*u*s an impossible candidate. Here, however, an ancient, and pivotal, lawyer's trick question, which produces a misleading answer, comes into play; see below.
  
  
• Historically, Oxford historian-scholar James Parkes has demonstrated conclusively (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) that the fourth-century Roman, Hellenist-Christian, image the world knows today as J*e*s*u*s was the polar opposite of the historical Jew from the first century C.E. Thus, the fourth-century image, venerated by Christians as J*e*s*u*s, is an image, a counterfeit and an idol. As many historians of the first-century have shown, the first century historical Jew, and his Jewish followers, remained ensconced living in harmony in the Jewish community and in complete mutual enmity with the Christian Church throughout their short existence (see Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)). .
  
  

As demonstrated in the Khanukhah page of our website (www.netzarim.co.il) and Who Are the N^әtzarim? (WAN), the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh had been wrested from the last legitimate Ben Tzadoq / Tz^әdoqim Kohein ha-Jadol, Y^әkhonyah (Khonyo) Ben-Shimon, by his avid Hellenist brother, Y^әhoshua Ben-Shimon. With few exceptions (e.g. the Khashmonaim, see the Khanukhah page), beginning with Y^әkhonyah (Khonyo) Ben-Shimon, all subsequent Kohanim in the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh, including all subsequent Kohein ha-Jadol, were displacement-theology (Hellenist) pseudo-Tz^әdoqim, each of whom was called the (current) Kohein ha-Resha by the P^әrushim.

The ousted legitimate Tz^әdoqim were dispersed throughout Israel, many precipitating to Qumran. By the time of Ribi Y^әhoshua (Ben Yoseiph Ben-David), the Kohanim of the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh were all Hellenist "Wicked Priests" and it was these "Wicked Priests" who questioned and railroaded By the time of Ribi Y^әhoshua – because he was an uncompromising threat to their Roman patrons' claims of divinity (and, not incidentally, to their dependent Hellenist view of Judaism and the position of the aristocratic Hellenist pseudo-Tz^әdoqim) – to be executed by the Romans.

To accomplish this injustice, and they could only do so by their own laws in the name of Hellenist Judaism. Because By the time of Ribi Y^әhoshua was a highly respected member of the opposing Judaic party, the P^әrushim, and innocent of any true transgression of Torah, they had to devise a trick question that would provide them with a ruse to deliver Ribi Y^әhoshua to the Romans. The irony is completely lost in English translations. They couldn't ask him if he considered himself to be Elohim because no Jew believed such a preposterous thing. Ribi Y^әhoshua, and any other legitimate P^әrushim who might have been present, would have laughed thunderously at them as he declared "no!" through his laughter and, the "Wicked Priests" well understood, their case would be no more than a ridiculous joke.

However, they devised a more devilish question; not "Are you Elohim?" but, rather, "Are you a Ben-Elohim (the son of Elohim)?"

Those familiar with Torah will immediately recognize the conundrum: it was well known among Jews familiar with Torâh' that Israel, and especially the Shophtim of Israel were, numerous times, referred to as Ben-Elohim or Ben-Eilim (Z^әkharyah 12.8; D^әvarim 14.1; Sh^әmot 21.6, 13; 22.7, 8; 7.1; b^ә-Reishit 3.1; 6.2, 4). They knew that he couldn't give a negative answer to this question without giving up everything that he stood for, ceasing to be a threat to them or their Roman patrons.

This conundrum was lost entirely on the Gentile Romans who, in 135 C.E., conceived Christianity and the Church and began to develop their syncretized Hellenist religion. To the post-135 C.E. gentile Romans, this was perceived as a basis for ascribing attributes of their Roman man-g*o*ds, including Caesar, to their distorted perceptions based on Hellenist Jewish accounts – thereby developing their own, distorted and counterfeit image, which we know today as the Christian man-g*o*d, J*e*s*u*s.

The subtlety, then, is that he was no different from all other Jews who do their utmost to keep Torâh'; they are all sons of Elohim. So, it's impossible to deny Scripture that defines all Jews, including Ribi Y^әhoshua, as the son (lower case) of Elohim; but he most certainly would have been horrified at the very suggestion that any man, himself included, is י--ה.

Rabbis today have adopted this misleading tactic of the "Wicked Priests," which their own Beit-Din ha-Jadol opposed (according to both Josephus and the NT), to promulgate and amplify the slander of the "Wicked Priests" and Christians about the most famous Torâh'-teacher and Ribi – who never advocated the idea of a man-g*o*d or other Christian doctrines – in all of history.

Throughout history, from the time of Iy-Zevel (M^әlakhim Aleph 19.14) to Hellenism and Antiochus Epiphanes (Jubilees 15.33-34; I Maccabees 1.48), various goyim have mounted campaigns to prohibit Yisra·eil from circumcising their children. The 21^st century began with a campaign by the British to ban circumcision.

Many theories have been floated by the rabbis through the centuries to offer a rational basis for circumcision being selected as the sign of the b^әrit. None provides a reasonable explanation to which intelligent and educated young Jews can refer to justify the continuation of the practice. One confirmation of this is Reformed Judaism, which no longer requires circumcision.

Historical documentation is clear and conclusive that the practice didn't originate with Avraham. The Egyptians had long circumcised their children at about ten years of age and other Middle Eastern people circumcised their children at about the same age. Some momentous event prompted Avraham to adapt this specific practice לאות ברית (l^ә-ot b^әrit; for a sign of a b^әrit).

Contrary to Rav Saadyah Ga·on (Emunot ve-Deos 3.10), a Perfect Creator cannot create imperfectly, designing a deliberate imperfection into His creation, in this case man (although something needed at one time may, with evolution, become superfluous). Therefore, we cannot consider man as having been created with a deliberately superfluous foreskin for the specific purpose that man needs to prune it in order to become perfect. A priori, circumcision deliberately causes a blemish. This fits the ancient pattern of circumcision.

To understand what circumcision meant to Avraham we must understand what it meant to him as well as everyone around him. First, it was a right of passage to manhood. We can infer the reason that many peoples in the Middle East practiced circumcision as a male rite of passage from boyhood to manhood. This was a time when the ultimate act of imploring one's g*o*d was to sacrifice one's firstborn child; child being the operative word. There is no suggestion that any firstborn man ever served as a firstborn male sacrifice. The rite of passage – circumcision, then marked the end of the boy's eligibility to be a sacrifice. It seems too coincidental that sacrifices were required to be unblemished while circumcision is a deliberate blemishing. Circumcision disqualified the male from further eligibility as a firstborn sacrifice.

However, Avraham apparently didn't realize this connection, or at least wasn't sure at first, prior to the Aqeidah, since Yitzkhaq, at age 30, wouldn't have qualified as a sacrifice in the first place, as he was circumcised – deliberately blemished – when he was eight days old. Perhaps, Avraham felt that he shouldn't deny the Singularity-Creator his ultimate sacrifice without further confirmation. Indeed, we see that a miraculously coincidental sacrifice was provided to replace Yitzkhaq, preserving the precedent that circumcision at eight days disqualifies a boy from eligibility for sacrifice.

That raises the question, Why was the circumcision set at eight days? The Zohar states that a boy must live through a Shabat before being circumcised. While that may be a nice thought, the requirement is that eight days pass, so the same can be said for every other day of the week. Torah is never deliberately obtuse (D^әvarim 30.11-14). Therefore, if Torah had meant live through a Shabat Torah would have explicitly stated so rather than promote ambiguity and confusion. The number eight, in ancient numerology, is the key. Circumcision must take place on the eighth day even when it falls on Shabat. The number seven represented closure and eight represented renewal or revivification. Circumcision, then, symbolized the rite of passage to spiritual manhood, disqualifying him from being a sacrifice, on the day that symbolized his revivification. This was the first day of the infant's confirmed viability. Thus, circumcision on the eighth day – in addition to symbolizing spiritual renewal and revivification as qadosh for future progeny – entirely ruled out human sacrifice, a point surely thoroughly understood and succinctly confirmed by Avraham at the Aqeidah.

Young people may be thinking at this point that, while interesting and novel, this is still a feeble reason to prune the foreskin from a boy's penis — until one considers that all people have their own rite of passage. If culture doesn't give them one they invent their own, ranging from tattoos to pierced earrings to the most extremely insane body piercings; not to mention deliberately defiling one's virginity or placing increasingly large plugs in ear lobes or holes in the lips or jumping out of a tall tree, head first with a vine tied to one's ankle. Those are feeble! Ours has rich symbolism, history and the stamp of Biblical authority that sets Israel apart from the other goyim as a גוי קדוש (goy qadosh; holy people – Sh^әmot 19.6).

Contrary to modern interpretations, which centuries ago lost touch with the ancient perspectives and context, Rabbi Y^әhoshua (not Ribi Y^әhoshua Ben-David) never held in Talmud, Y^әvamot 46a, that a "proselyte" needed only t^әvilah but not circumcision. This passage in Talmud states that circumcision isn't a prerequisite to being a geir – which is entirely consistent with circumcision being the sign of conversion, not a geir. This confusion derives from the modern confusion between geir and Y^әhudi. Indeed, Torah explicitly states the opposite: that there is only one Torah, which applies to geir and Y^әhudi alike (b^ә-Midbar 15.16 & 29) — and that one Torah holds that circumcision is required for the Y^әhudi, not for the geir.

Superstitions about guarding the child and mother from evil spirits, however, are illegitimate and, rightly, generate derision from young people. Superstitions must never be confused with Halakhah.

Every intelligent and educated person has an interest in the scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe and how that impinges upon our origins, the origin of life and sapience – the nephesh, and our purpose within it. Because the rabbinic view of Torah is so steeped in magical fable and superstition, however, rabbis have transformed the most natural path to the Creator-Singularity, the path of logical and scientific inquiry, into the greatest source of derision by the most intelligent and educated element of the population, both Jew and gentile. This has become true only recently; Rambam, for example, was a respected scientist, for his time.

The Bible doesn't conflict with evolution; nor was the world created less than 6,000 years ago; although writing, accompanied by recorded human history (aside from some cave drawings and the like), seems to have permitted greater detail around that time. It must be remembered that Torah didn't begin as a written record. Although we view Oral Law, Halakhah or Torah she-b^ә·al peh, as a complement to Torah she-bikhtav, most of Halakhah was eventually codified in Talmud. The same is true of Torah she-bikhtav; it began as an orally transmitted history; stories of ancestors. Consequently, although the characters may be historical, there may, or may not, be countless generations between one outstanding character and the next outstanding character(s), presented as his son or sons in the oral (his)story. These oral histories persisted for countless generations before they were finally codified at Har Sinai. Thus, no extrapolation in actual generations or years to creation is possible, or has ever been intended, from the Biblical account. The "traditional" calculation was a rabbinic ego exercise differing little from theological arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Contrary to the claims of pseudo-scientific apologists for the religion of anti-Bible, legitimate scientists specializing in evolution don't claim to explain either the ex nihilo (out of nothing) origin of the universe or the origin of life. Further, legitimate science actively gathers and evaluates all pertinent information. Banning information is intractably contradictory to science. Yet, banning information is the primary attribute of apologists for the religion of anti-Bible. Those in the religion of anti-Bible are free to practice their religion, but banning information from science is an infringement on freedom of science. Science routinely deals with faulty, anecdotal and misleading information. Scientists need no ban on information from cultists in order to deal with the scientific merit of Biblical accounts. Groups that ban information with which they disagree are cults, not scientists!

While great portions of theological interpretations of the Bible, both Jewish and gentile, intractably conflict with science, by definition there can be no conflict between the Creator and creation, i.e. the universe. The more we learn, logically and scientifically, about the universe – i.e. cosmology – the better we can relate to its Creator. Therefore, if the Bible is the account inspired by the True Creator-Singularity, then there can be no conflict between the Perfect Laws of the Creator, as science discovers them, and the Bible. The real enemy is ignorance: magical fables and blind faith in them.

Logically, then, we can only truly approach interpreting the Bible from a logical and scientific perspective; not from the contra-scientific supernatural approach where everything we, or the ancients, cannot explain is attributed to miracles that supersede and contradict science — contradicting the laws set in place by a Creator-Singularity Who is Perfect, Unchanging and Omni-scient. Laws set in place by a Creator-Singularity Who is Perfect, Unchanging and Omni-scient imply perfect laws. For a Perfect Creator-Singularity to contradict His Own Perfect Laws is an oxymoron — which would render the Creator-Singularity imperfect. Therefore, supernatural is a contradiction of the Creator-Singularity of the Bible. Miracles, therefore, can only be natural events that exceed contemporary scientific knowledge and explanation. Belief in the supernatural is then revealed to be superstitious magic, prohibited by Torah. The closer we come to understanding science, the closer we come to understanding our Creator-Singularity – AND His Torah!

Three men, a physicist, a cleric and a computer scientist in artificial intelligence (AI), walking through a cemetery late at night fell into an open grave and couldn't climb out. First, they asked the physicist how to get out and he calculated the size of beam they would need to climb out, but they didn't have such a beam. Then they asked the cleric and he prayed but nothing happened. Then the AI scientist assumed a ladder…

Atheists are the most intellectually challenged of all, continually constructing fables that defy logic and, therefore, science; and all masquerading as science. Legitimate scientists – whether specializing in cosmology, physics or evolution – are meticulous to make crystal clear that they make no pretense of explaining the ex nihilo origin of the universe, of life, of you or me, or of our purpose. The best that atheists can do, lacking legitimate scientific backing or support, is construct or seize upon some fantastic fable that, they conjecture, could possibly have preceded and caused the universe. Of course, that accomplishes nothing more than creating the need to explain their new fable ex nihilo. Well, one could just as well theorize that the universe was preceded by an assumed ladder; but that isn't an ex nihilo prime cause either. It simply adds another stage: explain the ex nihilo origin of the assumed ladder! It's amazing the length to which some pseudo-scientific atheists will go to create ever new diversions, none of which are even a pretense of an ex nihilo cause, to avoid pertinent information, all in the guise of science.

So take a good scientific look around you, at everything, anything. Explain the existence of anything at all without a Prime Cause. I will show two different proofs that demonstrate, most simply, the existence of the Prime Cause, i.e. a Creator. The first logical proof is known as reductio ad absurdum.

1. Assume: There is no Prime Cause
   
   
2. There is nothing physical that exists without a cause
   
   
3. Therefore, nothing physical can exist
   
   
4. However, we see, and can touch, all manner of physical things around us that exist
   
   
5. Conclusion: There IS a Prime Cause
   
   
6. Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum; which was to be demonstrated)
   
   

There may be some fool around who argues that #2 isn't necessarily true because things may exist and we simply cannot explain how. I say fool because this person has gone from pseudo-scientific cultism (banning pertinent information) to logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam – claiming that ignorance/silence supports their position, thereby avoiding the burden of proof of demonstrating the logical validity of their position. If something can exist with no Prime Cause then they must explain how; the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how or they're just assuming another ladder. Until they explain how, and no legitimate scientist even entertains that suggestion, their cultist argument is logically invalid by argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Though trivial, it may be needful to explain that the physical world cannot create itself. That would be circular reasoning. Thus, the Prime Cause of the physical world, the universe, is necessarily non-physical, non-dimensional.

Another proof is the Inductive Method of Discrete Mathematics.

Let t₁ = the time that science first attempted to explain the origin of the universe

Let U_t = the requirement for a prior cause to explain the existence of the earliest state of the universe known by science at time t, where t = t₁ → ∞

Let i = t₁ ≤ i ≤ ∞

Let j = i + 1

U_t1 is demonstrably and indisputably true.

For every U_i ∋ ∃ U_j, U_j is demonstrably and indisputably true.

Then U_t is true by induction for all t.

Notice that this proof is subject to peer review, it is repeatable and it makes a prediction that can be tested.

Some fools are already arguing that tomorrow scientists may discover how evolution explains the origin of the universe. Identically, tomorrow scientists may discover evolution is wrong, or that the theory of quantum physics is wrong, or that the theory of relativity is wrong, etc. It's happened countless times in the past. However, science doesn't operate on what scientists may discover tomorrow. Science operates by applying logical and mathematical methods on what science finds to be factual and true today. So, the fools who argue to reject these logical and mathematical proofs, which are consistently and routinely accepted by scientists, are placing their anti-religion religion over scientific process. Pseudo-science to promote anti-religious view is no more valid than pseudo-science to promote a religious view. When they invalidate logic and mathematical inductive method (because they don't like the result) they are anti-scientific, overturning the entire basis of science.

Literally, everything around you, every article, every molecule, every atom and every quark evidences the Prime Cause; especially the quark, which is theorized to be pure elemental force, perhaps the closest we can come to perceiving directly the Hand of י--ה energizing and operating His Laws. Mass and energy are interchangeable. Both are composed of the same forces, which combine to form a discrete matrix that produces the appearance, feel and other attributes of all matter and energy, of everything in the universe. Every physical thing that exists is the projection of these elemental forces in a discrete matrix that we perceive with our six senses as the universe. There is nothing in our universe but the Creator-Singularity! This realization has many implications. (I'll let the reader reflect on the implications and consider them.) This is why the Bible, particularly in T^әhilim, so frequently declares that the heavens, the earth and all of its creatures bear witness to the Creator. The physical attributes we perceive ARE the Forces of the Creator continually energizing His Laws, keeping the physical universe from ceasing to exist.

Intelligent and educated people, especially young people, rightly demand to know intelligent approaches and answers to these questions and issues. They don't get such approaches or answers from the rabbis because the rabbis have lost touch with both science and, in many cases (especially the Ultra-Orthodox), the real – rational – world. Telling these intelligent and educated young people not to ask, or to believe with blind faith in the supernatural, is an unmitigated admission of intellectual vacuity; fables that appeal only to the Madonna, Roseanne Barr and Shirley Maclaine mentality – not exactly intelligent, educated scientific minds. Intelligent, educated young people recognize the inanity of superstitious fables immediately, and reject with scorn the command to accept not knowing and rely, instead, on blind faith in the rabbis. (Believing in men is the opposite of believing in the Creator or Torah.) Torah doesn't incur scorn, ignorance masqueraded as Torah incurs scorn.

Torah is 100% compatible with science; by definition it HAS to be in order to reflect the real Creator. When we approach interpreting Torah from this perspective we will appeal to intelligent and educated people; but when a רעי האליל (roiy ha-elil; feckless shepherd – Z^әkharyah 11.17; Y^әkhezqeil 34.1-23), instead, interjects fable as a result of his own intellectual bankruptcy he richly deserves their derision as he drives the most intelligent and educated of the Remnant to stray from Torah, along with every other intelligent and educated person.

Unfortunately, the argument over "Intelligent Design" has no logical connection to Intelligent Design. Examination of their arguments reveals that this is yet another chapter in the fable-ist "Poof Theory" supernaturalism of the "creationists" versus the anti-Biblical cultists. Both sides are pseudo-scientific and neither side has any firm and consistent basis in science. All available evidence suggests that the universe was put together intelligently, following intelligent, logical, physical laws. This is particularly poignant since that degree of intelligence remains incomprehensibly far beyond our intelligence. (Witness, inter alia, the contradiction between quantum theory and the theory of relativity.) Whereas we cannot comprehend the intelligence of the universe, much less explain it, the burden of proof to do so is upon whoever argues that the Prime Cause is unintelligent. No one attempts this because those who would argue there was no intelligent design are the same cultists who argue that there was no Prime Cause or creation. They insist on entangling the two issues to obfuscate and avoid confronting either honestly. The one thing that both extremes agree on is that you shouldn't think outside of the box they define. Their reason is simple: when they expose the fallacies in their opponent they expect you to conclude, a priori, that they are right, not think outside of the box. It is impossible to demonstrate that the Prime Cause isn't Intelligent. Therefore, again by a combination of reductio ad absurdum and argumentum ad ignorantiam, the Prime Cause is Omni-scient.

It is then conspicuous that the Prime Cause has to be a Singularity or one hasn't reached the Prime Cause, which, by definition, must be ex nihilo. Thus, the Creator is a Singularity and we have the Torah description as interpreted by a scientific, rather than fable, approach.

More importantly, this is the only religious reasoning that is non-circular. We didn't arrive at this conclusion by the usual religions method, petitio principii (begging the question, circular reasoning):

1. Assume this holy-book
   
   
2. This holy-book says x
   
   
3. Therefore, x is true and, therefore, the holy-book is true
   
   

A logical and scientific approach is the only Way to stem the straying of the Remnant from Torah. Beyond that, however, a logical and scientific approach can also retrieve many of the 98% of the Flock who have already strayed as the result of rabbinic (as well as Christian and Muslim) fable-izing of Torah. (Many people are motivated only by peer pressure, social considerations and money. No approach will bring them to Torah.) Even beyond retrieving those of the Flock whom the rabbis have driven astray from Torah, a logical and scientific approach is the only approach that has the very real potential to attract the prophesied masses of goyim to Torah (Z^әkharyah 14.16, 18, 19, et al.).

There is yet another point worthy of note. Those who have viewed Torah as true, from ancient times until today, have remained logically consistent throughout the ages — while science has bounced from the heavens revolving around the earth to a flat earth to a contradiction between quantum and relative physics. Scientists must not be permitted to ignore their fallibility, the limits of their knowledge and the difference between theory and fact.

The greatest single cause of 21^st-century misojudaism is the funny hats and black-coat costumes of Ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Whether Dippy-Birding, slinging bags of excrement at women in short-sleeves or throwing rocks at police, the funny hats and black-coat costumes of the Ultra-Orthodox is erroneously stereotyped by the world as "Orthodox Jews."

First of all, Orthodox Jews, as contrasted with Ultra-Orthodox Jews, don't wear 19^th-century costumes or pretend to live in a medieval European village. Why Ultra-Orthodox worship Europeanism over their Middle Eastern origins or medieval over Mosaic is oxymoronic Europolatry and Medievolatry. There is a critical need to distinguish between Orthodox Jews and the sanctimonious Ultra-Orthodox who cause such a negative image of religious Jews – khilul י--ה – throughout the world.

With the exception of wearing a kipah (beanie) and tzitzit, Orthdox Jews (males) dress no differently than non-Jews (men). (Jewish women dress a bit more modestly than most western women but probably not so differently as to stand out in a crowd.)

What is Christmas? Ask any kid. It's Santa Claus. Santa Claus epitomizes Christmas, which, they learn later, is (falsely, see The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) notes 2.0.1 and 2.2.1) claimed to be the birthday of J*e*s*u*s. One of the great rites of passage from child to adult in the Christian world is learning that Santa Claus as told to children, even though based on a historical figure, is a big myth. Since Santa Claus is the central tenet of Christmas, that means Christmas is a myth, therefore J*e*s*u*s is also part of the myth. Ask most western adults. It's all a big fairy tell; fuzzy-warm to talk about but intelligent adults don't put any real stock in it. (Even those who do are prompted to investigate, whereupon they learn that the Christmas festival is connected to Roman g*o*ds and the post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Church — but not to Ribi Y^әhoshua or the N^әtzarim!)

Mixing fable with religion not only causes the religion to be dismissed along with the fable, in the case of Torah it is a mixing of Qodesh with khol – explicitly prohibited by Torâh'! Remember that khol means ordinary, not evil. Torâh' prohibits mixing teachings that are Qodesh with stories that are ordinary.

Unfortunately, there is a Jewish parallel to Christian Santa Claus: Eiliyahu, who was also a historical figure. But when someone dresses up like Eiliyahu and tries to fool the children into believing that Eiliyahu is visiting the Seider, the same Torâh'-commanded Havdalah, between Qodesh with khol, is breached; and the same potential is introduced for Jewish children to dismiss their religion as part of the bogus deception.

See subsection "Third Beit-ha-Miqdâsh."

This is a particularly good example of faulty logic by the early Sages. The Scriptural basis is Sh^әmot 21.22-23:

"If men fight and a pregnant woman is injured [by one of them] and miscarries a child, but there is no disaster, he shall absolutely be punished according [to the fine] assessed upon him by the husband of the woman. He shall give it for the crime. But if a disaster shall occur, then you shall give nephesh for nephesh."

By contrast, verse 23 in LXX reads:

"But if it [the fetus] be completely formed, he shall give life for life."

"The talmudic scholars, however, maintained that the word "harm" [אסון (ason; disaster] refers to the woman and not to the foetus, since the scriptural injunction, "He that smiteth a man so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death" ([Sh^әmot] 21.12), did not apply to the killing of a foetus (Mekh. SbY, ed. Epstein-Melamed, 126; also Mekh., mishpatim, 8; Targ. Yer., [Sh^әmot] 21:22-23; BK 42a)."

Talmudic scholars were mistaken in concluding that ason applied only to the woman "since" the capital offense of Sh^әmot 21.12 wasn't applied to the fetus. In fact, Torah explicitly states the contrary, that if the fetus is completely formed, causing the death of the fetus is a capital offense. The logical implication excludes only the embryo and ason, therefore, applies to both the woman and her fetus (but not her embryo).

Thus, Torâh' defines death caused to a human fetus as murder while death caused to a human embryo was a lesser offense, subject only to a fine.

The logical implication, mitigated by the overriding principle of piquakh nephesh (i.e., by endangering the mother's life), is that killing, including by abortion, of a fetus is homicide and killing of an embryo, including by abortion, is a misdemeanor — each a transgression of Torah incurring the loss of one's portion in ha-olam ha-ba pending making t^әshuvah and obtaining kipur.

The statements by Philo and Josephus reconcile with logic by applying them either to fetus or embryo, as appropriate.

Later Halakhah that is based upon flawed logic is invalid. Today's challenge is to scientifically ascertain the point at which embryo becomes fetus, the moment of sapience – or imbuement with a nephesh – and which should be the determinant. Definition of this point must be dynamic and based on continuing scientific progress.

Determining the point at which the embryo is imbued with a nephesh, thereby becoming a fetus, in concert with the definition and application of the principle of piquakh nephesh, must dictate the Halakhah governing any decision concerning abortion that ensues from an extraordinary event (such as rape, incest, discovery of birth defects, and the like). The earliest decision is essential. The progress of science will enable birth defects to be discovered increasingly early.

The polls cited earlier show that, contrary to Halakhah, Jews overwhelmingly support unconditional feticide, with 61% saying the decision regarding abortion should always be left to the mother.

This is a case that is solvable simply by publicizing the Halakhah because it is a matter in which the overwhelming majority of Jews – who are American non-religious secular liberals – contravene Halakhah.

The Halakhah whether to permit abortion has historically turned upon the point at which, according to contemporary science, the embryo becomes a human being. The early Sages deemed abortion of an embryo a minor offense, incurring a monetary penalty, while they held the killing of a formed human being, i.e. a fetus, to be murder. As science progressed, two things have changed: [a] the point at which the embryo becomes a fetus is better defined and [b] the question has been raised concerning defining scientifically the moment in which the fetus achieves sapience; – i.e. develops a nephesh, – to become a homo sapien. Only the killing of a homo sapien, a ben-adam, constitutes murder.

It must be stressed here that even in those cases in which the death involves an embryo rather than a fetus, excepting in the case of piquakh nephesh, Halakhah prohibits intentional killing even of the embryo. The fact that killing an embryo is a halakhic awon incurring a fine, rather than a halakhic capital offense pesha, nevertheless, implies that Halakhah prohibits even the killing of a human embryo. For American non-religious secular liberal Jews to represent that an awon is acceptable is a perversion of Torah.

"Along with carrying, lighting a fire is the only work forbidden on [Shabat] which is permitted on [Khajim], primarily with regard to cooking but extended on the principle that 'once it was permitted for the need [of cooking] it was permitted when there is no such need' ([Beitzah [an egg, i.e. Khag (pilgrimage) offering]] 12b)." ("Fire," Ency. Jud., 6.1304).

The rabbis opened up this difference based on the desire to allow cooking on one day when a Shabat and a Khag fell on two successive days. In an attempt to justify their wish to make it easier on the people, they declared a distinction between שבת (Shabat and a Khag, which they interpreted to be a שבתון (Shabaton) as differentiated from a שבת (Shabat.

שבת (Shabat) means "cessation," specifically with respect to m^әlakhah. The Hebrew word for a labor strike, שביתה (sh^әvitah), is a cognate that corroborates the theme of ceasing work. (The Hebrew letter ב (beit) is often pronounced softly, like a "v.")

The meaning of שבתון (Shabaton) is less clear. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language For Readers Of English, by Ernest Klein (Carta Jerusalem and The University of Haifa, 1987) defines שבתון as "1. Sabbath observance." The second meaning is New Hebrew and, therefore, not applicable to the intent in the language in which it was originally given.

This is confirmed in its usage, in the eleven instances in which it is found in Torâh'.

1. Sh^әmot 16.23 – the seventh day is a שבתון שבת קדש (Shabaton, Shabat Qodesh; a ceasing, a holy cessation)
   
   
2. Sh^әmot 31.15 – the seventh day is a שבת שבתון, קדש (Shabat Shabaton, Qodesh…; a cessation of ceasing, holy…)
   
   
3. Sh^әmot 35.2 – the seventh day is a קדש, שבת שבתון (Qodesh, Shabat Shabaton; holy, a cessation of ceasing)
   
   
4. wa-Yiqra 16.31 – Yom Kipur to be a שבת שבתון (Shabat Shabaton; a cessation of ceasing)
   
   
5. wa-Yiqra 23.3 – the seventh day is a שבת שבתון (Shabat Shabaton; a cessation of ceasing)
   
   
6. wa-Yiqra 23.24 – Yom T^әruah to be a שבתון (Shabaton; ceasing)
   
   
7. wa-Yiqra 23.32 – Yom Kipur to be a שבת שבתון (Shabat Shabaton; a cessation of ceasing)
   
   
8. wa-Yiqra 23.39 (x2) – both the first day of Khag ha-Sukot and Sh^әmini Atzeret are to be a שבתון (Shabaton; ceasing)
   
   
9. wa-Yiqra 25.4 – a שבת שבתון (Shabat Shabaton; a cessation of ceasing) for the land…
   
   
10. wa-Yiqra 25.5 – שנת שבתון (Sh^әnat Shabaton; a year of ceasing).
    
    

Nowhere in Torâh' are there any grounds for distinguishing between what is ceased on שבת (Shabat; the cessation) and what constitutes the שבתון (Shabaton; ceasing), which is done on שבת the (Shabat; the cessation). Pulling a distinction out of these is as artificial as pulling hen's teeth. There is no justification for allowing the kindling of fire (or, for the same reason, carrying in a public area) on a שבתון (Shabaton; ceasing) / Khag.

The ultimate indicator of intellectual bankruptcy relative to any issue is an inability to deal with that issue. While young people are seeking answers to a full range of issues, rabbis lack satisfying answers that stand up to logical and scientific scrutiny. Consequently, when the young person goes off to college, or just out into the world, he or she is faced with issues and questions for which the rabbis haven't, and prove unable to, provide any reason to cling to "traditions." As the facts we have been publishing for 20 years become known to the public, this is becoming true of Christian clerics as well; and soon will become true of Islamic clerics. Lacking any rationale other than "believe" and "keep the faith," clerics of all three Abrahamic religions are losing followers who, in proportion to the increase in scientific knowledge, increasingly refuse to believe in fables.

Lacking answers, many rabbis resort to preventing questions from arising by cutting their followers off from the modern world: prohibiting them from having or watching TV, from reading a newspaper other than the self-serving religious newspaper they publish, forbidding them to surf the web on a computer or from taking subjects in school that teach evolution or that the world is older than 5765 years; in short, they revert to ghettoization – a cult. Instead of attracting intelligent and educated young Jews, these rabbis are driving them away. Much worse, in tacitly admitting they find no answers in Torâh', they leave the world with the impression that Torâh' lacks answers.

One of the greatest things to recognize relative to the issue of homosexuality is that Torâh' nowhere calls the homosexual a תועבה (to·eivah). Rather, both wa-Yiqra 18.22 & 20.13 call homosexual practice a to·eivah. The person who may have homosexual temptations isn't a to·eivah, and hasn't committed a transgression, unless he or she indulges his or her lust. Like other crimes, whether murder, rape or some other crime: one isn't guilty of a crime merely for thinking about it or being tempted. See further information in seven articles under the entry "Homosexuality" in the N^әtzarim Quarter website (www.netzarim.co.il) Web Café Archives.

Civil Law in the galut

Marriage according to civil law of the goyim is invalid according to Halakhah and, therefore, doesn't constitute a marriage at all. Therefore, those who are "married" by a civil marriage are not married at all according to Halakhah. (For example, couples who were "married" according to civil law and convert, being unmarried according to Halakhah, must marry according to Halakhah in order to remain together.)

Interfaith Relationships By a Jew

The governing Scripture prohibiting interfaith marriage is D^әvarim 7.3, speaking of the goyim: "You shall not marry them, you shall not give your daughter to his [the goy's] son and you shall not take his daughter for your son." The Sages rightly inferred from this that marriage with a non-Jew is prohibited, "because" (next verse) "it will cause your child to stray from following Me." This is later reinforced by N^әkhemyah (10.31).

Already Existing Interfaith Relationships & Converting

Because an interfaith relationship is prohibited to a Jew, and conversion of a candidate who maintains an existing interfaith relationship would create a transgression of Torah, a candidate who wishes to convert must first abandon any existing relationship that conversion would render interfaith.

Already Existing Interfaith Relationships When Becoming A geir

Since interfaith "marriages" are no-marriages, they entail no halakhic consequences. The non-Jewish spouse has no halakhic rights and no claims under Torah. Neither do children of such an arrangement have any inheritance rights under Torah.

While there is no requirement for a goy to first terminate a relationship with an "intimate companion" in order to become a Geir Toshav, no long-term relationship with an interfaith "intimate companion" can be compatible with non-selective Torah-observance (see below).

Interfaith Intimacy

It is sometimes the case that an "intimate companion" (whether, or not, "married" according to civil law) rejects Torah, thereby becoming an obstacle to the Jew or geir who desires to keep Torah. In any case, maintaining a relationship with any interfaith "intimate companion" who rejects Torah is an inferred form of כלאים (kilayim; mixed species), prohibited in wa-Yiqra 19.19 and D^әvarim 22.9-11.

This is further inferred from the principle of להבדיל (l^ә-havdil in wa-Yiqra 10.10): "l^ә-havdil between the qodesh and the khol, between the tamei and the tahor."

Modern Israel parallels the reemergence of Israel in the time of Ezra (ca. B.C.E. 390), who convened an assembly in Y^әrushalayim for the express purpose of dissolving the many mixed "marriages" (10.9ff; see also Sh^әmot 34.11ff; D^әvarim 7.1ff and 23.4ff). Today, Halakhah automates that process since no such marriage is valid.

Just as Halakhah has recognized that transitioning from a new Geir Toshav to a fully Torah-observant Jew (convert) or non-Jewish Geir Tzedeq takes time to learn (estimated by various Sages at between 12-24 months), though no such period is specifically mentioned in Torah she-bikhtav, so, too, an interfaith "intimate companion" merits a similar period to reorient and transition to Torah-observance so that the two don't represent a human kilayim that mingles qodesh with khol or tamei with tahor. If, however, the interfaith "intimate companion" has made no commitment to keep Torah non-selectively during that period, then both the example of Ezra and non-selective observance of the one desiring to keep Torah demands "l^ә-havdil between the qodesh and the khol, between the tamei and the tahor."

Defending Israel is a topic that occupies countless books and scholarly papers, well beyond the scope of this book. Some of the main resources can be found in the N^әtzarim web site (www.netzarim.co.il), located in Ra·anana, Israel. However, this book focuses on the future of the Remnant – of Israel. The essential point of this is that Israel is an inextricable compound comprising both the land and its native people. Those who think they can be part of Israel while neglecting or disavowing Israel are walking oxymorons who belong to neither.

The geir who comes to become part of the people of Israel can only do so as Rut (Hellenized to Ruth) did (Rut 1.16-17): that includes not only the religious aspect, but the geographic and cultural aspects as well.

The term "Jew" (Hellenist corruption of Hebrew Y^әhudi) derives from Roman Hellenists calling the indigenous Hebrews of the Holy Land by the name of the land that they inhabited: "Judea" (Hellenist corruption of Hebrew Y^әhudah). There is nothing more non-sensical than declaring that "Jews" aren't the historically indigenous people of Judea.

For the basic definition and parameters of what is a Jew, see Imminent Extinction of Jews.

The genealogical, or blood/DNA, aspect of the definition of a Jew encourages charges of racism. However, the only difference between the definition of a Jew and the definition of your family tree is size. Back in the 1^st century C.E., Jews were defined as a family tree, through extensive genealogical records called yukhasin. However, the Romans destroyed every genealogical record except for the patriarchal and matriarchal genealogies of Ribi Y^әhoshua. Without a family tree, Jews were left with nothing except the description "blood relatives."

Jews or non-Jews who refer to Jews as exclusively "born-Jews" are racists who contradict and defy Orthodox Halakhah, most Orthodox Rabbis and Torah. Born-Jews are like born members of your family. Does that make you racist? Many families adopt… including the Jewish family (they're called converts). Torâh' explicitly and strictly prohibits distinguishing between a Jew born into the family from one adopted (converted) into the family. To represent that adoptees (converts) aren't "really" members of the family is a purely racist contradiction of Orthodox Halakhah, every Orthodox Rabbi who isn't racist and Torah. (See also The Problem:.)

The inclusive definition of Jew that incorporates converts into the family of Israel not only invalidates charges that Jews or Judaism are racist, it also invalidates the idea that the concept of "choseness" is racist.

Preknowledge Contrasted With Predestination

The concept of "choseness," more accurately selection, is intertwined with the notion of predestination. Is one either "chosen" or not, precluding free will? Unraveling this seeming conundrum requires distinguishing between preknowledge and predestining. As we showed in the section, time is an attribute limited to the physical universe. The Creator, being extra-universal and non-dimensional, isn't bound by time. Therefore, everything that has happened in our past time, our present time and our future time is part of the illusion of time that is limited to our physical universe. We have free will to make our choices, but the Creator already knows these choices. The universe is the laboratory in which we, not the Creator, work out our choices. The Creator built the laboratory and us within it, set it up and makes it run. We are the experiment, but the experiment is for our benefit, not His. The experiment is for us to prove ourselves to ourselves – or not. Then we can have no argument against His just judgment.

So how does "choseness" work?

Overview 

First, as usual, the English distorts the original Hebrew. The Hebrew term, בחר (bakhar) means primarily to select from a finite set of options whereas the English "choose" has no such implication. One can "choose" to favor a person out of the blue, for no reason. Bakhar, by contrast, suggests a selection from among a set of options. "Select" is the more accurate English term. That correction alone precludes many misconceptions.

Subject to the free will of humans, the Creator presents Himself equally to every person and to all nations. No one has ever deserved the Creator's acceptance or love. Of all of these nations, only the Biblical family line, with its adoptees, consistently chose to love the Creator. For this, when faced with the dilemma between destroying all nations or accepting the one people who chose to love Him, the Creator, in response to Yisra·eil's choice, selected Yisra·eil rather than the alternative of destroying all mankind. The "choice" was never Yisra·eil or some other nation; His only selection was between two options: preserving a remnant of Yisra·eil or destroying all mankind. Thus, although the whole earth belongs to the Creator, His choice could never include nations and people who reject Him.

This is conditional upon the human exercise of free will because, for example, children born into a Torah-observant Jewish family grow up with a distinct advantage in learning about Torâh' over children born into homes where parents are, as the result of their choices in life, ignorant of Torâh'.

This is the context of all Scriptural instances of bakhar, e.g., D^әvarim 7.6, cf. 14.2. "It is the essence of the [b^әrit], which signifies the fundamental relationship between [Elohim] and Yisra·eil and is referred to throughout the entire Hebrew Bible" ("Chosen People," Ency. Jud., 5.498f).

In fact, being selected as the only, last, hope not to be destroyed, becoming part of Yisra·eil carries with it the burden of special monitoring (e.g., Amos 3.2) against falling back among the other nations slated for destruction. The Hebrew term for monitoring, פקד (paqad), is universally distorted to "visit" or some similar dilution of the central concept of monitoring, mustering and auditing. Mosheh, as well as every leader of the N^әtzarim, were known by the cognate title פקיד (Paqid).

D^әvarim 7.7-8 dovetails with this. The Creator's selection was out of love, in response to Yisra·eil's love for Him.

"The [b^әrit] relationship defined in this manner carries with it responsibilities, in the same way that chosen [volunteer candidates] are responsible for certain tasks and are required to assume particular roles" (EJ). Thus, b^ә-Reishit 18.19, "" is reported in N^әkhemyah 9.7 as "" with the obligations spelled out in the earlier verse now present by implication in the verb "choose." The divine voice, therefore, is (contrary to the conclusions in EJ) in response to human choice: "You bear witness upon yourselves that you have selected [as contrasted with the elohim of the goyim], to work for Him" (Y^әhoshua 24.22). This is the only exegesis that explains why Yisra·eil is obligated by this choice to keep Torâh'. It is because Yisra·eil loves י--ה that Yisra·eil has obligated herself – by her own free will.

This is entirely "For the purpose of watchguarding his khuqim and become N^әtzarim of His Torah" (T^әhilim 105.45). The entire purpose of Yisra·eil, salvaged from among mankind, is to illuminate mankind (see, inter alia, Y^әshayahu 49).

Further, although Yisra·eil may not presume that י--ה will always consider us favorably when we become like the goyim (Hosheia 1.9), even then, the reliable and never-changing י--ה has promised "Yet, despite all of this while in the land of their enemies, I will not find them revolting nor will I reject them to annihilate them, to annul My b^әrit with them, for I am י--ה, their Elohim" (wa-Yiqra 26.44)! Again, only this exegesis explains why the formally deserved rejection isn't effected: ALL people deserve rejection. The b^әrit is about salvaging Yisra·eil (including adoptees) from the rest of mankind that is doomed to destruction because, in response to Yisra·eil loving י--ה and desiring to keep His Torah, י--ה loves Yisra·eil and has compassion for Yisra·eil, sparing her the destruction that she, too, deserves.

The rabbis corroborate this. "The rabbis themselves, while strongly upholding the doctrine of the Chosen People, insist that the [choseness] of [Yisra·eil] is based upon their voluntary acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. This idea, already expressed in [Sh^әmot] 19.5, "If you will Sh^әma absolutely to My Voice and watchguard My b^әrit, then you shall be for Me a treasure from among all of the amim," is developed by the rabbis who state that the Torah was freely offered first to the other nations of the world, but all of them rejected it because of its restrictive ordinances, which conflicted with their vicious way of life, and only [Yisra·eil] accepted it (Talmud, Avodah Zarah 2b-3a; Num. R. 14.10; Sif. D^әvarim 343).

כפרות (kaparot; expiations) is a "custom in which the sins of a person are symbolically transferred to a fowl. The custom is practiced in certain Orthodox circles on the day before [Yom Kipur]… a cock (for a male) or a hen (for a female) is swung around the head three times while the following is pronounced [in Hebrew]: "This is my substitute, my vicarious offering, my [expiation]… It appears first in the writings of the G^ә·onim of the 9^th century, who explain that a cock is used in the rite because the word [גבר (gever; adult-male)] means both "man" and "cock"; the latter can, therefore [?!?], substitute for the former" ("Kapparot," Ency. Jud., 10.756).

Until someone can find the direct logical implication in Torah she-bikhtav that ordains this, it remains an addition to Torah she-bikhtav – in contravention of D^әvarim 13.1.

1. Adultery (v20) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal) incurred death by strangulation except if the daughter of a kohein is involved, in which case the method of execution was by fire (pouring molten lead down the throat; Abraham Chill, The Mitzvot, pp. 67-69).
   
   
2. Annulling mitzwot: Nullified, annulled (הפר; heiphar) מצות b^ә-Midbar 15.31 (2) (כרת niphal) and high-handedly (ביד רמה)=bazah (בזה); despised)
   
   
3. Assimilation, practice/doings (מעשה) of Egypt or K^әna·an (03) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal)
   
   
4. Bestiality (23) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal)
   
   
5. Contaminating (טמא, timei) the Miqdash י--ה by death ולא יתחטא, את-מקדש י--ה טמא (incl. מי נידה) b^ә-Midbar 19.20 (כרת niphal) Contaminating (טמא, timei) the Mishkan י--ה by death ולא יתחטא, את-משכן י--ה טמא b^ә-Midbar 19.13 (כרת niphal)
   
   
6. Cursed by ha-Sheim (מקלליו) kareit; T^әhilim 037.22 (כרת niphal)
   
   
7. Deliberate or willful misdemeanor (עוון; awon) (v30) The nephesh who does high-handedly, whether citizen or geir, גדף (gadeiph; he has hurled-abuse-at, blasphemed, reviled) י--ה; his nephesh shall be kareit from among his am. (v31) Because בזה (bazah; he has despised) the D^әvar י--ה, and הפר (heiphar; he has nullified, annulled) the His mitzwah; that nephesh shall absolutely be kareit with his deliberate or willful misdemeanor (עוון; awon) upon him." b^ә-Midbar 15.31 (כרת niphal)
   
   
8. Evil/iniquity און (aven), doers of T^әhilim 101.08 (כרת hiphil) Evil/iniquityl שקדי און (shoqdei aven; watch-diligently-for (i.e. hope for) aven, Y^әshayahu 29.20 (כרת niphal)
   
   
9. High-handedness (ביד רמה)=bazah (בזה); despised) the דבר י--ה and heiphar (הפר); nullified, annulled) His mitzwah b^ә-Midbar 15.31 (2) (כרת niphal) High-handedness, doing (ביד רמה)=blasphemy,
   
   
10. Homosexuality (v22) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal)
    
    
11. Incense Fragrance of Mizbeiakh, duplicating Sh^әmot 30.38 (כרת niphal) Incense Fragrance of Mizbeiakh, duplicating or placing on a zar Sh^әmot 30.33 (כרת niphal)
    
    
12. Iniquity/evil שקדי און (shoqdei aven; watch-diligently-for (i.e. hope for) Y^әshayahu 29.20 (כרת niphal) Iniquity/evil און (awon), doers of T^әhilim 101.08 (כרת hiphil)
    
    
13. Intermarriage (השמיד destroy) D^әvarim 07.03-04 Intermarriage Malâkhi 02.11-12 (כרת hiphil)
    
    
14. kashrut (כשרות), eating blood wa-Yiqra 07.27 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), eating blood wa-Yiqra 17.10-14 (כרת hiphil and niphal) kashrut (כשרות), eating זבח on 3rd day wa-Yiqra 19.08 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), eating חלב of אישה (fire-offering), eating wa-Yiqra 07.25 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), eating חמץ during חג המצות Sh^әmot 12.15 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), eating חמץ during חג המצות Sh^әmot 12.19 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), eating שלמים while טומאה wa-Yiqra 07.20 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), eating שלמים while טומאה wa-Yiqra 07.21 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), slaughter ox, sheep or goat not bring to door of אהל מועד wa-Yiqra 17.03-04 (כרת niphal) kashrut (כשרות), slaughter עלה or זבח not bring to the door of the Ohel Moeid (אהל מועד) wa-Yiqra 17.08-09 (כרת niphal)
    
    
15. khilul י--ה (חלול השם), making the Name ordinary (v21) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal). wa-Yiqra 18.21 (Molekh) don't make ordinary the Name of your Elohim wa-Yiqra 19.12 don't swear to a falsehood by My Name, profaning My Name wa-Yiqra 22.02 וינזרו מקדשי and you shall consecrate yourselves more than the holies of B^әnei-Yisra·eil, so as not to make ordinary My holy Name wa-Yiqra 22.32 you shall not make ordinary My holy Name Y^әshayahu 48.11 כי איך יחל (yeikhal) Y^әkhezqeil 22.26 and I was made ordinary among them (Israel) Amos 2.7 father and son have sex with [a pagan temple "priestess"] for the sake that My holy Name be made ordinary khilul Shabat (חלול שבת) making Shabbat ordinary Sh^әmot 31.14 (כרת niphal)
    
    
16. m^әlakhah (מלאכה) on Shabat Sh^әmot 31.14 (כרת niphal)
    
    
17. Molekh (מלך), children (21) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal); Molekh (מלך), children wa-Yiqra 20.03-05 (כרת hiphil)
    
    
18. Nakedness of שאר בשרו (i.e., incest: rest of his flesh, close relative; 06) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal); Nakedness, sister or step-sister wa-Yiqra 20.17 (כרת niphal)
    
    
19. Nidah (נידה ; v19) wa-Yiqra 18.03-29 (כרת niphal); nidah (נידה), wa-Yiqra 20.18 (כרת niphal)
    
    
20. Nullifying mitzwot: Nullified, annulled (הפר; heiphar) מצות b^ә-Midbar 15.31 (2) (כרת niphal) and High-handedly (ביד רמה)=bazah (בזה); despised)
    
    
21. Pesakh (פסח), failure of טהר person to keep b^ә-Midbar 09.13 (כרת niphal)
    
    
22. Psychomancy=yidani (souls, clairvoyant)wa-Yiqra 20.06 (כרת hiphil)
    
    
23. Sciomancy=ov (ghosts and spirits) wa-Yiqra 20.06 (כרת hiphil)
    
    
24. Strange service, assimilation=idolatry (עבודה זרה, Avodah Zarah; viz. אפרים) 13Hosheia 08.04 (כרת niphal); Strange service, assimilation=idolatry (עבודה זרה, Avodah Zarah; viz. גלול/gilul) Y^әkhezqeil 14.08 (כרת hiphil)
    
    
25. Tumah, nearing קדשים (Qadashim) while טמאה (tumah) upon you; wa-Yiqra 22.03 (כרת niphal)
    
    
26. Wicked (resha), felons destroyed and (פשעים נשמדו... רשעים נ כרתה) T^әhilim 037.38 (כרת niphal); Wicked, רשעים T^әhilim 037.28 (כרת niphal); Wicked, רשעים T^әhilim 037.34 (כרת niphal); Wicked, רשעים Mishlei Shlomoh 02.22 (כרת niphal); Wicked and Tzadiq (צדיק ורשע) from Yerushalayim; Y^әkhezqeil 21.08 (כרת hiphil)
    
    
27. Wrongdoers, doers of רע (ra), T^әhilim 034.17 (כרת hiphil); Wrongdoers, רעים T^әhilim 037.09 (כרת niphal)
    
    
28. Yom Kipur, not "causing yourself to answer for" Yom Kipur the nephesh who לא-תענה בעצם on wa-Yiqra 23.29 (כרת niphal)
    
    

• Amon Y^әkhezqeil 25.07 (כרת hiphil)
  
  
• B^әlial (בליעל) kareit; Nakhum 02.01 (כרת niphal)
  
  
• Har Eisâw (הר עשו) for his treatment of Ya·aqov ovadyah 09-10 (כרת niphal)
  
  
• Kareit (כרת), For My Name's sake I will not Y^әshayahu 48.09 (כרת hiphil)
  
  
• K^әna·an (כנען) Tz^әphanyah 01.11 (כרת niphal)
  
  
• Mashiakh to be excised (משיח יכרת; yikareit) Daniyeil 09.26 (כרת niphal)
  
  
• Tzadiq, Wicked and (צדיק ורשע) from Yerushalayim; Y^әkhezqeil 21.08 (כרת hiphil)
  
  
• Uncircumcised (ערל) b^ә-Reishit 17.14 (כרת niphal)
  
  
• All flesh Y^әkhezqeil 21.09 (כרת hiphil)
  
  

Along with their native land, their language, liturgy and dress, ancient peoples were distinguished by their culture — which comprised, first and foremost, their elohim and the foods they were permitted to offer their elohim, along with the symbolism dictating how. They believed that the blessing transformed their sacrifice-offerings (food and drink) into the attributes of their elohim, which they then ingested as they ate the sanctified food.

By reciting a blessing over food before eating it, their food became a sacrifice offering to their elohim. Therefore, any breach of their dietary laws profaned their elohim.

These elements — י--ה Elohim, diet, land, language, liturgy and dress — comprise the key elements of the b^әrit, which continues to define and distinguish Yisra·eil today.

Ancient beliefs about health likely influenced the dietary laws, but the ultimate consideration was the symbolism associated with the sacrificial aspects of the food, particularly the idea of elohim causing one's transgressions to go up in smoke (of the sacrifice) through a gracious act of kipur in response to t^әshuvah that rendered the sacrifice (and he who then ingested it) purified.

From Parashah Toldot, 5760 (1999.11), Paqid Yirm^әyahu

The Sages have noted that the bulk of the summary of the life of Yitzkhaq is devoted to זבח (zevakh; sacrifice) with its prescribed שחיטה (shekhitah; slaughter according to kashrut).

The עקדה (Aqeidah; binding) of Yitzkhaq is one of the most compelling prefigures of the Mashiakh in the entire Tan"kh. For the summary of his life to be mainly occupied with kashrut merits notice.

In Tan"kh, זבח most frequently refers to the שלמים (shlamim; completions) sacrifice. The שלמים sacrifice marked the completion of the process of teshuvah. As the Artscroll editors of "BeReishis" point out, the שלמים sacrifices are partly eaten by the kohein and partly by the contributor of the sacrifice. "Why," the Artscroll editors rhetorically ask, "should the word [זבח] be used to refer particularly to offerings which are eaten?" (since other sacrifices were burned entirely).

Answering their rhetorical question, the editors respond, "The answer lies in the similar nature of שחיטה, slaughter [according to kashrut], and the sort of eating which makes an altar of even the ordinary [legitimately Torâh'] table."

"Eating with the intention of preserving one's health in order to serve [י--ה] better," they continue, "removes a feast from the level of epicurean indulgence and elevates it into a holy offering. Both the offering and the feast can be called זבח if they serve the same purpose as שחיטה."

"As Mesillat Yesharim writes, the food and drink placed before [an observant Jew or geir; the obvious meaning of the observant Jewish editors who specify "Israelite" below; ybd] become elevated. The food is like an offering, like first fruits, the drink is like the נסכים (n^әsakhim; libations), poured upon the altar. This explains, he continues, the Talmudic dictum that כהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרים (kohanim okhlim u-vaalim mitkaprim), the [kohanim] eat and the [contributors] obtain kipur — that an Israelite enables the [just kohanim] to eat from his offering and replenish their energies is in itself a source of untold merit for him; their eating too, is in the nature of an offering upon [י--ה]'s altar."

So, in the post-Beit-ha-Miqdâsh era, the table of the observant Jew and geir symbolizes the heavenly Mizbeiakh. Lacking an earthly Beit-ha-Miqdâsh, this necessarily refers, a priori, to the cosmic (heavenly or spiritual; i.e. non-dimensional) third Beit-ha-Miqdâsh prophesied by Yekhezqeil. The kasheir (not tareiph, which defiles) food and drink on the table symbolizes the kipur provided in the heavenly Beit-ha-Miqdâsh officiated by the Mashiakh Ben-Dawid as prophesied in Yekhezqeil 34.23-24; 44.1-3; 46.1-16 and prefigured in Yitzkhaq at the עקדה.

In this, the implications of profaning of one's table (symbolizing the heavenly Mizbeiakh י--ה) with non-kasheir (i.e. tareiph) becomes obvious; and comparable to the Romans who sacrificed a swine on the Mizbeiakh.

Even among observant Jews and geirim, on the feast days we are always in danger of forgetting that our feasting should be to replenish our energies to serve י--ה more zealously; enjoying food, drink and friends but never losing sight of this goal by regarding food or drink solely for its epicurean — nihilistic — pleasure.

The clincher, demonstrating that the ultimate consideration was symbolism, not health, is the law to separate dairy from meat, with the admonition: "Don't boil the kid in its mother's milk." No related historical health consideration can be found for this law. The symbolism, however, is powerful, and perhaps original to Yisra·eil. Torah records that a huge number of other peoples — ערב רב (eirev rav; a great mixture) — joined Yisra·eil in the Y^әtziah (Sh^әmot 12.38). Their mother lands ranged from Egyptian to Greek to north African, etc. The milk of their mother countries that sustained their native identities outside of their mother lands was their native cultures. When converting to join Yisra·eil, each person became like a kid, giving up its mother (their native country) along with her milk (their native cultures).

Inclusion of the law to separate dairy from milk reveals that at least since the Y^әtziah, there has been an evil racist element in Yisra·eil who resent "converts" as less valid than "born Jews," racists who defy Torah (Sh^әmot 12.49; b^ә-Midbar 15.16, 29), "boiling the kid in its mother's milk." The separation between dairy and meat is a constant reminder of the Torâh' admonition against Jewish racism. Unfortunately, the symbolism has been buried and those who oppose this meaning most vociferously are exactly those who cling to an anti-Torâh' (and anti-rabbinic) racist definition of a Jew.

Increasingly in the U.S., the media is fusing the holiday hype of Khanukhah and Xmas. When the hype of Xmas begins, media feels compelled to give Khanukah comparable hype. The effect is to begin the hype of Khanukah at the same time as the hype over Xmas – around Thanksgiving. This has the effect among highly assimilated Americans of Jewish descent of fusing Khanukah with Xmas, resulting in "Khanukah Bushes" and the like.

I've given one of the consequences before the primary reason: Torâh' commands to l^ә-havdil between Qodesh and khol (wa-Yiqra 10.10)! The days before Khanukah are khol – and not to be celebrated as Khanukah! This media practice, no doubt fueled by American merchant profiteers, must be aggressively opposed – every year beginning around Thanksgiving or whenever the first premature Khanukah hype appears, unceasingly, forever. Put it on next year's calendar at Thanksgiving as "To Do" and every year when new calendar's come out.

The principle of l^ә-havdil implies that Xmas should be irrelevant, not considered, unconnected in any way to Khanukah. That's a two-way street. It not only means Khanukah may not adopt from Xmas but, conversely, whatever Xmas may adopt from Khanukah has no bearing on the celebration of Khanukah. Therefore, if Christians should add the Khanukiah to their Xmas celebrations, Jews cannot eliminate the Khanukiah from Khanukah in response because there can be no connection and no response. Khanukah must be observed according to ancient Judaic tradition, not according to a continually changing backlash against Christianity. (Torâh' forbids Judaism assimilating Xmas themes, but if Christians precipitate toward Torâh', that's super good!!! Don't discourage them or make it difficult; bring them to the Light of Torâh'!!!)

In this connection, it must be remembered that Xmas lights are of very recent origin compared to the Jewish Festival of Lights. Festive, colored, blinking, neon, bubbling, pulsating, laser or whatever kind of lights cannot be suppressed as a backlash against Xmas customs. The same goes for pure winter themes (snow, ice skating, skiing and other winter sports, sleigh-rides, fireplaces (without hanging stockings, of course), icicles, hot chocolate, etc.). Among other exclusively Christian themes of Xmas, Santa Claus, the Xmas tree and – of course – idols in a manger and the notion of the birth of the Christian man-g*o*d, by contrast, are exclusively Christian and cannot be adapted to Khanukah (wa-Yiqra 18.3).

Perhaps the most difficult to define and deal with is the rejection of Xmas-style, profit-driven, obsession with gift-giving. The very fact that it's described as Xmas-style exposes the problem; it's unique to Xmas. Gift-giving associated with Khanukah has always been subdued by comparison, not a Xmas-style (and, too often, Bar-Mitzvah-style) hedonistic orgy, and distributed equally among the eight days. It's important that children receive modest gifts each day of Khanukah. That's no less true of Khag ha-Matzot and Khag ha-Sukot. However, the Torâh' principle of exclusivity, l^ә-havdil, must be consistently maintained.

Misojudaics (see "Arabs, Muslims & Misojudaism") use any error to discredit an argument. Thus, correcting errors is essential. Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin erred in stating that "the custom of not going about bareheaded at any time — at home, in the synagogue and outdoors — extends back several thousand years in time," (To Be A Jew, p. 180). Nevertheless, his conclusion is correct.

When Rabbi Donin quotes Orach Hayim (sic) 2.6 ("It is a custom not to walk under the heavens bareheaded") he neglects to note that the author of Orach Hayim was a medieval commentator, Jacob Ben-Asher, from the early 14^th century.

The Ency. Jud. (EJ; "Head, Covering of the," 8.2) provides a better historical picture. "It was considered an expression of awe before the Divine Presence to conceal the head and face, especially while praying or engaged in the study of mysticism (Hag. 14b; RH 17b; Ta'an. 20a)." This probably originated with Mosheh having to be shielded from seeing the Face of י--ה (Sh^әmot 33.19-23). However, it is doubtful if many today need worry about being exposed to the Face of י--ה. Further, covering the head when going in to pray is exactly opposite to the practice of Mosheh (Sh^әmot 34.33-35).

EJ continues: "The headgear of scholars was an indication of their elevated position (Pes. 11b); some of them claimed that they neer walked more than four cubits (about six feet) without a head covering (Shab. 118b; Kid. 31a; also Maim. Yad. De'ot 5.6, and Guide 3.52). The custom was, however, restricted to dignified personages; bachelors doing so were considered presumptuous (Kid. 29b). Artistic representations, such as Egyptian and Babylonian tablets or the synagogue at Dura Europos, generally depict Israelites, (and later Jews) without head covering. On the other hand, some rabbis believed that covering a child's head would ensure his piety and prevent his becoming a thief (Shab. 156b)." (This happens to be the other passage that R. Donin cites.)

"According to the Talmud (Ned. 30b), it was optional and a matter of custom for men to cover their heads. Palestinian custom, moreover, did not insist that the head be covered during the priestly benediction… French and Spanish rabbinical authorities during the Middle Ages followed this ruling, and regarded the covering of the head during prayer and the study of the Torah merely as a custom. Some of them prayed with a bare head themselves" (EJ, 5).

The heart of the matter is that "The covering of the head has become one of the most hotly debated points of controversy between Reform and Orthodox Jewry" (EJ, 5). There is no logical implication deriving from Torah that requires head-covering. Therefore, requiring a head-covering is an addition to Torâh', prohibited by D^әvarim 13.1. However, while requiring head-covering is a transgression, simply wearing a head-covering (e.g. to accommodate the Orthodox) isn't a transgression since neither does Torâh' prohibit wearing a head-covering.

I don't rely on Orthodox Jews to state what Reform Jews believe any more than I would allow the converse. The declarations below are quoted verbatim from authorized websites of Reform Judaism.

According to rj.org, "Reform Jews are also committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in synagogue life as well as society at large… We affirm that the Jewish people is bound to God by an eternal (b'rit), covenant, as reflected in our varied understandings of Creation, Revelation and Redemption" (emphasis added). That the concluding phrase allows everyone to follow their own eyes and their own heart, contravening the Sh^әma (b^ә-Midbar 15.39), is manifestly proven in practice to anyone who has ever attended a number of Reform "synagogues." Everyone does whatever they wish, from lighting fires on Shabat to eating tareiph and celebrating Christmas with a "Hanukah Bush" — and then call that "Judaism." Many Christian Jews have more integrity!

According to www.reformjudaism.org.uk, "We do not, however, regard the Torah as a document literally handed down to God by Moses but rather as our ancestors' record of their encounter with God, a document itself revealing a process of inner development… we do not subscribe to an ancient list of 613 frozen in time… However, modernity has taught us that our rituals and observances have developed in the past and are continuing to develop and that Jews will reinterpret them and incorporate them into their lives in subtly different ways… For there is no one way within Judaism but many ways, many doors, many signposts to the Jewish journey through life… we are absolutely committed to the full implementation of principles of equality – not least between women and men and between heterosexuals and homosexuals."

This is sufficient to demonstrate that Torâh' defines Reform "Judaism" as khol. Further, Torâh' explicitly requires l^ә-havdil between Qodesh and khol (wa-Yiqra 10.10).

The history of head-covering prior to the conflict between Orthodox and Reform Judaism becomes irrelevant. The wearing of a kipah as Havdalah is a direct logical implication of Torâh', to provide Havdalah between Torah and Reform "Judaism" — which is khilul י--ה.

At least when praying and religious gatherings, therefore, wearing a kipah is a mitzwat Torah!

Spirituality has always been approached as a set of mysterious symbolisms, invented by some "holy" mystic, used as building blocks to a pretend fantasy world of Qabalah, "Poof Theory," "Rapture Theory" and the like that has no logical connection to the Bible, the Creator or His creation. Instead of discussing how many pretend spheres of light gave birth to how many fantasy lightning bolts that represent this or that pretend mystical aura, the one who seeks the true Creator of the real world and universe should investigate serious, logical, questions and search for real parallels in the world of science and mathematics. Do physical constraints act on that which is not physical? Can physical death terminate non-physical sapience?

It would make sense, and it is according to Scripture, that man was created in the Image of (i.e. with some similarity to) ha-Sheim. This cannot refer to our physical image because ha-Sheim isn't a physical being. The only thing that distinguishes us from the other animals is the level and depth of our sapience, including our capability of abstraction, and free will. A priori, this image refers to our free will sapience.

There are consequences to homo sapiens having sapience. There is a responsibility to develop it (see the Purpose of Each Person). Through the exercise of free will and choice, homo sapiens have the potential (!) to develop their link to ha-Sheim. The popular term for this link-potential is "spirituality." In other words, this is spirituality viewed from a logical, rather than crackpot irrational, perspective (which describes most traditional perspectives of spirituality, including Qabalah, pursued by clerics, celebrities, etc.).

Several aspects of this discussion depend upon your development of a more scientific understanding and perspective of time. Probably everyone has seen Einstein's formula:

E = mc²

Few, however, realize its importance in this context. C² is the square of the velocity of light. The formula for velocity is:

V = d/t

(distance divided by time), where d = distance and t = · time!!!

This formula not only dictates that time is a physical attribute like length and width, time can be defined in these physical terms!!! Since c = V in the case that V = the velocity of light, We can substitute d/t in Einstein's formula for c where d = 299,792 kilometers or 186,000 miles and t = 1 second. This gives us:

E = m * (d / t)², where d and t are actual, physical values:

E = m * (299,792 km / 1 sec)², or

Resolving the squared value produces:

E = m * 89,875,243,264 km / 1 sec.

Multiplying both sides by 1 sec. produces:

E * 1 sec. = m * 89,875,243,264 km

Finally, dividing both sides by E produces the definition of time:

1 second = m * 89,875,243,264 km / E, or, generally,

t = m * D_L / E, where D_L = the distance light travels in one second

(Time = mass * distance traveled by light in one second divided by energy)

t seconds of time = (m kg of mass * 89,875,243,264 km of distance) divided by E joules of energy!!! Plugging in any amounts of m, E and d produces a slice of time!!!

Thus, time is no more than a measurement of the rate that E joules of energy moves m kilograms of mass through a distance of d meters. Consider that without any one of these physical elements there is no time. Einstein used the formula to prove the equivalence of mass and energy. However, this same formula proves that time is purely physical!!! Time can only affect, and be affected by, m, E and d. There can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe!

Thus, Mosheh and Yisra·eil weren't (past tense) at Har Sinai, they are, they exist, at Har Sinai!!! When you pray in a minyan (see discussion of web, below), which is a meta-dimensional activity (therefore not constrained by time), you should, in awareness of their existence in the now, join with Yisra·eil at Har Sinai, along with all of the other Israeli personalities of Scripture. Those we perceive as having gone before us simply exist – or don't exist – depending on their nephesh-link (below).

A priori, time can have no effect on any element of the non-physical domain.

Each link is one of two types, Local (e.g. computers in an office tied together by a LAN) and Web; and each of these are either developed and functional or undeveloped. Sapience is the capacity to generate a thought, a concept, an idea. Sapience is non-physical, which implies (necessarily means) that sapience cannot be bounded by physical dimensions (height, width, depth, energy-mass, velocity, time, etc.) – including physical death. Once the thought, idea or concept has been generated, however, it is gone – hopefully into your memory where it endures, unless you forget it, during your physical lifetime. Thus, while sapience isn't constrained by physical dimensions, including time (and, therefore, physical death) it ceases to exist, except in memory, instantly. In this analogy, a local link is what links that fleeting thought, concept or idea to your memory.

A Perfect Prime Force can operate only one, perfect, spiritual web. Any other web, in order to be different, would, therefore, necessarily be imperfect and a contradiction. The real importance to this analogy is its ability to represent the web link. In spirituality, the web link connects the individual who has been granted, and developed, this link to the one spiritual web that is operated by, and – vitally – linked to, the eternal ha-Sheim: Yisra·eil!

The operation of the web link to Yisra·eil enables the individual to link his or her sapience beyond his or her own physical memory, which ceases at physical death. Those who have such a web link to Yisra·eil implant themselves in the Yisra·eil (the web) only through action, NOT thoughts or beliefs, in actively acquainting Yisra·eil (the web) with their nephesh and sapience. Your keeping of the mitzwot within the community (web) of Yisra·eil registers with that Yisra·eil web (i.e. their collective conscious), as does your nephesh and sapience as you interact within the Yisra·eil community.

The web, Yisra·eil, is maintained eternally by ha-Sheim. Linking your sapience, and nephesh, to Yisra·eil, a web that isn't physical and, therefore, not bounded by physical constraints like time or death, ensures that both continue beyond physical death. It cannot be overstated that your eternal welfare depends upon being properly linked to the only web – Yisra·eil – that is, in turn, linked to the eternal Prime Cause – ha-Sheim! No one can hack ha-Sheim's web. To link up to Yisra·eil you must meet the eligibility requirements of Yisra·eil and be accepted and recognized by Yisra·eil. The mechanism for this is the Beit-Din. Because Christians are so alienated from the Hebrew and Judaic concepts (read Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)), each must learn, understand, and embrace the Hebrew and Judaic concepts elaborated in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC) (however, ABNC cannot be grasped without first absorbing the definitions and concepts explained in WAN – follow our Syllabus).

In contrast, lacking a web link to Yisra·eil means that at physical death your only link, the local link connecting your non-dimensional sapience to your physical transceiver-brain that dies, is severed; and both sapience and the undeveloped and non-functional nephesh web-link simply cease to exist. Imperfections which would corrupt ha-Sheim, Who is everywhere and by Whom everything that exists is, cease to be.

The essentialness of becoming accepted into the Yisra·eil community (web) – and not a pretend counterfeit "Israel" – then becomes painfully clear. 'Pretend Israel' (see Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)) fools a lot of humans but when death severs the local link, whether or not you have a spiritual link to true Yisra·eil will determine whether you instantly cease to exist entirely or continue, through a developed and functioning nephesh (Yisra·eil web-link) as a non-physical sapience and nephesh. The counterfeit "Pretend Israel" is a non-functional false link. It will allow you to fool your friends but it won't give you access to ha-Sheim's web. Now, perhaps, the essentialness of praying and interacting in a minyan – interacting in ha-Sheim's web – becomes more clear?

This also answers a host of questions by those who can't think beyond their physicality: is there sex in heaven, will there be 72 virgins in heaven, will pets go to heaven, who will go to heaven, will my parent or spouse go to heaven, how will I recognize people in heaven, what will I do in heaven, etc. Those who aspire to the non-dimensional domain should orient themselves to outside-the-box, non-dimensional values and thinking. If you're legitimately linked to the eternal web then your good works really will endure.

Those who develop their nephesh are developing spirituality, their developed link, while those who ignore the development of their nephesh retain their undeveloped link. The developed link links one's sapience to the Prime Force Creator while the undeveloped link fails to do so.

When the physical body dies, all that's left is sapience that is either linked by a developed and functioning nephesh to ha-Sheim, a developed and working web link, or the sapience ceases with physical death. Imperfection cannot be permitted to corrupt a Perfect Creator.

Chronological Development of the Term in the Bible

Having become distantly alienated to the Hebrew Bible that defines and develops the concept of משיח (Mashiakh; Hellenized to christ and Anglicized to messiah), non-Jews have some evolved some extremely perverted misconceptions over the centuries.

Throughout Torah she-bikhtav, Mashiakh is an attribute of the Kohein ha-Jadol (wa-Yiqra 4.3, 5, 16; 6.15).

ca. B.C.E. 1,030 – T^әhilim

Dawid ha-melekh understood Mashiakh to refer to the melekh (2.2; 18.51; 20.7; 28.8; 84.10; 89.39, 52; 105.15; 132.10, 17).

ca. B,C,E, 720 – Y^әshayahu

Y^әshayahu understood Mashiakh to refer to the melekh of Persia, כורש (Koresh; Hellenized to Cyrus).

ca. B.C.E. 600 – Khavaquq

Khavaquq continues to understand Mashiakh as referring to the melekh (3.13).

ca. B.C.E. 587 – Eikhah (Hellenized to "Lamentations")

The author, an unidentified contemporary of Yirm^әyahu, continues to understand Mashiakh as referring to the melekh (4.20).

ca. B.C.E. 550 – Shmueil

Aleph

The B.C.E. sixth-century compiler of the books of Shmueil, who lived ca. B.C.E. 1045, continues to understand Mashiakh as referring to the melekh. Here (2.10), however, the compiler distinguishes between Sha·ul, as ha-melekh, and Dawid, as Mashiakh, i.e. king-in-waiting. This non-messianic distinction between a king and a king-in-waiting is the origin of the modern concept of the Mashiakh. The compiler uses Mashiakh again, in exactly the same sense, in verse 35, as distinguished from the Kohein ha-Jadol, who was also a Mashiakh.

The compiler uses Mashiakh to refer to the ha-melekh in 12.3, 5; 16.6; 24.7, 11; 26.9, 11, 16 & 23.

Beit

The compiler continues to use Mashiakh to refer to the ha-melekh in 1.14, 16, 21; 19.22; 22.51 (though here is another seed for later messianic interpretation) and 23.1.

ca. B.C.E. 330 – Divrei ha-Yamim Aleph

Like the compiler of Shmueil, this compiler also uses to refer to the ha-melekh (16.22).

ca. B.C.E. 275 – Daniyeil

The two verses in Daniyeil, 9.25, 26, first prophesies a distant future ha-melekh-in-waiting by explicitly calling him a Mashiakh.

With this background in your memory banks, see now the many prophecies that are interpreted as describing this future ha-melekh-in-waiting: Messianic Issues in the Jewish Bible.

Ha-Sheim neither changes (Malakhi 3.6) nor contradicts Himself. To be valid, the 'New Testament' must derive its authority from the Jewish Bible and historical documentation. However, no one has ever done that. Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) documents, in fact, that both invalidate the 'New Testament.' A product of 4^th-century Hellenist Roman syncretism, neither Ribi Y^әhoshua nor his original Jewish followers, the N^әtzarim, accepted the New Testament. Even according to the earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius, Paul was excised as an apostate by the N^әtzarim. For full details, see N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Ma·avâr note 15.41.0 in Appendix V (Eusebius, EH III.xxvii.4) in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC). However, one cannot understand ABNC without first reading Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).

Any objective investigation of this normally-demonized issue reveals that all of the arguments against Biblical marriage practice are deliberately misleading straw men, even the misdefinition.

First, the definition. Polygamy is a misnomer that admits multiple husbands, contrary to Biblical practice. The correct term is polygyny, marriage of one husband to multiple wives.

It is true that no woman must be required, against her free will, to share her husband with other wives. However, it is no less true that no man or woman has the right to dictate to another woman that she cannot – according to her free will – marry polygynously if she wishes. Denying the free will of a woman who wishes to marry polygynously is no better than denying the free will of a woman who wishes not to! Denial of free will is denial of freedom that must apply equally to all; this by a society that hypocritically heralds itself as the torch-bearer of freedom while failing to be circumspect.

Countless sins and crimes are ascribed to "polygamy" that have nothing to do with polygyny (or with polygamy either, for that matter). Wrongs like spouse abuse and desertion are rampant in monogamous marriage (see, for example, Agunot). To characterize spouse abuse, desertion and similar demonizations as attributes of polygyny are straw men. At the moral level, one must ask why homosexual marriage, rampant adultery and "swinging" are acceptable while society is horrified at the prospect of polygynous marriage, falsely demonizing polygyny as wife-beating and slave-trafficking in women.

"Society says" that monopolizing a wife-beating, swearing, drinking, drug-addict, adulterous monster is more moral than sharing a decent, compassionate, understanding husband. That's not only insanely stupid; it's a gross distortion that condemns countless women to unspeakable victimization, women who, if they are to marry at all, must gamble on "settling" for a monster because the "good men are already taken." There's good reason that good men are taken.

The rabbis have a self-contradicting, love-hate relationship with intermediaries between the Jew and his Creator. When the intermediary is Moses, a patriarch, a matriarch, a famous Qabbalist rabbi, or even any regular rabbi, being a "living Torah," then, the rabbis say, the intermediary is approved by Torâh'. When the discussion turns to the Mashiakh, however, the rabbis represent that Torâh' contradicts itself, which is khilul י--ה. Such flip-flopping self-contradictions are a major cause of Y^әtziah, particularly of the most intelligent and educated young Jews. To stem this exodus, the consistency of Torâh' relative to an intermediary is essential.

Torâh' is consistent: D^әvarim 30.11-14 (particularly v. 12). Asking the dead to pray on your behalf – i.e. intermediate for you – is worse than Sha·ul ha-melekh consulting the dead Shmueil ha-Navi through the בעלת-אוב (ba·alat ov in Ein-Dor (Shmueil Aleph 28.3-15). Torâh' explicitly prohibits any intermediary – whether it's Avraham, Sarah, Yitzkhaq, Rivqah, Yisra·eil, Rakheil or Lei·ah, Yoseiph, a rabbi or the Mashiakh. Going to their grave to pray is Avodah Zarah.

The cosmology section sets forth the basic environment in which one's purpose becomes understandable. Since the "Big Bang," the laws governing the operation of the universe have displayed order and consistency, hallmarks of intelligence, not chaos; and that implies an Intelligent Prime Force, which, in turn, implies, as Einstein also concluded, purpose, not capriciousness.

As part of the purposeful ordered universe, you are necessarily part of that purposeful order. Though you evolved, it has all been by intelligent design. You aren't a capricious coincidence. You have a purpose – and the sapience, which is an extension of the abstractions enabled by language – nephesh – to seek that purpose. You will be commensurately held accountable fo your seriousness, or lack of seriousness, in seeking out and achieving that purpose.

The purpose of the homo sapien is plain: the development and proving of that which makes the homo sapien distinct: his or her sapience – free will and choice. The universe is the crucible in which each nephesh is subjected to the fires of testing and proving. What purpose is served by endowing us with free will and choice? The answer isn't that complicated. What choices do we really make in life? Self-serving contrasted with others-serving – i.e. service to ha-Sheim and His creation. The latter involves spirituality – the development of one's nephesh. You can figure it out logically this hard way or you could have read the Instruction Manual: "Love your companion as you love yourself."

To develop your nephesh successfully in the face of the life's fires of testing and proving you can choose (!) to follow the advice of a charlatan, your own opinions or follow the advice of the pillars of mankind who have known and communed with the Creator over millennia, advice that has been compiled into the Jewish Instruction Manual, the literal meaning of Torah, for learning and achieving your purpose in life. The Intelligent Prime Force will hold you accountable for how seriously you seek your purpose and your resulting choice (see Life After Death).

The Ashk^әnazi prohibition against qitniot during Khag ha-Matzot is an addition to Torah prohibited by D^әvarim 13.1 and a cause of division within Israel. It is incumbent upon Ashk^әnazi rabbis to rescind and renounce this tradition.

The evolution of Orthodox Jews is being noticed in the Jewish press. The Jerusalem Post published an article (2006.01.22), "Where have all the rabbis gone?" about the exodus of rabbis from pulpits and Batei-ha-K^әnësët to greener pastures, which range from positions at Yeshiva University to various well-funded Jewish philanthropic projects or institutions and career changes.

The articles conclusion: "As the ranks of such projects continue to grow, American Jewish life continues to deteriorate. The institutions that can do the most good – [Batei-ha-K^әnësët] and schools – are losing talented people."

A former director of rabbinic placement at RIETS of Yeshiva University, Victor B. Geller of Y^әrushalayim, adds an interesting footnote. Over a 43 year period, the number of primarily-Orthodox Batei-ha-K^әnësët in the New York City area diminished from 2,100 in 1950 to 761 in 1975, to 601 in 1980 and, finally, to 548 in 1993. There are less Orthodox rabbis because demand for them is drying up.

"In the past 50 years the [y^әshivah] heads have systematically demoted the pulpit rabbinate to second-class status. The most respected and influential position in the [y^әshivah] world was that of the [Rosh Y^әshivah], and the best students were encouraged to aspire to such posts. All students were taught to accept this as valid. As a result, when they left the y^әshivah they took this thinking with them. They moved into communities but sought out the less institutionalized [small independent private houses of study and prayer] for prayer instead of congregations. Where they did attend a community synagogue they – however politely – declined to recognize the pulpit rabbi as their spiritual leader. When a student had a religious question he called his y^әshivah rebbe" (JP, 2006.01.23, p. 14).

Historically, rabbis were required to earn their living from a secular occupation. While it's essential that a religious leader of Israel experience the same pressures as lay Israelis, that's not the most important reason. Rabbis who depend on their income as a rabbi to live and support their families cannot freely speak out on issues that threaten the established, institutional, rabbinic bureaucracy – no matter how vital it is to Israel – because it would jeopardize their entire career, their income and the welfare of their families. Thus, their choice to earn a living as a rabbi ensures that they become sanctimonious lemmings of their rabbinic institution, not free to be legitimate leaders of Israel.

Israel complains that there are no great leaders, no leaders of courage; this is the main reason why. To be legitimate, (in addition to being Orthodox) a rabbi must satisfy the mitzwah to work six days – earning his living from a secular occupation. Fire the rabbis. Those rabbis who are meritorious and worthy will work and rise as stronger leaders of Israel, freed of the shackles that now stop their mouthes, while the chaff will, gratefully, be blown away. As the rabbinic institution then begins progressing, this will, in turn, free "Judaic" academics, who are also identically shackled by dependence upon the rabbinic institution for their career, income and the livelihood of their families.

Freed of their shackles, rabbis and Judaic academics will fuel and drive each other's progress in the areas discussed in this book (inter alia), propelling those who love ha-Sheim and His Torâh' into a flourishing future.

While the best rabbis are evolving into halakhic consultants, the dinosaurs that fail to evolve are dying out. The question is, where is this going and will you be part of it?

It's well known that, unless they are religious to begin with, scholars of all persuasions roll their eyes and tune out the moment someone argues that "Rashi says…" or the equivalent (Rambam said…, Talmud states…, etc.). Those who attempt to pass the buck to someone else's argument impale themselves upon an intellectual double-edged sword:

1. If they represent that something is correct merely because Rashi, etc. said it, they imply that Rashi, etc. has to be infallible; else, quoting him is meaningless! To represent that Rashi, etc. is infallible, however, wrongly idolizes Rashi, etc. – constituting Avodah Zarah.
   
   
2. If, on the other hand, they agree that Rashi is fallible then their citation is rendered vacuous incompetence; implicitly conceding that they know no valid argument and are forced, instead, to helplessly name drop, pleading, "but Rashi said…"
   
   

Reliance on medieval commentators is transparent, passing-the-buck, intellectual bankruptcy. It is mental laziness and ignorance of the relevant arguments to rely on anyone else's arguments and simply hope that their reputation is enough to win the argument. There's no logic in that. If Rashi is right then you must know why. If you know why, then there's no reason to quote a medieval commentator when it will only cause scholars – and your teenage children – to roll their eyes at your ignorance as they reject your lame, pass-the-buck argument.

Quoting Talmud or Mishnah is no better. Talmud is a compendium of debates and discussions. Torah prohibits following the consensus (including the consensus of Talmud) for no other reason than it's the consensus (Sh^әmot 23.2). Recall that it was the consensus of Israel to worship the Gold Calf. Right = י--ה, dictating Halakhah; and these follow logic, not the consensus.

Torâh' explicitly requires that you, not Rashi, teach your children! While Judaism boasts that questioning is good, the religious Jewish community is hemorrhaging their youth to Y^әtziah (secular, displacement theologies, etc.) because parents lack serious answers to their serious inquiries about serious questions and rabbis discourage serious questions because they have no answers. Indeed, disrespect of Orthodox rabbis derives in no small part from the virtual ignorance of many about important sections of Tana"kh that aren't included in any Haphtarah. Rabbis know minutiae of Talmud that would bore the most zealous trivia enthusiast while knowing far less about Tana"kh than many "seculars." That's one reason they're secular!!!

In order to teach your children, you must first remedy your own incompetence. The only solution is consistently applied logic, not "Rashi said…" Christian missionaries regularly put in several hours week in and week out, all of their life, to study parts of the Tana"kh that seem to support their claims that your children should convert, many of them because they believe that their salvation depends on their work at "sharing" (not solely with Jews, by the way). Why aren't you willing to spend even more time providing your children with solid, scientifically compatible, archeologically compatible, historically documented logic demonstrating why Torâh' is true??? In fact, why don't you care enough about the goyim to enlighten them to solid answers if there are any??? Christian missionaries study hard and work hard, every week of every year, because they think they're right and they care about you and your children enough to want to "share" what they think they have. Why don't you care about your children as much as they care about your children?!? Torâh' says you love neighbor as self. Why don't you care about enlightening the goyim as much as they care about "enlightening" you??? Are they beneath you??? Did י--ה not create them in His image like you?

Instead of going back yet again to the dry well of the rabbis, asking those who have demonstrated for centuries that they have no answers and are responsible for driving 95% of the flock away from Torâh', seek logical answers in our Friends of the N^әtzarim (FON) forum, in the Web Café at www.netzarim.co.il.

The American Imposition

Why Good Christians Oppose Celebrating Xmas – What kind of Christian ignores historical truth, falsely claiming pagan festivals are connected to the Jew from Nazareth, in order to celebrate pagan festivals that history demonstrates the Jew from Nazareth eschewed? I applaud Alan Combs, of Fox's Hannity & Combs TV show, for asking John Gibson (author of his book, The War on Christmas) essentially this question. Having no answer, Gibson sputtered and ranted meaninglessly, desperately evading the question and changing the subject. (Arguers' Axiom: When right supports you, argue rightness. When the law supports you, argue the law. Else rant and change the subject. "Sputtering" isn't in the axiom.)

Still, why must Christians demand to impose their religious sentiments on non-Christians, many of whom object to the paganism inherent in modern Christianity? Where does the fist of Christian imposition stop and our nose begin? Why can't those who prefer to escape Christian themes do so without having to sequester themselves in their homes, with their electricity cut off pretending no one is home, from Thanksgiving until the end of December? Have non-Christians no rights? Shouldn't non-Christians be able to go to the mall or shop without being hounded by Christianity? Shouldn't all Americans have that same right? How is it that Christians claim a monopoly on "people of faith"? Aren't Jews and other non-Christians, who don't accept Christmas or Christianity, also "people of faith"? On the other hand, isn't it sanctimonious to display Hanukiyahs in public areas while prohibiting manger scenes? Why can't Christians practice their religion freely without demanding to impose it on everyone around them?

For Torah-observant Jews, inability to escape Christmas prevents us from keeping one of the commandments, which requires that we make a separation between the holy and the profane. But these days, we can't go anywhere without Christians ramming Christmas down our throat. Imposing Christmas infringes our right to practice our religion. Christians recognize, and relish, that. Sadly, sometimes Jews are no less guilty relative to Hannukah.

A further undesirable consequence is that, out of political correctness because Christians are adamant in proclaiming Christmas, the media begins hyping Hannukah long before the days of Hannukah. This breaches the commandment for us to separate between the holy (the actual days of Hannukah) and the profane (ordinary non-Hannukah days preceding Hannukah). The media should respect that Judaism is different from Christianity, that Hannukah isn't Xmas, and, unlike Xmas, if the media insists on hyping religious themes, confine the Hannukah hype to the days of Hannukah.

Democracy

Westerners are learning that their American and European versions of democracy, which they have come to idolize, aren't suited to Islam. The Muslim version of democracy must be customized to protect their religion from secularization.

Indeed, increasingly as Christian America becomes diluted with non-Christians, westerners are realizing that their own version of democracy isn't as well suited to Christianity as they had assumed. The Christian call to protect American democracy from secularization is becoming increasingly strident.

The same is true of Judaism.

The disengagement from Gaza was necessitated by demographics. Pure democracy dictates that every permanent resident be recognized as a citizen and every citizen be granted the right to vote. Without disengagement, Israel faced being voted democratically from a Jewish State of Israel to an Islamic State of Palestine. For this same reason, major centers of Muslim populations are being excluded from the Jewish State.

Even after this is completed, however, the Jewish democracy will still be left with the same threat from internal secularization as faced by Christian and Muslim societies.

Neither Muslim nor Jewish societies have faced the conundrum of distinguishing between a democracy based on a secular constitution or religious law with the added complexities of defining the authority for interpreting their respective Holy Book: clerics or secular courts. The former reverts to rule by medievalist clerics and the latter reverts to a society of secular values and morals as in the United States. In Israel, the Supreme Court exercises ultimate earthly authority over the batei din (clerical courts). Thus, the only appreciable difference between Israeli and American societies is the "sensitivity" that the Israeli Supreme Court defers to clerics' Medieval and Europeanist interpretations of Torâh'. Consequently, Israel has a primarily secular government and majority of society devoid of any religious values; begrudgingly walking a line between a religious uprising, on the one hand, and a secular uprising on the other.

The great (secular) majority of Israeli society adamantly opposes a constitution based on Torâh' because they know this really means rule by the Medieval and Europeanist rabbis. The religious element of Israeli society just as adamantly opposes any constitution that takes precedence over the Divine Laws of Torah. No one has challenged the apparent intractability of this conundrum.

Logic offers the solution. Logic is equivalent to discrete mathematics and can be calculated like any other mathematics on a computer. Logic isn't the intuitive principle of "Occum's Razor." In earlier times, the masses were illiterate and the educated – for example, the rabbis – were charged with leading society. The masses are no longer illiterate and can no longer be dependent, or addicted, to religious intermediaries in contradiction to Torâh' (D^әvarim 30.13). Today, and increasingly, large segments of the public are capable of learning the mathematical laws of logic. Accordingly, logic, not the clerics, must be acknowledged as the ultimate interpreter of Torâh'.

Extreme Jews of both fringes of Israeli society, misojudaic and rabbinical, will fight any solution. Trying to placate both of them is impossible and, therefore, such focus is an intractable waste of time. Recognizing logic as the ultimate interpreter, however, affords constitutional protection of Torâh' in a democratic society in which both secular and religious Jews arrive at the identical understanding of Torâh' – that is always up-to-date and scientifically oriented; neither Medieval nor Europeanist. With logic as the ultimate earthly arbiter, the vast majority of secular Israelis need not fear rule by Medievalist and Europeanist rabbis while moderate religious Jews need not fear the intrinsic Torâh' values of Israel will be threatened by secularization.

Those in the Galut who are devoted to Torâh' suffer additional complications ensuing from a constitution that vacillates between atheist and Christian; with little concession to Torâh'. It is contrary to the U.S. Constitution for Jews to expect permission to display a Khanukiyah while denying Christians the right to display their idols. Thus, during the winter holidays, for example, the democratic choice is between allowing only non-religious decorations, like "Happy Holidays," which Christians are vehemently fighting, or being inundated with pagan decorations and people who expect Jews to appreciate and enjoy their paganism; i.e., being wished "Merry Xmas" and the like. That democracy prefers no particular religion. There is only one solution for the person determined to keep Torâh': (convert if necessary and) come home!

With even all of the Jewish polls showing that extinction of religious Jews is on the horizon due to Y^әtziah, how Jews should relate to Christians today, while countering Y^әtziah, is essential. Most Jews fear Christians, some Jews hate Christians and the rest ignore Christians. Ignorant of Christian doctrines, Jews labor under the delusion that Christians can be expected to leave Jews alone. Salvation for Christians (particularly J-----h's Witnesses and LDS Mormons), however, depends upon their missionary work, including to Jews. This is based on a NT passage (Lu. 12.8-9) – which no pope, preacher or evangelist can override.

(The passage in "Luke" of the KJV quotes Yesh"u as declaring: "⁸ Also I say unto you, 'Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of G*o*d; ⁹ But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of G*o*d." Hence, to be saved, Christians must "witness" – or "share" – and Jews cannot be an exception. This passage, the N^әtzarim advise you, is the passage to quote suspicious visitors to synagogues and suspicious candidates for conversion before asking them if they believe in J*e*s*u*s as Christ.)

While few, whether Jew or Christian, have bothered to educate themselves to the history of Christianity and the Church, this is essential to understanding and relating to Christians today. Conveniently glossed over in Christian circles, the greatest conspiracy and deception in all of history is indisputably documented by Oxford historian James Parkes in The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue and further detailed in Christian Distortion and Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN). These demonstrate there there is no disputation in the serious academic community – i.e. among scholar-historians of universities of international stature – that the historical Jew born in Beit-Lëkhëm and raised in Natzrat was a Pharisaic Ribi who taught Torah – and would have gone ballistic with revulsion at any suggestion that he would, two centuries after his death, be misportrayed as a Christian. The Sages equate slander to murder and Torâh' demands that Jews not stand idly by the blood of their brother. Therefore, Torâh' demands that the reputation of this Tzadiq Ribi, sullied by a slanderous gentile (Hellenist-Christian) deception for nearly 2,000 years, must be restored; the בגדים צואים (b^әgedim tzo·im; feces-dirtied clothes) of Y^әhoshua replaced with מחלצות (makhalatzot; festive [purified, white] garments – Z^әkharyah 3.3-4).

After absorbing the extensive historical documentation in the books cited above, contact Paqid Yirm^әyahu, via the N^әtzarim website (www.netzarim.co.il) Absorption Ministry contact link, for booking information and rates (within Israel) for a series of seminars on countering misojudaism and Y^әtziah to secularism and Christianity.

Circa B.C.E. 1466, י--ה explicitly instructed Mosheh and Aharon (Sh^әmot 12.2) that the month in spring in which Pesakh falls "shall be for you ראש חדשים (rosh khadashin; the head of the months), ראשון הוא לכם לכדשי השנה (rishon hu kakhem l^ә-khad^әshei ha-shanah; it is the first for you, for the months of the year)."

The month names on today's "Hebrew" calendars are Babylonian names. Consider how Hebrew months could have acquired Babylonian names. Babylonian month names found their way into Torah by way of inserted scribal explanation for those who had become dependent on Babylonian month names – something that couldn't have happened until sometime after the Babylonian Exile, which began in B.C.E.586 – nearly 1,000 years after י--ה had instructed that the month in spring in which Pesakh falls is the first month of the year.

Some, particularly those unfamiliar with Hebrew, may find the implication subtle. Consider the closely-related names of the weekdays in Hebrew. The method of naming Hebrew months would be similar to the method for naming Hebrew weekdays. Unlike nearly all other languages, in Hebrew weekdays aren't named after Greek g*o*ds. (The Greek g*o*ds, with their Greek names, subsequently evolved to become the Roman g*o*ds with Roman names and evolved similarly to adopted by later cultures. Even the Greek g*o*ds may be considered to have evolved from the earlier Egyptian g*o*ds.) Unlike pagan cultures, however, the Hebrew days are simply יום ראשון (Yom Rishon; Firstday) through יום שישי (Yom Shishi; Sixthday) and שבת (Shabat; cessation).

Until the Babylonian Exile, which began in B.C.E. 586, Hebrew months were named identically: חדש הראשון (Khodesh ha-Rishon; the Firstmonth) through שנים-עשר החדש (Shnai·im-asar ha-Khodesh; the Twelfthmonth)! Thus, one reads that such-and-such an event occurred on the 15^th day of the Ninthmonth, the first day of the Thirdmonth, etc.

This raises the question of when, why and who caused Jews to turn away from the explicit instruction of י--ה to adopt, instead, the Seventhmonth as ראש השנה (Rosh ha-Shanah; Head of the Year) and rework a theme found only at Y^әkhezqeil 40.1, ראש השנה (Rosh ha-Shanah; head of the year), to essentially displace the Torâh'-ordained יום תרועה (Yom T^әruah; day of shophar-blasting, see b^ә-Midbar 29.1).

Talmud (Arakhin 12a) speculates that Y^әkhezqeil's vision occurred in a Yoveil year, then commits the non sequitor of "reasoning" that because the laws of Yoveil commence on the 10^th or "Tishrei" – the Babylonian name for Seventhmonth! – therefore Y^әkhezqeil calls that day – Yom Kipur, not Yom T^әruah (!) – Rosh ha-Shanah (see, for example, Artscroll note to Y^әkhezqeil 40.1).

The Babyonian name of the month, Tishrei, reveals how this happened. Tishrei means "first" in Babylonian. It was the pagan Babylonian (Iraqi – so much for Muslim claims that Arabs always followed Allah) New Year, not Israel's New Year. During the Babylonian Exile, Israel strayed from the explicit instruction of Torâh', that Firstmonth began the new year, to assimilate into the Iraqi (Babylonian) culture, adopting, instead, the Babyonian New Year in "Tishrei." After the fact, the rabbis then rationalized the Y^әtziah into Judaism, once again breaching Torâh' (wa-Yiqra 18.3).

There are more flaws in the rabbinic reasoning. They reasoned that since Y^әkhezqeil specified בראש השנה,  (b^ә-rosh ha-shanah; at new year) on the tenth day of the month) that this implies that Y^әkhezqeil equated b^ә-rosh ha-shanah with the tenth day of the unstated month. This, of course, is non sequitor. Y^әkhezqeil stated no more than that the vision occurred on the tenth day of Firstmonth.

The next logical error was ex falso quodlibet – "after a false" or hypothetical premise conclusions become "whatever pleases." The rabbis assumed the non sequitor that Y^әkhezqeil was saying that the new year began on the tenth of that month. Then, based on that non sequitor, the rabbis progressed to the ex falso quodlibet – the new year began on the tenth of the month – therefore (!), this had to be Yom T^әruah. Further, now based on a non sequitor coupled with an ex falso quodlibet, the rabbis commited yet another ex falso quodlibet: therefore (!),Y^әkhezqeil meant that Yom T^әruah should be b^ә-rosh ha-shanah. Two ex falso quodlibets based on a non sequitor all to rationalize Israel's straying from the mitzwah Torâh' of Firstmonth to the Y^әtziah into the pagan Babylonian New Year!!!

As long as "religious" Jews insist on promulgating such fallacies, their increasingly educated children will increasingly continue to reject their erroneous teachings – and extinction looms by the door.

In the Jewish Bible, there is such a thing as a place in ha-olam ha-ba and a means for getting there – but it isn't ישועה (y^әshuah; salvation through victorious force of arms; rarely used in the sense of personal combat, it almost always connotes the collective sense of a national military victory: the national military salvation of Israel as a nation). The proper Hebrew term in the Jewish Bible when discussing how a person can achieve a place in ha-olam ha-ba is kipur.

Translating kipur to the English "atonement" is a step away from the authoritative term: kipur. Building on this non-authoritative English word to derive a supposedly wondrous meaning from the wordplay "at-one-ment" is irrelevant and misleading, causing a straying from the authoritative term in Torah: kipur.

Kipur: Exclusivity contrasted with Universality

A certain eminent Ultra-Orthodox rabbi knew more about rabbinic minutiae than anyone around and sanctimoniously observed all of the rabbinic minutiae, while slandering rival rabbis and political enemies, cheating in his business dealings and neglecting justice for agunot (deserted wives whose absent husbands refuse to give them a divorce that would enable them to remarry). In another town, an ignorant Christian idolator went around doing her utmost to please Elohim as best she understood, doing her utmost to be good to others around her, being kind, just, benevolent and compassionate. Which of these will be granted a place in ha-olam ha-ba? Answer: she who did her utmost to please Elohim is closer to ha-olam ha-ba than the sanctimonious rabbi. Though "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, nevertheless, "closer" means it will likely be easier for the woman who did her utmost to see her need to come to Torâh' than for the sanctimonious rabbi to make t^әshuvah. Of two things we can be certain: 1) ha-Sheim is the shopheit in this matter and 2) ha-Sheim will judge according to His Torah.

Kipur: Law versus Grace

The Biblical requirement for obtaining a place in ha-olam ha-ba is:

• Doing one's utmost (D^әvarim 11.13 – not being perfect, contrary to Christian misperceptions) to keep all of the mitzwot of Torâh'
  
  
• As a condition to qualify for t^әshuvah,
  
  
• Through which ha-Sheim, through His חן (khein; graciousness), provides kipur, restoring perfection (enabling one to commune with ha-Sheim, Who is Perfect, without introducing imperfection), in ha-olam ha-ba.
  
  

Thus, kipur and a place in ha-olam ha-ba in the Jewish Bible is a function of graciousness, not works. Yet, without doing one's utmost –works, there can be neither kipur nor place in ha-olam ha-ba. This is what Hellenists, i.e. Paul, so wildly perverted.

Kipur: Forgiveness & Atonement

Hellenist have perverted the concept of forgiveness. Scripture conditions forgiveness upon restitution (). Only the victim, having received restitution plus 20%, can bestow forgiveness. No one else can forgive the offender. The same holds true for wrongs against ha-Sheim, which are transgressions of His Torâh'. The only restitution we can offer is, Barukh ha-Sheim, the only restitution ha-Sheim requires in order to grant kipur: t^әshuvah to doing our utmost to keeping His ToraTorah.

While the Beit-Din system was ordained by Mosheh and has continued, uninterrupted, ever since, the Sanhedrin, by contrast, is first mentioned in B.C.E. 57 as a Roman (not Jewish) political (not religious) entity (Josephus, Ant., 14.91) and was effective only to the middle of the 3^rd century C.E. when it was simply superseded by the rise of Torâh' scholarship in Iraq (Babylonia; see, for example, "Bet Din and Judges" and "Sanhedrin" entries in Ency. Jud., 4.719ff and 14.836ff).

The very nature of the word – συνεδριον (sunedrion; Sanhedrin), a Greek word, exposes its Roman Hellenist (i.e. Greek) origin. The Sanhedrin was a product of the Roman era, established during the Roman era, by a coalition of Roman occupier-rulers operating their Hellenist "Wicked Priest" pseudo-Tz^әdoqim sycophants. Thus, although the Sanhedrin has for millennium been assumed to be synonymous with the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, it was not and a clear distinction between the two must be maintained. (This is also at least part of the confusion concerning the Sanhedrin being Tz^әdoqim while the Beit-Din ha-Jadol was P^әrushim.)

Of three explanations floated by historians ("Sanhedrin," Ency. Jud., 14.838), two are contradicted by the facts. I'm not the first to recognize the difference between Sanhedrin and Beit-Din ha-Jadol. "Buechler thinks that the religious body was properly called Bet Din ha-Gadol she-be-Lishkat ha-Gazit ("Great Bet Din in the Chamber of Hewn Stone"), and the application to it of the term Sanhedrin was a misnomer. Zeitlin points out that there is no evidence that the political Sanhedrin was called "Great," but his view that the division between the political and the religious authorities… is questionable. More likely, the separation was the result of the fact that the political views of the religious Sanhedrin were not sought… by the high priests who were appointed by Romans.

"The opponents of the theory of the double Sanhedrin [more properly, the Beit-Din ha-Jadol versus the Sanhedrin] base themselves mainly on three arguments: no proof exists that the nasi headed the Sanhedrin in the days of the Temple; the priests' authority to "declare" the law is scripturally prescribed (Deut. 17:9), so that the high priest must have at least formally headed the religious Sanhedrin, as he did among the Qumran sect; and in Judaism there is no division between the religious and the secular. As against those arguments, it has been pointed out: the law concerning the assignment of one's property to the nasi (Ned. 5:5), which dates from Temple days, assumes that the nasi headed the Sanhedrin [or Beit-Din ha-Jadol], just as he did in the post-destruction era; the Pharisaic exegesis dispensed with the need of priests in issuing legal decisions [something Ribi Y^әhoshua helped accomplish, at the cost of his life], the Pharisees basing their ruling on the superfluous words "and to judge" (Deut. 17:9; see Sif., Deut. 153); and the Pharisees did not voluntarily relinquish their right to judge on political matters. The political rulers [including the "wicked Priest" pseudo-Tz^әdoqim Sanhedrin] simply did not consult them."

New evidence has been discovered that is pertinent to this debate: Qumran scroll 4Q MMT, which exposed the "wicked Priest" pseudo-Tz^әdoqim in contradistinction to the Qumran Tz^әdoqim. This utterly destroys the second of the three arguments mounted by opponents of the theory of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol versus the Sanhedrin. The P^әrushim Beit-Din ha-Jadol, which defended the N^әtzarim against the "wicked Priest" pseudo-Tz^әdoqim Sanhedrin (Acts 5.34) and condemned the "Wicked Priest's" murder of PaqidYa·aqov "ha-tzadiq" Ben-David (brother or Ribi Y^әhoshua; Josephus Ant., 20.200-202) was at complete enmity with the Sanhedrin of the "Wicked Priest" and would certainly not have recognized the Roman-appointed Hellenist "Wicked Priest"; not even as a legitimate Kohein ha-Jadol, much less head of a Roman-Hellenist "Sanhedrin."

The import of this is that the "Sanhedrin" was a temporary, and Roman Hellenist, entity that displaced the Beit-Din system only during the Roman Hellenist period, from the middle of the B.C.E. 1^st century to the middle of the 3^rd century C.E. when it gave way, reverting back to the Beit-Din system again. The essential for determining Halakhah is the Beit-Din system, not a Sanhedrin, which was a Roman Hellenist invention that should remain extinct. Having moved from the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh to Yavneh and then to the Galil, reconvening a Beit-Din ha-Jadol doesn't depend upon rebuilding a Temple (see Third Beit ha-Miqdash). This means that there is no obstacle, other than logically-challenged rabbis, to correcting faulty logic in Halakhah!

This would mean that the tractate in Talmud and references in the Mishnah, P^әrushim works clearly referring to the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, was misnamed under duress of the Roman Hellenist Empire (possibly in concert with the Roman Hellenist Church) and should be restored to the proper Hebrew.

Recently, some ill-advised rabbis have attempted to restore a Sanhedrin when they should have been striving to put together a Beit-Din ha-Jadol, and attempting to achieve a number of 71 when they should have been striving to put together a body that reflects and represents all Jews. Better two who achieve these objectives than 71 who don't.

Two-day festivals have no other basis than solving the difficulty of communicating the time of ראש חדש (Rosh Khodesh) to outlying Jewish communities. Rosh Khodesh was announced in Y^әrushalayim and then signal fires lit on mountaintops to communicate the announcement to distant communities.

After the Syrians conquered and transferred (!) the mature males of the Ten Tribes to the surrounding Arab countries in B.C.E. 722, the transferred (!) similar numbers of the Arab population from the surrounding Arab countries into the vacated Shomron area of Israel. Thus, Arab populations, who replaced and repopulated the Shomron, became known as Shomronim (inhabitants of the Shomron) – Hellenized to "Samaritans." These Arabs from the surrounding countries selectively syncretized some of Israeli practices, picked up from women and children, into their own pagan religions.

One area of disagreement between these "Samaritans" and Israel was who had the authority to announce Rosh Khodesh. The Samaritans announced their own sighting of Rosh Khodesh. Dependent upon cloud cover in the various areas, and similar difficulties, each often announced Rosh Khodesh on different days. The Samaritans also communicated their announcement by lighting signal fires on mountaintops and, from the distant communities, it was impossible to tell which fires on which mountaintops were from Y^әrushalayim and which from the Samaritans. For this reason, the rabbis required that both doubtful days be observed in order to ensure that the proper day was observed, thereby satisfying the mitzwah.

That was correct. The operable word here, though, is "was." The situation of being unable to observe the correct day no longer continues. This renders the rabbinic decision, originally correct, now incorrect and a prohibited addition to Torâh' (D^әvarim 13.1). Rabbis since the day was able to be precisely calculated have failed to rescind what has become a rabbinic foreskin.

As long as "religious" Jews insist on promulgating such fallacies, their increasingly educated children will increasingly continue to reject their erroneous teachings – and extinction looms by the door.

Selective Acceptance = Partial Rejection

Shabbat –

39 M^әlakhot

Driving to Beit-ha-K^әnësët —

"Shabat Journey"

Electricity Contrasted with Fire

Lulav & Etrog, Waving On Shabbat

Music

"Shabbos Goy" or B^әnei-Noakh?

Shophar, Blowing When Yom T^әruah On Shabat

Tearing Toilet Paper contrasted with Business Deals

Umbrella, Opening

Writing – Pushing a Stroller or Cutting a Cake

Writing – Taking Notes on Torâh' contrasted with Studying for School Exams

Slavery, Bible Teaches?

Every Orthodox Jew I've met believes the whole Jewish Bible. Yet, I've never met an Orthodox Jew who believes in slavery. The apparent conundrum is an illusion. There are five words that, with their cognates, are translated in English versions of the Jewish Bible as servant:

1. אנוש (enosh; homo sapien)
   
   
2. נער (na·ar; youth, boy)
   
   
3. עבד (eved; worker, apprenticed-employee), with its cognates
   
   
4. שרת (sharat; minister)
   
   
5. שכיר (sakhir; temp, hireling, mercenary)
   
   

There is no word in the Jewish Bible that can be properly rendered as slave!

The Jewish Bible doesn't advocate slavery. Slavery was yet another example of evil men perverting Scripture to justify their evil actions. Using supposed Biblical advocacy of slavery as justification to reject part of the Bible is based on a false premise. Even when taking enemies, rather then imply enslavement, the Biblical instruction is to treat them, and ensure their welfare, as an eved, employee.

Ribi Y^әhoshua demonstrated the consistency of Torah in elaborating this theme. Interpreting רע (reiah; companion) inclusively in wa-Yiqra 19.18, the 1^st-century Ribi interpreted that Torâh' not only commanded one to love the רע (reiah; companion) but also the רע (ra; bad-person – those companions who eschew you; NHM 5.43-48). This is particularly required of the רועה (roeh; shepherd). After all, if the Shepherd, ha-Sheim, didn't love the רע (ra; bad-person)· where would you be?