A Prayer for God’s Blessings on Families, Nations, and the World, Day 170, Iceland

Comments

44 responses to “A Prayer for God’s Blessings on Families, Nations, and the World, Day 170, Iceland”

1. 

   mosckerr

   May 24, 2025

   When Israel came out of Egypt the Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that Amalek-Anti-Semitism attacked the weary weak stragglers of Israel. Next the Torah defines these “Israelites” as lacking fear of Elohim. A reference to “Baal Shem Tov or Master of the Good Name. Not the Hassidic founder that goes by this Title, but a reference to the obligation of the Israelites to strive to protect and maintain their Good Name reputations. Hence the term “Fear of Heaven”.

   The 2nd Sinai commandment: do not worship other Gods. The Monotheism preached by the Av tumah avoda zarah of Islam decapitates the 2nd Commandment of the Sinai revelation. If only One God then impossible to worship other Gods; like in the case of Par’o and Egypt. Therefore, what caused or generated the Torah curse of Amalek? Answer: Jewish avoda zarah – the direct 2nd Sinai commandment! How does the Torah define the 2nd commandment? Through the precedent negative commandments (1) Do not ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, that Israel might to likewise. This negative commandment interpreted to mean (A) Do not assimilate the cultures and Customs of the Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, like as both Xtianity and Islam clearly do. Neither the bible nor the koran counterfeit faiths ever once bring or mention the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. Translating the Divine Presence Spirit, revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment to other words; in Hebrew the Sin of the Golden Calf – these are the אלהים/Gods who brought you out of Egypt. Hence since nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name revealed in the First Sinai commandment, therefore translating this Spirit Name to other words, such as Allah or Jesus or Father etc — herein defines the k’vanna of the substitute theology of the sin of the Golden Calf.

   Consequently, when Israelites violated the 2nd Sinai commandment – the result of their assimilation to the customs and culture of Egypt and intermarried with Egyptians ie ערב רב/mixed multitudes – this avoda zarah destroyed their Good Name reputations making them “weak exhausted stragglers”. Not physically weak and exhausted but spiritually weak and exhausted! Who brought Israel out of Egypt HaShem or the strong and mighty hand of Israel? The Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt! Hence whenever Jews assimilate and embrace the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, as do Xtians and Muslim religions, Amalek the Torah curse plagues Israel like as did the 10 plagues which cursed Egypt and Par’o. Jewish avoda zarah caused the Torah curse of Amalek in all generations.

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      myallaboutyou

      May 24, 2025

      Interesting. Thank you for sharing. I am learning a lot.

      Loading…

      Reply
      1. 

         mosckerr

         May 25, 2025

         אֲרבעה אבוֹת נְזִיקִין: הַשּׁוֹר, וְהַבּוֹר, וְהַמַּבְעֶה, וְהַהֶבְעֵר. לֹא הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר כַּהֲרֵי הַמַּבְעֶה, וְלֹא הֲרֵי הַמַּבְעֶה כַּהֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר; וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן רוּחַ חַיִּים, כַּהֲרֵי הָאֵשׁ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים; וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק, כַּהֲרֵי הַבּוֹר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק [הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַזִּיק, וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ; וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק – חָב הַמַּזִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק, בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ.

         The most obvious דיוק to this Av Mishna.  [[[ Why Av Mishna?  The Shemone Esrei serves as the model for the entire organization of both the Talmud Bavli and Jerushalmi.  As the first blessing functions as the only “blessing” which contains שם ומלכות – defined as dedication of the Soul Name of the שם השם לשמה and one or more of the 13 tohor middot first revealed to Moshe at Horev following the substitute theology of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב, assimilated and intermarried Jews, worship avoda zarah down through all the generations of Israel.  Wherein they substitute אלהים or some other word name for the שם השם.  Nothing in the Heavens, Earth or Seas comparable to HaShem, and how much more so word translations for God.  The latter dedicates tohor middot whereas the שם a Divine Spirit which lives within our hearts, by the terms of the oath brit within the Yatzir Ha’Tov inspires us to keep and obey the Torah faith.  The lips can pronounce words but only the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our heart can blow Divine Name Spirits affixed to the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat menorah light which shines within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of our hearts. 

         These Divine Soul Names dedicated holy to HaShem on the Yom Tov and Shabbat: יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, איש האלהים, שלום, dedicated as the k’vanna of the Yatzir Ha’Tov on the six days of Chol and Shabbat.  The time oriented commandment of shabbat requires making the הבדלה which separates forbidden מלאכה from forbidden עבודה.  

         To understand a subject requires separating like from like. It requires little or no skill to separate like from unlike.  The separation of t’rumah serves as a precedent example.  To understand a matter requires multiple witness testimony seen or viewed from different perspective angles.  The front view does not look like the Top view which in its turn does not look like the side view.  Hence 70 faces to Torah common law.

         Just as shabbat separates in קידוש shabbat from Chol, so too – because all tohor time oriented Av commandments require prophetic mussar as their יסוד k’vanna for all and every Av Torah mitzvot (דיוק to separate their priority over תולדות קום ועושה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות).  Av tohor time oriented commandments dedicated קדוש קדושים to HaShem to create תמיד מעשה בראשית the chosen Cohen people from generation to generation יש מאין. 

         Herein explains the reason why the Torah begins with בראשית; and why the portion of Israel who do their עבודת השם portion of korbanot services, that during the dedication of korbanot sworn oaths by the Cohonim sons of Aaron, Israel reads a portion from the opening Book of בראשית.  But to offer a korban without swearing a Torah oath, compares to offering a barbeque to heaven through sacrifices.

         Torah faith centers upon the eternal walk before HaShem of the chosen Cohen people.  Herein explains why HaShem chose the korban oath dedication made by Hevel over his first born brother’s barbeque to Heaven sacrifice. Hevel, chosen as the father of the created יש מאין Cohen people.  בראשית tohor time oriented commandments the Av commandments like the Avot to the תולדות twelve sons of Yaacov.  This theme runs throughout the Book of בראשית. 

         The תולדות commandments located in the Books of שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר – these בניני אבות מצוות have the “רשות” to become Av tohor time oriented commandments, like as does Tefillat Erevit.  Just as Yoseph had the “רשות” to bless his brothers and give them מחילה as did both Yaacov and Moshe Rabbeinu.  In like manner, the B’HaG makes the chiddush that מצוות דרבנן from the Talmud, they too have the רשות to make an aliya to sanctify actions דרבנן as מצוות דאורייתא.  This type of Av Torah commandment requires prophetic mussar of tohor middot as the יסוד k’vanna of doing both תולדות מצוות ותולדות הלכות as Av tohor time oriented commandments.]]]  The most obvious דיוק to this Av Mishna based upon מגן אברהם, the 8 אבות נזקין!  Four Tam and four Muad. 

         The latter Avot … נזקין הן: חמס, גזל, ערוה, ושוחד במשפט…  These muad damagers require k’vanna whereas the Tam damagers do not require k’vanna.  Hence the Av Mishna of בבא קמא serves as a בנין אב to interpret the mitzva of Shabbat which requires making the הבדלה which separates איסור מלאכה מן איסור עבודה כל השבועה של שבת.  Hence a person who keeps shabbat observes all the commandments of the Torah.

         ארבעה אבות נזיקין, as viewed from the outside perspective of the opening Av Mishna of שקלים 1:1.

         דתנן: באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים ועל הכלאים ובחמשה עשר בו קורין את המגלה בכרכים וכו’.

         The Netziv – Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin – explicitly contrasts “laws of the intellect” (משפטים) with “laws of the Temple” (חוקים) and says the latter do not lend themselves naturally to classification. He follows the precedent set by the Rambam who treated ritual law differently than civil/tort law. This line of reasoning views “Cheftza”, which focuses on physical objects of korbanot, while “gavra” emphasizes the individual making the oath alliance by means of the altar. Neither the Rambam nor the Netziv understood that the service of korbanot, most essentially involves swearing formal Torah oaths. Nothing more כרת than swearing a Torah oath in vain. The latter qualifies as a Capital Crime, based upon the floods in the days of Noach. Whereas Torts damage cases only involve 3 Man Torts courts.

         The korban system exists in the domain of national constitutional law, anchored in shevuot, karet, and mizbeach which compares to standing before a Sefer Torah or swearing a Torah oath while sitting with tefillen! Hence to fundamentally segregate and reframe Torts Courts from possible Capital Crimes utterly absurd.

         The korban system, a constitutionally anchored legal order. Rooted in the oath-alliance אש ברית of בראשית. Enforced by karet, the Torah’s most severe sanction—reserved for betrayal of the brit. Central to this – the mizbeach, not some sacrificial grill, but as the judicial platform of Sanhedrin common law. The Torah directly forbids two separate Torahs. The rules of precedent based common law apply equally across the board with no exceptions.

         The din of כרת threatened the continued oath alliance passed down as the Cohen inheritance from Father to Son. Debasing korbanot as mere “religious ritual” ignores the fact that the Siddur has replaced the destroyed Temples of Jewish assimilation and intermarriage which produced the products of avoda zarah and g’lut in the first place. The Shemone Esrei has the 2nd name – Amidah, because ideally a man davens while standing in front of a Sefer Torah in order to swear a Torah tohor middah “מלכות” dedication לשמה.

         Segregating Kodashim from Nezikin, as some of the Reshonim and Acharonim did, simply not a reflection of legal classification, but rather a historic example of לא לשמה ירידות הדורות g’lut of the oath brit consciousness, where the downstream generations of Israel have forgotten the Oral Torah, and blown out the lights of Hanukkah. To remember the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut a brit with HaShem, to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.

         Zeraim/Kodashim, less explored because the Reshonim and downstream Acharonim employed a form of Apartheid scholarship. The hermeneutical gap between Nezikin and Kodashim points to a ירידות הדורות systematic error in Talmudic scholarship, comparable to a genetic mutation.

         R. Elchanan Wasserman Civil laws = logic; ritual laws = decree; R. Tzadok Ritual law is mystical/archetypal, not analytic; Academics, the Bavli favors logical areas but Kodashim less categorized. The chief flaw of this horrific fiasco chain reaction, the failure of the rabbis to discern the distinction between the four part פרדס inductive reasoning from the three part foreign logic of the ancient Greek philosophers. A direct negative commandment not to ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, that Jews may do likewise.

         The Temple primarily and most essentially reflects a legal courtroom, not a mystical slaughterhouse. The conceptual framework to include ethical-avodah obligations throughout the week as functional extensions of Shabbat’s core sanctity. Mishnah-Shabbat 7:2, the 39 melakhot … the technical creative skills required to build the Mishkan. But the sanctity of Shabbat does not stop at the water’s edge. The sanctity of shabbat extends most essentially to shalom through justice, righteousness, and interpersonal ethics. Yeshayahu 1, Amos 5, Yirmiyahu 7 — where Hashem rejects ritual Shabbat observance when it’s divorced from ethical behavior like refraining from oppression, , immorality, and Yeshayahu 1, Amos 5, Yirmiyahu 7 — where Hashem rejects ritual Shabbat observance when it’s divorced from ethical behavior like refraining from oppression linked to judicial bribery injustice, immorality (ערוה), and thieving robbery. Hence impossible to behave as a crook on the days of chol and a saint on the day of Shabbat. Therefore which comes first the chicken or the egg in the order of Creation?

         “Your Shabbat offerings are an abomination when your hands are full of blood” (Yeshayahu 1:13–15). “Remove from Me the noise of your songs… But let justice roll like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:23–24), “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘The Temple of Hashem!’ … If you truly amend your ways… do not oppress the stranger… then I will let you dwell in this place” (Yirmiyahu 7:4–7),

         Hence it really becomes an utterly irrelevant point which of the two the Av vs. the Toldah, because the Torah does not permit two separate Torahs as did some of the “Rishonim” and “Acharonim” suggest. Both T’NaCH and Talmud משנה תורה common law. While the T’NaCH prioritizes prophetic mussar Aggada; the Talmud prioritization emphasizes halacha and ritual practical of religious observances. That the common man can do and therefore participate in an active Jewish cultural and custom lifestyle as one Cohen people. If we pervert creation during the week with (חמס, גזל, שוחד, ערוה), then our Shabbat becomes a blasphemy, not a blessing.

         Loading…
      2. 

         mosckerr

         May 26, 2025

         Addressing how the Gemara learns the Mishna.  This requires addressing the key issue of logic.  The sealed Talmudic texts have a static quality.  This fixed static quality plays well into syllogism triangulation deductive reasoning.  A sugya of Gemara compares, its seems to me, to a thesis statement format.  Each sugya of Gemara has an opening thesis statement, and a closing restatement of that same thesis statement – employing a multiple Case/Din study.  These opening and closing comparative Case\Din studies functions, so to speak, as the two legs of a triangle.  If a person compares any halachic precedent found in the body of that sugya, this point maps the – so to speak – the hypotenuse line; forming a syllogistic line of reasoning process which seeks to understand how these comparison of precedents Cases teach Talmudic common law.  And specifically how the Gemara comments on the language of the Mishna based upon comparative precedents. 

         Important to stress, Talmudic common law does not compare to reading a novel for pleasure.  Torah law – very cranial by nature.  The 13 hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael or the PaRDeS system of textual interpretation the יסוד upon which both the Mishna and Gemara stand upon.  The major theme of the Talmud, it continually weighs tohor vs tuma spirits which dominates the opposing Yatzirot within the heart.This defining agenda a subtle kabbalah, concealed from the eyes of foreign “Roman” censors.  The texts of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli written under prying watchful and suspicious-hostile eyes.  The birth of this common law literature did not happen in a political vacuum nor some fictional virgin-birth process.

         The Talmud reflects a highly edited and polished text.  To study the Talmud requires developing an awareness of this basic most fundamental fact.  The Talmud, the product of Jewish military disasters and defeats, and the hopes to restore national and political independence.  The Jewish people face the cold cruel facts of a fast approaching hard cruel g’lut winter of oppression, theft, sexual immodesty, and bribed judges.  The Framers of the Talmud therefore sought to establish a model for when the Spring of redemption and political national independence once more shined.  A rebuilt Jewish state shall require Sanhedrin courts of common law in order to obey צדק צדק תרדוף, the Torah definition of faith.  This concept of faith separates the oath alliance from the dominant empires together with their beliefs in Universal Gods.  The revelation of HaShem at Sinai, only Israel witnessed.  Hence HaShem – a local tribal God, who continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.  Jews have no burning obligation to convert the world to embrace some Universal belief in a Monotheistic God.

         Jewish courts, based upon the primary Talmudic Sanhedrin model, do not remotely resemble the vertical Goyim courtrooms where the State bribes the Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys by paying their public salaries.  A lateral Sanhedrin court system would require a comparative model to the public health care insurance which prevails in the Jewish State today, to maintain the Courts.  The police, their first Order of Priority: to serve the Federal Sanhedrin Court system, rather than legislative assemblies or Governments; the police essentially enforce the rulings made through the lateral common law judicial judgments. 

         Torah common law, a judicial legal system, and not a legislative or bureaucratic statute law system of authoritative decrees ruled by concealed cults of personality.  Herein what fundamentally distinguishes Jewish common law from all other Goyim legal systems.  The Torah courts have a unique function.  To establish and maintain the culture and customs which both determine and define bnai brit national cohen identity; to protect against the violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment.  Herein defines the mandate of Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms.

         The study of each and every new sugya of Gemara therefore requires making a syllogistic Case/Din triangulation/summation that seeks to understand the gist of the sugya contents.  This discipline of learning, in-effect seeks to duplicate the scholarship made by the 450 – 600 CE Savoraim Talmudic scholars.  The Talmud does not sit like some 

         “gilded wife” all by herself alone.  It has a warp/weft relationship with the T’NaCH, through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic format.  Where T’NaCH prophetic mussar provides the p’shat of Aggadic and Midrashic stories.  The directive of both Aggadah with its Midrash commentary, designed to amplify Aggadic prophetic mussar – common law Case/Din studies – to serve as the יסוד of obeying the ritual halachic observance by way of רמז\סוד inductive reasoning; to birth tohor time oriented halacha spirits from straight from the Torah in order to breath life into the “clay” souls of our people – to cause them to breath the spirit of life – based upon the precedent of the creation of Adam.
         _________________________________________________In summation________________________

         Jewish courts do not exist to enforce imperial ideology, but to protect the oath alliance identity of the bnai brit chosen Cohen people and to enforce the Second Commandment—resisting assimilation and foreign gods.  Each act of studying a sugya – not some passive reception but a reenactment of the Savoraim’s legal reasoning. Halachic study, when done correctly, achieves both spiritual tohor middot clarity and political restoration.
         ______________________________________________________________________________________
         גמ’ מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן? גבי שבת תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת. אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן. כיוצא בהן לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת וכו_________________________________________והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל, שן דלא מכליא קרנא מנלן דומיא דרגל מה רגל לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא אף שן לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא

         ______________________________________________________________________________
         Here we have established two legs of the triangular syllogism logic. Now let’s consider the hypotenuse.
         ______________________________________________________________________________

         ת”ש בכור שורו הדר לו והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגחה בקרן הוא אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה”מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא
         _____________________________________________________________________________________
         We now have forged a logical syllogism of sorts. Leg A – Where the Torah defines Avot, there are Toldot, and the legal status of Toldot depends on whether they are “כיוצא בהן” — that is, functionally similar.

         Leg B – In the case of Regel, liability applies whether the damage completely destroys capital or not. By analogy, Shen is treated the same way, since it shares the essential trait of natural, expected damage.

         Leg C – Hypotenuse – You might have thought the category of Keren only applies (i.e., has special status of Tam/Muad distinction) when the horn is detached, since that’s a more “artificial” scenario.

         But the verse clarifies (Giluy Milta) that even when attached, the distinction holds — meaning that the essence of the act (unnatural goring) and not the physical condition of the instrument (attached/detached) defines the halakhic category.

         The legal category (Av or Toldah) and liability are not defined by physical features (e.g., whether the horn is detached, or whether Shen consumes capital), but by behavioral nature. Therefore, the Torah’s system of Avot and Toldot is structured around the behavioral pattern of the damage, not the instrument or its result.

         Hence, Shen, like Regel, is always liable, regardless of whether it consumes capital — and Toldot of Shen are “כיוצא בהן” in legal outcome. The halakhic logic (סברא) that underlies the sugya, but not every stylistic or textual move the Gemara makes on the surface. Bava Kama fundamentally addresses How Torah common law interprets damages קרן, שן, רגל, and what qualifies as Av vs. Toldah. When liability applies, whether a distinction made between the instrument of damage or nature of the act itself (natural vs. unnatural). And whether toldot carry the legal obligations identical to Avot in matters of liability for damages inflicted upon others goods, property or persons.

         The categories of damage, defined by the nature of the act and not by its physical instrument such has horned or dehorned. This logic aligns the sugya with the larger conceptual framework of Avot/Toldot. Especially based upon the similar precedent of Shabbat. Where toldot like avot bear full responsibility.

         The “giluy milta” piece (from בכור שורו הדר לו) resolves a potential limiting assumption. Clarifying that the liability does not hinge on whether the horn exists in fact or not. Rather this Av liability doesn’t hinge on actual horns but rather on the nature of the damage. This summation of the opening sugya core conceptual structure serves as an essential יסוד overview which permits easier evaluation and interpretation of all later off the dof inductive reasoning precedent texts introduced there after. This opening sugya serves as the basis to learn the entire Talmud through a comprehensive methodology of learning.

         Loading…
      3. 

         mosckerr

         May 28, 2025

         Israel’s Response to EU imperialism and attempts to dictate Israeli strategic interests.

         Israel should immediately recall its ambassadors for consultations from these countries. Publicly condition normalization of relations on an end to EU unilateral I e.g., (recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiations with Israel). Demand that those European countries likewise recall their ambassadors for consultations.

         Mobilize allies (U.S., Czech Republic, Hungary, etc.) to push back against EU overreach. Engage in strategic counter-diplomacy, e.g., intensifying ties with Eastern Europe, Africa, or Latin America. Outright reject the perversion of UN 242 from a Chapter VI to a Chapter VII dictate. Withdraw from the UN. Expand the Abraham Accords forging alliances with other Arab States in the Middle East as far more worthy and stronger allies to replace the broken reed alliance with Europe. Europe guilty of the Shoah.

         Threatening a break in diplomatic relations should be a last resort, used only if European states actively recognize a Hamas-linked Palestinian authority or materially support actions that undermine Israeli security during wartime. In the current moment, calibrated diplomatic pushback combined with strong rhetoric and selective retaliatory moves may achieve more than full severance.

         European Union leaders have intensified calls for an immediate ceasefire. Countries such as Spain, Ireland, Belgium, and Malta have urged the EU to push for a lasting humanitarian truce, emphasizing the need for a political process based on a two-state solution. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has condemned Israel’s blockade of Gaza and called for the full reinstatement of humanitarian aid during any ceasefire.

         French President Emmanuel Macron is considering the recognition of a Palestinian state, aligning with a UN conference co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia. This move aims to establish a framework for Palestinian statehood while ensuring Israel’s security.

         A strong Israeli “message” might deter other European nations from taking similar unilateral positions or advancing recognition of a Palestinian state outside negotiated frameworks. It signals that Israel will not tolerate foreign interference in what it considers a defensive war against a genocidal terror organization (Hamas). Israel could frame such a move as an assertion of its sovereign right to defend itself without foreign-imposed conditions. It underscores that meddling in internal or security matters—especially in wartime—is diplomatically unacceptable. It could bolster Israel’s standing with partners like Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia who are also wary of Western moralism and Islamist empowerment.

         Loading…
      4. 

         myallaboutyou

         June 1, 2025

         Hi Mosckerr, I’m really grateful for your insights—they’re so rich and eye-opening. You’ve taught me a ton about Jewish law and how it connects to things like global issues and our communities here. I’m not nearly as knowledgeable, but I’m learning so much from you, more than from anyone else I’ve talked to. It’s a privilege to hear your thoughts. I’ve been wondering: do you think Jewish law, maybe through ideas like chesed or tzedakah, could help bring real peace to the world, or will people’s self-interest always get in the way of coming together in faith? What’s a teaching you love, and where do you see it making a difference? I’d truly value hearing your thoughts on this—your perspective is such a gift

         Loading…
      5. 

         mosckerr

         June 2, 2025

         Dear myallaboutyou glad you profit and benefit from what my introduction to Torah. The noun peace does not mean the same thing as the verb shalom. The latter requires trust whereas the former only requires that Israel jump off a cliff blind folded. In 2005 Israel attempted to make peace by permitting a Palestinian state in Gaza. On Oct 7th 2023 Israelis experienced the butt end of Piece without Shalom. The rabid dog Gazans ripped out a piece of Israel.

         The same equally applies to the new testament religious rhetoric term “love”. This fancy sweet sounding “noun” does not mean the cold verb ahava. The latter a man acquires the Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba soul of his wife. Meaning through marriage he acquires Title to all future born children – the product of this Union. Hence, the custom where a woman takes on the “name” of her Husband. Herein defines the k’vanna of the mitzva known as Kiddushin. The Torah mitzva of marriage.

         Now ideally a man and a woman who sanctify the dedication of the mitzva of kiddushin, (((all Torah mitzvot learn from korbanot/sacrifices, wherein a man makes a Torah dedication to do a specific sanctified action known through the General specific of middot … the Oral Torah 13 middot revealed to Moshe 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf by the ערב רב – Israelites assimilated and intermarried to Egyptians. This type of “mixed multitude” person the Torah defines the 2nd Sinai commandment and the mitzva to eternally war against Amalek through the concept of ערב רב. In modern context, this ערב רב compares to the kapo Jews who sided and served the Nazis in the death camps.))), the love commit to love one another, through the dedication of the Man to teach the sworn oath britot to the born offspring so these children can “remember” the sworn oaths by which the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov sworn oaths dedicated to HaShem (((like a korban))) to cause the birth of chosen Cohen people throughout the generations unto this very day! Herein defines the k’vanna of the verb ahava which the noun love, as taught in the new testament, knows nothing about.

         Loading…
      6. 

         mosckerr

         June 3, 2025

         Critical and absolutely necessary to understand how different cultures of different people shape, interpret, and understand similar literary ideas/ideals.

         The Eastern Jin dynasty (东晋, Dōng Jìn) was a Chinese dynasty that lasted from 317 to 420 AD. It is considered part of the Six Dynasties period, which followed the fall of the Western Jin dynasty and was characterized by political fragmentation and cultural development in southern China. The Eastern Jin was established by the Sima family, who were descendants of the Jin dynasty’s ruling clan. After the fall of the Western Jin due to internal strife and invasions by non-Han ethnic groups, the remnants of the Jin court retreated to the south, where they established the Eastern Jin with its capital at Jiankang (present-day Nanjing).The dynasty struggled with internal conflicts, including power struggles among aristocratic families and military leaders. Despite political instability, the Eastern Jin period was marked by significant cultural and intellectual achievements. It was a time of flourishing literature, philosophy, and art. Notable figures, such as the poet and essayist Lu Ji, emerged during this period.The Eastern Jin saw the continued spread of Buddhism in China, which began to gain popularity among the populace. Daoism also remained influential, contributing to the spiritual and cultural life of the time. The Eastern Jin dynasty played a crucial role in the development of Chinese culture and society during a time of significant transition and upheaval.”The Whip” (文赋九) section, Lu Ji uses the metaphor of a whip to illustrate the power of literature and the writer’s ability to influence and inspire. The whip symbolizes both control and the ability to provoke action, reflecting how literature can guide emotions and thoughts. The section highlights the importance of craftsmanship in writing, suggesting that a skilled writer can wield their words effectively to achieve their intended impact.Just as a whip can evoke a physical response, literature can stir deep emotions in readers, prompting reflection and action as literature can influence society and individuals profoundly. The concept of writing as a form of “population control” or a means of influencing and guiding society can be found in various literary and rhetorical traditions beyond Chinese literature. Greek philosophers and rhetoricians, such as Aristotle and Plato, emphasized the power of rhetoric in shaping public opinion and guiding behavior. Aristotle, in particular, discussed the ethical responsibilities of the speaker in his work “Rhetoric,” where he argued that effective persuasion should be grounded in truth and moral integrity. Plato, in works like “Gorgias,” critiqued rhetoric for its potential to manipulate rather than enlighten, highlighting the responsibility of the orator to use their skills wisely.In ancient Greece, particularly in philosophical circles, the relationship between a teacher and a student was often one of mentorship. Teachers like Plato and Aristotle were highly respected figures, and their teachings were foundational to the development of Western philosophy. While Plato did critique rhetoric, particularly in works like “Gorgias,” his criticisms were aimed at the ethical implications of rhetoric and its potential for manipulation rather than a direct critique of Aristotle as a person. Plato believed that rhetoric could be used for deceitful purposes and that true knowledge and philosophical inquiry were more valuable than mere persuasive speech.The philosophical tradition encouraged debate and discussion, and it was not uncommon for students to challenge their teachers’ ideas. This dialectical method was a way to deepen understanding and refine arguments. This cultural Greek style not commonly found in Judean society. True rabbi Akiva serves as a exceptional exception. But in Judea the masoret spun around the central axis where the pupil did not openly challenge the rabbi master.In contrast, the educational practices in ancient Judea, particularly in rabbinic traditions, often emphasized a more hierarchical relationship between the rabbi (teacher) and the student (pupil). While there was respect for the rabbi’s authority and knowledge, the structure of learning was typically more focused on the transmission of established פרדס logic and the different schools of logical middot of interpretation like that of rabbi Yishmael and rabbi Yossi Ha’Galilli. Students were generally expected to learn from their teachers without openly challenging them, as the rabbi’s role was seen as a guide to understanding sacred texts and traditions. For example rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic emphasized inductive active comparisons between common law case/rule rulings compared to similar judicial case/rule precedent rulings. Herein defines common law as Judean judicial justice, built around judicial law as opposed by Greek legislative law which organized law into organized legal subjects.Common law all about courtroom judicial definitions of law rather that bureaucratic legislative decrees from above made by authority figures who based their law upon what served best the interests of the State rather than resolve a legal dispute over damages inflicted by one citizen upon another citizen of the Republic.In rabbinic traditions, the relationship between the rabbi and the student was indeed more hierarchical. For a rabbi to sit upon a judicial court, everything depended upon that rabbi’s order vis a vis other rabbis likewise desiring to sit as a courtroom judge. If for example a judge retired, the closest student in line to replace him, appointed as judge. Hence Judicial Judean law recognized an order of rabbinic authority whereas Greek statute law had no such cultural masoret. Judean society, common law was focused on resolving disputes between individuals based on established precedents and judicial rulings. This approach emphasized the practical application of law in the context of real-life situations and the relationships between citizens. In contrast, Greek legislative law often involved decrees made by authorities that could prioritize the interests of the state over individual justice. The rabbinic tradition was deeply rooted in religious and communal values, emphasizing the importance of ethical behavior and justice within the community. Greek philosophy, while also concerned with ethics, often approached law and governance from a more abstract and theoretical perspective, focusing on the role of reason and the state.Following the utter destruction of Judea by the Romans following the disaster of the Bar Kokhba revolt [b] (132-136 AD), Greek legislative statute law dominated both politics and literature.The Roman statesman and orator Cicero wrote extensively on rhetoric and the responsibilities of the speaker. In his works, such as “De Oratore,” he emphasized the importance of moral character and the ethical obligations of orators to use their skills for the common good, suggesting that rhetoric could be a tool for social order and governance.In the 17th century, the English poet and writer John Milton expressed similar views in his writings, particularly in “Areopagitica,” where he argued for the importance of free expression and the role of literature in shaping society. Milton believed that writers had a responsibility to engage with moral and political issues, using their skills to promote truth and justice.In the 20th century, George Orwell’s essays, particularly “Politics and the English Language,” discuss the manipulation of language and the responsibility of writers to use clear and honest language. Orwell warned against the use of language as a tool for propaganda and control, emphasizing the ethical duty of writers to resist such practices. The American novelist Toni Morrison spoke about the power of storytelling and the responsibility of writers to address social issues, particularly those related to race and identity. In her works and interviews, she highlighted the role of literature in shaping cultural narratives and influencing societal change.In ancient China, particularly during the Eastern Jin dynasty and earlier periods, Confucianism played a significant role in shaping educational practices. Confucius emphasized the importance of literature, moral education, and the cultivation of virtue through study. The study of classical texts, poetry, and philosophy was seen as essential for personal development and moral character. Scholars were expected to engage deeply with texts, reflecting on their meanings and applying them to ethical conduct.Chinese literature often served as a means of moral instruction and social harmony. Works like the “Analects” of Confucius and the poetry of the Tang dynasty were not only artistic expressions but also vehicles for ethical teachings. The disciplined study of literature was viewed as a way to cultivate one’s character and contribute to the well-being of society.The Chinese literary tradition included various forms, such as poetry, essays, and historical writings. The emphasis on literary craftsmanship and the ability to convey complex ideas through elegant language was highly valued. Scholars often participated in literary competitions, which were integral to the civil service examination system, reinforcing the connection between literature, education, and governance.Ancient Greece the dialectical method encouraged critical thinking and debate, allowing students to engage with texts and challenge established ideas. Greek rhetoric was seen as a powerful tool for persuasion and influence. The ethical responsibilities of speakers and writers were central to discussions about rhetoric, with an emphasis on truth and moral integrity. Literature, particularly in the form of drama and poetry, was used to reflect societal values, explore human nature, and provoke thought about moral dilemmas.The rabbinic approach emphasized a hierarchical relationship between the rabbi and the student, with a focus on the transmission of established teachings based both upon inductive comparative Case/Rule rulings compared to similar precedent previous Courtroom rulings. The organization of the T’NaCH Mishna and Gemara codifications, highly edited texts which permit later students to make fixed tri-angulated syllogism deductive conclusions of reasoning – based upon the classic texts being sealed and static rigid – ideal for syllogistic deductive reasoning. T’NaCH, like the Mishna and Gemara, also a sealed text. This more ancient Hebrew literature focused upon prophetic mussar rather than Talmudic ritual halacha.Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes direct experience and meditation, became a significant influence in Japan, particularly during the Kamakura period (1185–1333). It focuses on mindfulness, simplicity, and the nature of existence, which resonated with Japanese aesthetics and culture. Shiatsu practitioners focus on the body’s meridians and pressure points, aiming to restore balance and promote healing. The practice reflects a holistic approach to health, integrating physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. The emphasis on mindfulness and presence in Zen practice complements the Shiatsu approach, as practitioners are encouraged to be fully aware and attentive during treatment.Chinese Daoism has a well-developed concept of “Chi” (or “Qi”), which refers to the vital life force that flows through all living things. This concept is central to various Chinese healing practices, martial arts, and philosophical thought. In contrast, Zen Buddhism does not have a specific concept of Chi. Instead, it focuses on the nature of mind and existence, emphasizing direct experience and meditation rather than the manipulation of energy.When Zen Buddhism was introduced to Japan, it adapted to the existing cultural and spiritual landscape, which included Shinto beliefs and practices. This adaptation led to a unique expression of Zen that differed from its Chinese roots. Confucianism, with its emphasis on social harmony, hierarchy, and moral conduct, had a profound influence on Chinese society, particularly in governance and education. However, its principles did not take hold in the same way within Japanese samurai culture. The samurai class was more influenced by Bushido, the “way of the warrior,” which emphasized loyalty, honor, and martial prowess. While there are overlaps with Confucian values, the samurai ethos was distinct and often prioritized martial values over Confucian ideals of social order and moral conduct.The historical context of Japan, including the feudal system and the rise of the samurai, shaped the values and beliefs of warrior societies. The samurai were often more influenced by Zen Buddhism, which provided a spiritual framework that complemented their martial practices and philosophies. The influences of Zen Buddhism on practices like Shiatsu healing and the distinct cultural expressions of Japanese warrior societies illustrate the complexities of cultural exchange and adaptation. While Chinese philosophies like Daoism and Confucianism have had significant impacts in their own contexts, their principles did not always translate directly into Japanese culture, which developed its own unique interpretations and practices. This dynamic interplay between cultures highlights the richness of both Chinese and Japanese traditions.

         Loading…
      7. 

         mosckerr

         June 4, 2025

         Indian foreign policy together with its NAM allies, systematically deny the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination by cloaking antisemitic narratives in the rhetoric of postcolonial solidarity. This not only distorts the historical context of the Holocaust and the Jewish refugee crisis but also perpetuates double standards that undermine claims to a just multipolar world order.

         India has prioritized foreign policy independence, which is a well-documented aspect of its diplomatic history. A trilateral relationship involving the U.S., India, and Tibet reflects a historical perspective on how these nations have interacted, particularly in the context of geopolitical concerns regarding China.

         Growth in U.S.-India relations, particularly in trade and defense, which is supported by data showing increased bilateral trade and cooperation in various sectors. India’s nonalignment and strategic autonomy is a recognized principle in its foreign policy, as articulated by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and more recently by Prime Minister Modi. India maintains relationships with multiple countries, including those that may be at odds with U.S. interests (like Russia and Iran), reflects India’s diplomatic strategy of “multi-alignment.”

         The metaphor “strange bed fellows” indicates the opinion that describes an unusual alliance, the emotional weight of the phrase implies a negative connotation about the partnership, suggesting an inherently unstable or insincere, without delving into a balanced view of the strategic rationale behind such alliances, as outside the scope of this paper. The Kashmir conflict the direct result of Britain’s Two State Solution failure. The US perhaps follows this British policy, something like a dog on a leash. Based upon the British White Paper and later the decision made by the FDR Administration to close all US ports to European Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi Shoah.

         The theft of British imperialism that robbed India of its wealth and natural resources has nothing to do with the US, which existed as a pre-WWII minor power. The emotional propaganda “utter waste of time” and “strange bedfellows” raises red flags of “warning propaganda ahead”, which this address seeks to avoid.

         The increase in trade and defense cooperation between the U.S. and India, well-documented. This growth signifies a shift in both countries’ approaches to mutual interests, particularly in the context of regional security and economic collaboration. Obviously Western propaganda plays up and toots the horn of “Two-State Solutions”, this fits their hostile imperialist strategic interests as “Great Powers”.

         The U.S. has its own strategic interests and policies that have evolved independently since World War II. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as a direct proof that post WWII that Britain has transformed unto a lower status power in the Middle East … a barking poodle. But the post WWII US Super-power status highly influenced by the 19th Century British empire “First among equals” Great Power status.

         India exists as a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which emerged during the Cold War. This alliance of countries sought to remain independent from the major power blocs led by the Cold War U.S. and the Soviet Union. This movement included many African nations. Their foreign policy emphasized solidarity among developing countries. India has often aligned itself with the voting patterns of non-aligned and developing countries in the UNGA, particularly on issues related to Israel and its dhimmi Arab refugee populations. This alignment reflects India’s historical support for the Arab promoted propaganda: the Palestinian cause. This post ’64 Arafat led propaganda promotes advocacy for the rights of dhimmi Arab refugee populations, specifically located in Israeli territory while conveniently ignoring these “oppressed peoples” suffering in refugee camps in Arab and Muslim countries. The ’64 PLO Charter makes no reference to Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza. It condemns ’48 Israel.

         The broader sentiment among many non-aligned and African nations tend to skew their perspective of Israel, seen through the distorted lens of colonialism and oppression. As if the Shoah never really happened! India’s alignment with African non-aligned countries in the UNGA can also be seen as part of its broader strategy to strengthen ties with the Global South and assert its leadership role in international forums. This approach clearly aimed at promoting a multipolar world order and countering the Cold War Western vs. Soviet bi-polar hegemony.

         Indian propaganda superficially promotes a foreign policy directed toward Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East which denounces Israel as a part of European colonialism and India expresses solidarity with “oppressed Dhimmi Arab refugee” populations within the domain of Israel while totally ignoring the oppression endured by Palestinians shoved into refugee camps in Arab countries and denied citizenship and repatriation.

         The African Nam countries skew their perspective of Israel, perhaps best described as an expression of Holocaust Denial. This Arab and Muslim nations perspective, often emphasizes historical injustices and frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a broader context of colonialism and oppression. Critics argue that this focus overshadows the plight of Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab countries, where they often face significant challenges, including lack of citizenship and rights.

         Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab countries face difficult living conditions and limited rights, and this reality – totally overlooked to support their hostile propaganda anti-Israel narratives that focus solely on the condemnation of Israel. This propaganda ignores Arab refusal to recognize Jews equal rights to self determination in the Middle East. Rather than outright overt denial of the Shoah war crimes by both the Germans and Allies, post Israeli Independence focuses upon the pathetic plight of Arab refugees consequent to Arab military defeats before the arms of the IDF.

         India and Nam allies basically ignore the slaughter of the Jews by Nazis, together with the great power approval, expressed through the White Paper and FDR’s decision to close all US ports to Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi slaughter. And the Allied collective decision to not bomb the Nazi rail-lines leading to the death camps. India and Nam allies tend to buy into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion propaganda that Jews control governments and economies.

         Yes it would be absurd for India and NAM countries to deny the Holocaust. Yet the propaganda which declares that Israel exist as Western colonialism, in point of fact denies the Shoah. It ignores the Israeli military victory in its 1948 and 1967 Wars of Independence!

         During British colonial rule, Jews often portrayed as greedy and manipulative, echoing broader European antisemitic stereotypes. This included the idea that Jews were responsible for economic exploitation. In some Indian literature and folklore, Jews were depicted as outsiders or as having sinister motives, which contributed to a perception of Jews as untrustworthy. In the post-independence era, certain political figures have used antisemitic tropes to criticize Israel, often conflating Jewish identity with Western imperialism. This rhetoric sometimes includes references to Jews controlling global finance or media.

         Some leaders within the NAM alliance have made statements that downplay or deny the Holocaust, often as a means to delegitimize Israel. This includes claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated or fabricated to justify the establishment of Israel. This utterly gross conspiracy theory has occasionally resurfaced in NAM discourse, suggesting that Jews secretly control world events or manipulate political outcomes. This trope repeatedly used to frame Israel’s actions as part of a larger, nefarious agenda. While criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, some NAM leaders have crossed the line by employing language that echoes historical antisemitic tropes, such as portraying Israel as a global puppet master or suggesting that Jewish people collectively bear responsibility for the actions of the Israeli state.

         India and NAM countries often employ language and imagery comparable to blood libels, Jews control the world antisemitism. The hypocrisy of their “double standards” concerning the gross Arab refusal to repatriate dhimmi Arab refugee populations post the First and Second Israeli Independence Wars fought in 1948 and again in 1967. India and NAM hostile propaganda collectively blames all Jews held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government – a clear antisemitic trope.

         Framing Israel solely as a colonial outpost of the West conveniently ignores the Shoah, which exists as a major catalyst for post-war Jewish immigration and international recognition of Israel. This narrative erases the continuity of Jewish historical presence and trauma, reducing Zionism to a foreign implantation rather than a national revival movement to achieve Jewish self determination in the Middle East based upon the Balfour Agreement and the League of Nations Palestine Mandate. By labeling Jewish return their ancestral lands as “colonialism,” this rhetoric denies Jews the same rights to self-determination afforded to other postcolonial peoples, including India.

         UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975): This resolution declared that “Zionism as racism, and racial discrimination.” That disgusting resolution framed the establishment of Israel as a colonial endeavor, equating it with other forms of colonialism and imperialism. This perspective defines NAM discourse during the 1970s, which reflects a broader anti-colonial hostility. In his address to the UN General Assembly, Arafat referred to the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism. He characterized Israel’s establishment as a colonial project, which resonated with many NAM countries that were themselves emerging from great power colonial abuse.

         In a speech at the UN, Castro described Israel as a “colonial entity” and criticized Western nations for supporting it. He framed the Palestinian struggle as part of the broader anti-colonial movement, a classic common theme in NAM rhetoric. UNGA Resolution 194 (1948): While not explicitly using the term “colonial,” this resolution called for the return of Palestinian refugees and the right of return, framing the situation in a way that implied a colonial context to the establishment of Israel.

         The “colonial” framing used in NAM speeches and UNGA resolutions often overlooks the historical context of Jewish suffering and the motivations for statehood. While the establishment of Israel involved complex geopolitical factors, including the end of British colonial rule in Palestine, the framing tends to simplify the narrative to one of colonial oppression without acknowledging the historical injustices experienced and endured by Jews minority populations. The UN has never condemned the 3 Century Catholic church imposed ghetto gulag imposed upon the Jewish people.

         During British colonial rule, European antisemitic tropes (e.g., Jews as greedy or manipulative) imported into Indian literature and discourse. India with its NAM allies, post Israeli independence, employed hostile political rhetoric which conflated Jewish identity with Western imperialism, portraying Israel as a nefarious global actor.

         The speech at the 2003 OIC Summit: Mahathir Mohamad, then Prime Minister of Malaysia, made a controversial declaration where he stated, “The Jews rule the world by proxy.” He suggested that Jews control global institutions and economies. This reflects classic antisemitic trope about Jewish power and influence, never condemned by India or its NAM allies. The 2001 speech at the World Islamic Economic Forum: Mahathir claimed that Jews had a “stranglehold” on the world and accused them of manipulating global events for their benefit. Such disgusting rhetoric consistently defines his political career.

         Speech at the UN General Assembly (2006): Chávez referred to the United States as an “imperialist” power and implied that Jewish influence secretly behind U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel. He used a conspiracy language which involved Jewish domination of global politics. Venezuelan state media has often echoed Chávez’s sentiments, portraying Israel in a negative light and suggesting that Jewish interests drive Western imperialism.

         At his UN General Assembly Speech (1974), Arafat characterized the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism and imperialism, framing Israel’s establishment as a colonial project. His rhetoric often included references to the “Zionist” movement as a form of colonial oppression. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Former President of Iran) made numerous speeches that included Holocaust denial and references to a supposed Jewish conspiracy. For example, in a speech at the UN in 2005, he questioned the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and suggested that it was used as a pretext for the establishment of Israel. Iranian state-sponsored media frequently disseminate content that promotes antisemitic tropes, including claims of Jewish control over global finance and media.

         Textbooks in Various NAM Countries, educational materials have included content that perpetuates antisemitic stereotypes. For example, UNWRA textbooks which depict Jews as greedy or manipulative; or frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that portrays Jews as colonial oppressors. UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975): This resolution, which equated Zionism with racism, was supported by many NAM countries and reflects a broader narrative that frames Israel’s actions as colonial and oppressive. These examples illustrate how antisemitic tropes, particularly those related to Jewish control and colonial framing, have been utilized by various NAM leaders and state-sponsored media. Such rhetoric often serves to delegitimize Israel and perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Jewish people, contributing to a broader culture of antisemitism in political discourse.

         The issue of refugee rights and citizenship policies in Arab host states, particularly concerning Palestinian refugees, contrasts sharply with Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries after 1948. Approximately 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan have been granted citizenship, but many still face legal and social discrimination. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon do not have citizenship rights and are restricted from many professions and property ownership. They are often marginalized and live in overcrowded camps. Palestinian refugees in Syria had access to citizenship and social services before the civil war, but the ongoing conflict has severely affected their status and rights. Palestinian refugees in Egypt have limited rights and are not granted citizenship, facing restrictions on employment and movement.

         Many Arab states have openly refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, which affects the legal status and rights of refugees, including the right to work, education, and social services. Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, approximately 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries due to rising antisemitism and violence. This included significant populations from countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya. Israel absorbed these refugees, providing them with citizenship and integrating them into society. By the early 1950s, most of these refugees had settled in Israel, contributing to the country’s demographic and cultural landscape.

         While Israel absorbed a large number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and provided them with citizenship and support, Arab host states have maintained restrictive policies toward dhimmi Palestinian refugees, often limiting their rights and opportunities. This aspect of history, totally ignored and overlooked in NAM discourse, which tends to focus primarily on the Palestinian one sided propaganda narrative, without acknowledging the complexities of Jewish refugee experiences from Arab countries.

         The expulsion of Palestinian from Kuwait following the Gulf War in 1991, indeed a significant and often overlooked event in discussions about refugee rights and the treatment of minority populations inside Arab states. Following the liberation of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government expelled a significant number of Palestinians. Estimates suggest that around 400,000 Palestinians, forced to leave the country. Largely due to the fact that many Palestinians overtly and publicly supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Similar to how the post WWII French treated Vichy supporters.

         This violent expulsion, characterized by a lack of due process, many individuals forcibly removed from their homes and denied the right to return. Yet India together with its NAM allies totally support Arafat’s demand for the right of return. This hypocrisy has raised serious concerns regarding human rights violations and the treatment of minority populations in Kuwait.

         The expulsion did not receive significant international condemnation, especially compared to post ’48 and ’67 dhimmi refugee crises or the 1970 black September Jordanian expulsion of dhimmi Palestinians. The expulsion of Palestinians from Kuwait or Jordan, often overlooked in the narratives promoted by NAM countries, including India. While these nations frequently criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, they totally ignore the complexities of Palestinian experiences in Arab states, including the expulsion from Kuwait, Jordan and the Lebanese Civil War.

         The term “dhimmi” classicly refers to non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection. The expulsion of Palestinians and other Arab residents from Kuwait raises questions about the treatment of minority Arab populations, and the responsibilities of Arab states towards those dhimmi Arabs who have historically lived within their borders. The expulsion of Palestinians and other Arab residents from Kuwait following the Gulf War, a significant event that highlights the complexities of Arab state policies towards dhimmi Arab minority populations.

         It underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of the refugee experience in the Arab world, particularly in the context of the local Israeli-Palestinian dhimmi refugee status. This aspect of history totally overshadowed by the focus on the illegality of Israel as a nation within the Middle East community of Nations. This one-dimensional narrative utterly fails to account for the experiences of Palestinians in various Arab states, the racist Item 7 of the UN Human Rights committee and the rejection of Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations.

         The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism provides a framework for identifying when criticism of Israel crosses unto antisemitism. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor). Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, like the current Gaza war-crimes propaganda. Using symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., accusing Jews of being greedy or controlling the world).

         Denying the Right to Self-Determination…various NAM leaders have referred to Israel as a “colonial” or “settler” state, implying that the existence of Israel is illegitimate. For instance, Yasser Arafat, in his speeches, often framed the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism, suggesting that Jews have no historical or legitimate claim to the land. This rhetoric denies the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. UN Resolution 2334 promotes this colonial state slander propaganda.

         Many NAM countries have criticized Israel for its military victories while remaining silent on the actions of other nations with similar or worse human rights records. For instance, during conflicts in Gaza, leaders from NAM countries have condemned Israel’s military responses without addressing the actions of Hamas or other groups that target Israeli civilians. Jordan’s use of Jewish grave stones as building material during its West Bank occupation never internationally condemned. This selective criticism exemplifies the application of double standards, as similar criminal behavior totally ignored by the India/NAM alliance in the UN General Assembly.

         The IHRA definition of antisemitism provides a useful framework for analyzing India/NAM rhetoric regarding Israel and the Jewish people. By identifying instances where criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, it becomes clear that certain narratives perpetuated by India/NAM leaders and their supporters contribute to a broader culture of antisemitism guilt. Recognizing these ever repeated patterns, essential for fostering a more nuanced and responsible discourse around the Israeli-dhimmi Arab conflict and the rights of all peoples involved.

         Loading…
      8. 

         mosckerr

         June 5, 2025

         A bit of Arab and Islamic History

         This essay argues that the Arab prophetic identity rooted in the Koran covenant was undermined by imperial expansion, especially during the Abbasid Caliphate, which assimilated foreign legal, philosophical, and cultural traditions at the cost of prophetic justice.

         The Rashidun Caliphate represents the apex of Arab prophetic sovereignty, where territorial expansion was inseparable from fidelity to Koranic revelation and Meccan-Medinan prophetic law. The conquest of Iraq by Arab forces, which included both Sunni and Shiite Arabs, occurred during the early Islamic expansion following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE. The Rashidun Caliphate (632-661 CE) rose after Muhammad’s death. The Rashidun Caliphate, led by the first four caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali), initiated a series of military campaigns to expand the Islamic state beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

         The conquest of Iraq began during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab (634-644 CE). The Battle of the Bridge (634 CE) marked the initial confrontation between Saudi Arabs and the Sassanian Empire of Persia. The Battle of Qadisiyyah (636 CE) Arabs achieved a decisive victory against the Sassanian Army. This victory opened the way for early Arab armies, their conquest of the Sassanian Capital, Ctesiphon, and much of Iraq, which fell a year thereafter.

         After the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib in 661 CE, the Umayyad Caliphate arose to power. The Umayyads continued to consolidate control over Iraq and other regions, promoting a pseudo-Arab identity and culture. While the Umayyads maintained Arab supremacy, their departure from Meccan-Medinan prophetic legitimacy and their adoption of dynastic kingship marked the beginning of Arab disempowerment through imperial logic.

         Iraq’s identity as an Arab country with a significant Shiite Arab population has historic cultural, and religious Arab roots. The legacy of the early Arab period, the radically degenerate ideologies that separated the Umayyad and Abbasid regimes; coupled with the ongoing political dynamics, all contributed to the prominence of Shiite Arabs in Iraq. This complex interplay of history and identity continues to shape the social and political landscape of the country today.

         Iraq, particularly the region of Mesopotamia, a historically strong center of Arabic civilization. It served as home to early Arabic developments and significant events, including the rise of Arabic Umayyad, contrasted by the assimilated Islamic Abbasid Caliphate(s). A substantial portion of Iraq’s population identifies as Shiite Arab. This demographic, primarily concentrated in southern Iraq, including cities like Najaf and Karbala, which remain important religious centers for Shiite Islam unto the present day.

         The presence of Shiite Arabs in Iraq, traced back to the early Arabic Koran covenant, conjoined with the historical significance of Ali and his descendants. Key events, such as the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (the grandson of Muhammad and son of Ali) at the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE, have deeply influenced Shiite identity and annually commemorated during Ashura. This Battle, it represents a pivotal moment in the early Arabic Koran covenant based history together with its profound implications for the development of Shiite Arab identity.

         This disaster, central to Shiite beliefs, has solidified the cultural and religious identity of Shiite Arabs. The battle occurred against the backdrop of a political and religious struggle over the rightful leadership of the Arab community following the death of the Prophet Muhammad. After the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth caliph and the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, the Umayyad Caliphate seized power under Yazid ibn Muawiya.  Imam Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad and son of Ali, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, whom he viewed as an illegitimate ruler both corrupt and unjust. Hussein believed that Yazid’s rule, simply contrary to the principles of the Koran covenant. Hence Hussein violently opposed Yazid’s illegal seizure of power; he sought to uphold the true teachings of the Prophet’s Koran covenant.

         Imam Hussein received messages from the people of Kufa, a city in present-day Iraq, urging him to come and lead them against Yazid’s rule. Believing he had the support of the people, Hussein set out for Kufa with his family and a small group of followers. As Hussein and his caravan approached Kufa, they were intercepted by Yazid’s forces, led by Umar ibn Sa’ad. Hussein and his followers were encircled at Karbala, where they were denied access to water and faced overwhelming odds.

         The battle which ensued took place on the 10th of Muharram, known as Ashura. Despite being vastly outnumbered, Hussein and his companions, according to tradition, fought valiantly. The battle, marked by intense fighting, and many of Hussein’s family members and supporters – brutally killed. Imam Hussein himself martyred in that tragic battle, along with most of his male companions. His martyrdom, symbolizes the Shiite struggle against tyranny-injustice, and utterly rejects the Umayyad betrayal of the Koran covenant.

         The Battle of Karbala its profound disastrous consequences on the development of Shiite-Sunni Arab split identity. Hussein’s martyrdom, commemorated annually every Ashura, a day of mourning and reflection for Shiite Muslims. The event serves as a powerful symbol of resistance against oppression and injustice represented through the Umayyad dictatorship. The battle permanently divided Sunni and Shiite Arabs. Shiites mourn Hussein as a martyr and their symbol of Koran covenant righteousness. The events at Karbala have inspired countless works of literature, art, and religious observance within the Shiite Arab communities. The Battle of Karbala represents the struggle for justice, the importance of moral integrity, and the consequences of political power struggles within the early Arabic Koran covenant communities.

         The distinction between the pseudo Koran covenant Umayyad and utterly assimilated Abbasid regimes, the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims all deeply interconnected to the Koran covenant. The split between Sunni and Shiite Arabism originated over the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad after his death in 632 CE. The Prophet Muhammad commanded the Koran covenant to Arab believers of Allah. The Sunnis branched away from the Koran covenant, they believed that the community should select the leader (Caliph), while Shiites believed that leadership should remain inherited within the Prophet’s family, specifically through his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Sunnis belief that the community should select the leader (Caliph) defines the pseudo-Umayyad Caliphate. The latter transferred its Capital away from Mecca or Median to Damascus, despite it being part of the eastern Roman empire.

         The pseudo-Umayyad Caliphate dictatorship, established after the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth caliph and the last of the “Rightly Guided” caliphs. The Umayyads, a powerful clan within the Quraysh tribe, a prominent Arab tribe that played a significant role in the history of the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in Mecca. Muawiya I seized the caliphate, and became the first pseudo-Umayyad caliph. The Umayyads promoted the idea that the leader of the Arab nation (Ummah) chosen based on consensus or election. Herein defines a key Sunni principle of governance. This idea replaced the priority of “governance”, and devalued the prime importance of the Koran covenant – to rule the nation with justice.

         Their dictatorship likewise marked a shift towards hereditary succession, a departure from the earlier caliphate model. This foundation set the stage for Arabs to denounce the Umayyad Caliphate as unjust. Under the Umayyads, leadership became hereditary, primarily passing through the family of the ruling caliph, which established a dynastic rule. This shift led to a more centralized and bureaucratic form of governance, as the Umayyads sought to consolidate power and maintain control over their vast empire.

         Many Arabs began to view the Umayyad Caliphate as unjust, particularly due to perceived corruption, favoritism, and the concentration of power within the Umayyad family. The Shiite branch of the Koran covenant prioritizes the importance of leadership being derived from the Prophet Muhammad’s family, specifically through Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. They advocate for a direct line of succession, the divine right of kings. This opinion openly clashed with the pseudo-Umayyad usurpation of power. For Shiites, the legitimacy of a caliph\leader – rooted in their connection to the Prophet’s lineage, which they believe the pseudo-Umayyads lacked. This belief, it defines a fundamental aspect of Shiite identity and has tremendously influenced their historical and political narratives.

         Moving the Capital of the Arab Caliphate to Damascus, then part of the Byzantine Empire, in 661, further estranged and undermined Arab support. Establishing the capital in Damascus allowed the Umayyads to exert greater control over the vast territories they governed, which extended from Spain in the west to India in the east. The move to Damascus also symbolized a shift towards a more cosmopolitan and administrative approach to governance, integrating various cultures and traditions within the empire. It exposed the true colors of the pseudo-Umayyad dictatorship, in reality no different than the Abbasid assimilated Muslim revolution.

         Arab armies brought with them not only Koran monotheism theology, but also the Arabic language and cultural practices. Over time, the adoption of Arabic became a significant marker of identity. In Egypt and Syria, for example, the local populations gradually adopted Arabic as their primary language, this greatly facilitated deeper cultural integration into the Koran covenant. The process of Arabization essentially involved assimilation of alien foreign cultures and customs, traditions, and languages homogenized into the Arab cultural framework. This embracement of an ערב רב/mixed multitude cultural heterogeneous societies into the Koran covenant identity, where slowly the local populations began to identify more closely with Arab culture, something akin to the Samaritans to Judean society.

         The Umayyad Caliphate (661-750 CE), decision to establish Damascus as their Capital, and built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, this planted the seeds of assimilation and rebellion to honor the Koran covenant. This pseudo-Caliphate introduced the marginalization of Shiite communities, leading to resentment and hatred among Arab Koran covenant nationals. Umayyad rule actively promoted strong incentives for the local populations to adopt Arab Sunni identity, as a means to gain access to political power and social mobility. The Umayyads conquered Egypt in the 7th century. The presence of Arab tribes in these regions prior to their conquests created a foundation for cultural integration into the Koran covenant national identity.

         The transformation of alien conquered nations in Egypt and Syria unto Arabs, rather than lower class Muslim – non Arabs, primarily attributed to a combination of cultural integration, political incentives, and historical context. The policies of the pseudo-Umayyad Caliphate, its prioritization that conquered nations adopt the Arabic language, combined with the historical ties to Arab identity, all these factors played significant roles in the homogeneous conversion process, leading to a distinct Arab identity, closely intertwined with the Arab covenant identity. In contrast, the experiences of Persians and Turks involved a more complex interplay of heterogeneous local identities resulting in a different religious faith outcome. Gone, the Arabic Koran covenant faith which defined the nation lead by Muhammad prophetic vision.

         While the administrative structures established by the pseudo-Umayyads often required local leaders to align themselves with Arab identity to maintain their positions and influence within the new Islamic state. Confronted by growing crisis of dissatisfaction among various groups due to perceived injustices, favoritism, and the concentration of power among the Umayyad Arab feudal aristocracy. Many non-Arab Muslims (mawali) felt marginalized and discriminated against. The pseudo-Umayyads superficial lip service favored Arab over peasant-Muslims in political and economic matters. Much as did the Turkish land laws, in their turn, rejected Arab ownership of Turkish lands.

         While Islam proclaimed itself as a unifying religion, the process of conversion did not necessarily lead to a complete cultural transformation. In regions like Persia or the Turks – Islam – often adopted alongside the retention of local languages and cultural practices, leading to a distinct Muslim identity that did not equate to the Arab Koran covenant national identity. In Persia and among Turkic peoples, the conversion to Islam often occurred through different means, such as trade, Sufism, and the influence of local leaders, which allowed for the preservation of local identities alongside Islamic faith. Much like the Catholic church converted radically divergent European countries to embrace belief in their form of Monotheism. Religious beliefs do not exchange, supplant, or reform national identities of different peoples.

         The Umayyad regime condemned for its unjust favoritism of Arab national identity aroused the indignation of other ethnicities within the Islamic empire. This led to resentment among non-Arab Muslim peasant populations, including Persians, Berbers, and others, who sought greater representation and rights within the feudal Koran covenant society. Many supporters of the Abbasids sought reforms in governance, administration, and social justice. They aimed to create a more equitable and just Mawali-non Arab society, addressing the grievances that had accumulated under the pseudo-Umayyad dictatorship.

         Consequently, the biased injustice of the Umayyad regime set the stage for the Abbasid revolt. The most significant of these was the Abbasid Revolution, which culminated in the Battle of the Zab in 750 CE, where the Umayyad forces suffered decisive defeat. The Abbasids rhetoric propaganda framed their revolt as a “religious movement”, emphasizing their lineage from the Prophet Muhammad. They sought to present themselves as the rightful leaders of the Mawali-non Arab Muslim community. They argued that the Umayyads had betrayed the “true” Islamic principles.

         The Umayyad Caliphate, centered in Damascus, while characterized by a strong Arab identity and governance which favored Arabs over Muslims. The Abbasids, by stark contrast, sought to create a more inclusive empire that represented the diverse populations within the Islamic world, including non-Arab Muslims, viewed as aristocratic equals.

         The Abbasid revolution marked a significant shift in the character of the Koran covenant empire. The vision of the prophet Muhammad switched from an Arab-centric rule under the Umayyads to a more inclusive and diverse governance that included non-Arab Muslims, now views as aristocratic inheritors of the Koran covenant which preaches strict monotheism and Muhammad as the final prophet as the central tenants of Islamic belief.

         The Abbasid Caliphate represented a significant shift from the Arab-dominated empire to a more inclusive and diverse Islamic multi-state, which allowed for the participation and influence of non-Arab Muslims in both governance and culture. Herein explains why the Abbasid Caliphate moved their Capital to Baghdad. This transformation played a crucial role in shaping the identity of the Islamic world, which by definition included the collapse of the Arab Koran covenant – during the Abbasid period.

         The Abbasids built a broad coalition of support among various discontented groups, including non-Arab Muslims, Shiites, and other factions opposed to the pseudo-Umayyad rule. This coalition utterly crucial in mobilizing support for their cause. This new Caliphate significantly shaped non Arab Islamic history through the revival and integration of ancient Greek philosophical thought into Islamic scholarship. The Abbasids, while their rhetoric claimed their descent from the Prophet Muhammad’s uncle Abbas, they positioned themselves as champions of the far larger non Arab Islamic community. The Koran covenant Arab identity, Islam – like a snake – swallowed its prey completely whole.

         The Abbasid Caliphate replaced the judicially unjust Umayyad Caliphate in 750 CE after a successful revolution. The Abbasids validation of non Arab Muslims set the stage for publication and research in the newly discovered ancient Greek writings, particularly during the 8th through 10th centuries, known for the Islamic Golden Age. Scholars in the Abbasid Caliphate translated and preserved many works of ancient Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Galen. This intellectual revival played a crucial role in the development of philosophy, science, and medicine in the Islamic world and later influenced the European Renaissance.

         The Abbasid Caliphate expanded the Muslim empire through a combination of military conquests, political alliances, and cultural integration. They successfully conquered Persia (modern-day Iran) after the fall of the pseudo-Umayyad Caliphate. The Persian territories became integrated, but not homogenized into the Abbasid Caliphate. Persian culture and administrative practices significantly influenced the Abbasid governance and culture. The Abbasids continued military engagements with the Byzantine Empire, similar to their predecessors. These conflicts, part of the ongoing struggle for control over territories in the eastern Mediterranean. The theology of Islam changed the Koran covenant of Arab nationalism unto the belief that Allah lives as the Universal God of all Humanity. Rather than the God which Muhammad’s Arab tribes embraced as their Deity.

         The Abbasids focused on trade, culture, and scholarship, which helped to unify the diverse regions of their huge expansive empire. They established Baghdad as their cultural and intellectual center, attracting scholars, scientists, and philosophers from various backgrounds. The Abbasid Caliphate, known for its cultural and intellectual flourishing, which included the translation and study of ancient Greek texts. This assimilation of Greek culture represents a key part of a broader effort to create a cosmopolitan society that included diverse ethnicities and cultures, not just local Arab feudal peasants.

         The Abbasids essentially diminished the Arab-centric focus of the pseudo-Umayyad Caliphate, which claimed to have favored Arab identity and interests. By promoting a more inclusive approach, they aimed to unify the diverse populations within the empire, including non-Arab Muslim aristocrats. Such a divergent shift away from the Tribal Arab Koran as “the revelation” of the Prophet; the definition of Arab identity within the Tribal Arab Koran covenant republic/empire. This new cultural synthesis, which openly embraced Greek, Persian, and Indian influences integrated into into the heart and soul of non Arab Muslim “Islamic thought”. This new, vastly expanded cultural legacy, contributed to the decline of Arabia as the center of the non Arab Muslim world. The Abbasid impact on Europe, its service as the Prime Cause of the Renaissance revival; the resurrection of dead European culture and customs – marked by the Dark Ages. It undermined the revelation of Muhammad as the final prophet, of Tribal Koran covenant feudalism.

         Assimilation to ancient Greek writers directly compares to the Hanukkah Civil War which pitted the P’rushim/pseudo-Umayyads against the Tzeddukim/assimilated Abbasid revolution. This Jewish Civil War pitted Torah purists, only committed to interpret the intent of the Torah through reliance upon the Oral Torah logic system, codified through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four part inductive reasoning. The assimilated Tzeddukim/assimilated Abbasid sought to abandon Oral Torah logic in favor of turning Jerusalem into a Greek polis City State. Much like the assimilated Abbasids moved their Capital distant from Mecca and Medina. Just as the Tzeddukim sought to remake Jerusalem unto the image of Athens; so too did the assimilated-Abbasids turn Baghdad into a cosmopolitan empire hostile to the Arab covenantal identity expressed in the Koran. Both rejected their respective “oral Torah/Hadith” interpretive revelation central to their respective national yet Tribal traditions.

         Muslim universalism rejects the Torah revelation at Sinai which only Israel accepted, much the same way as the assimilated Abbasid ‘Golden Calf’ imposed a Muslim replacement theology which competed foreign alien Greek thinkers as equals to Muhammad the final prophet. Abbasid law schools (madhabs) no longer based solely upon prophetic or tribal adjudication, but systematized like Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis—foreign in form and hostile to Arab oral precedent. The Abbasid revolution, like the ‘Golden Calf’, did not openly reject Muhammad—it honored him in rhetoric while replacing the foundations of his Koran covenant with foreign structures.

         The assimilated Tzeddukim likewise wanted Jews to forget the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The ‘Golden Calf’ represents the idea of “replacement theology”. This defines the theology expressed by both Xtianity, the Arab Koran, and the Muslim theological belief in a Universal Allah, God to all Humanity. Abbasid scholars chose to ignore the Talmud. They rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס logic just as surely as did the Tzeddukim reject the Oral Torah. The Koran represents a national revelation to the Arab people through the prophet Muhammad. In effect the Abbasids replaced their Koran covenantal specificity with abstract universality, undermining the very revelation they claimed to protect.

         The Abbasid “revolution” utterly failed to establish righteous courts which could correct the pseudo-Umayyad judicial injustice. Unlike the American revolutionaries who rejected the vertical British Star courts with the lateral jury system, the Abbasid “revolution”, their corrupt vertical courts no different from the vertical British Star courts. The government bribed the Judges and prosecuting attorneys by paying their salaries.

         Abbasid religious rhetoric propaganda (half-truths) declared their “belief” in Muhammad as the final prophet. But in actual fact their cultural synthesis of non Arab, Greek and other foreign cultural influences directly compares to the ancient Israelite sin of the Golden Calf – replacement theology.

         The Abbasid period, which lasted from 750 to 1258 CE, represents a transformative era for Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and the codification of Islamic law. Scholars began to organize and systematize the principles of Islamic law, moving beyond the earlier, more Hadith common law precedent interpretations; which required a rigorous analysis of the Quran and Hadith. Assimilated Abbasid legal scholars organized fiqh into codes, which closely resembled the style of Greek and Roman law. Like as codified by Pope Gregory IX (c. 1170–1241) or Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). The latter best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles”, which synthesized Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology, addressing issues of ethics, law, and the nature of God.

         The four major Sunni schools: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali, directly influenced by Greek and Roman legal traditions, particularly in their approach to legal reasoning and the structure of legal codes. This cross-pollination of ideas contributed to a break down which attempted to unify Arab and non Arab Muslims as feudal equal aristocrats. Effectively, this estranged the rule of Mecca and Medina as the Government authority of the Arab empire/republic.

         The Koran all together supplanted as the basis of Islamic law, in the sense that assimilated Abbasid law codes based their organization upon non Arab Muslim thinkers. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad, this institution promoted the translation and study of various texts, including those from Greek and Roman traditions. The failure of the assimilated Abbasid “revolution”, not merely political—but judicial, theological, and civilizational. By abandoning the Arab identity rooted in Meccan-Medinan Tribal justice, and replacing it with the foreign Hellenistic universalism together with Aristotle’s syllogism logic, the assimilated Abbasids traitors repeated the ancient sins of the Tzeddukim, together with the ערב רב builders of the Golden Calf. They all share a common foundation, they have no real fear of the אלהים. The task remains to recover the Arab prophetic covenant—as a national revelation with judicial integrity—restoring what was lost in the cosmopolitan mirage of Baghdad.

         The assimilated Abbasid Caliphate dramatically weakened Arab identity. The Arab pseudo-Umayyad Caliphate, inherently unstable. Herein explains the prime reason for its short rule. The expansion of Muhammad’s Tribal Koran covenant nation, came at the expense of sacrificing the Arab identity which originally accepted Muhammad as its prophet. The spread of Islam came at the expense of the diminishment of Arab identity subsumed by a Islamic cosmopolitanism domination; which introduces many and multiple foreign cultures and customs into the Catholic\Islamic Universal faith. Where Greek and Roman legal tradition served as the basis which established a systematic approach to Islamic jurisprudence. Alas neither Greece nor Rome civilization gendered a Good Name reputation concerning the achievement judicial justice rule of law. The Abbasid legal codes, while more organized than the Hadith, influenced by non-Arab traditions, which some argue diluted the original Tribal Arab Koran covenant principles.

         The Abbasid Caliphate rebelled against the Meccan-Medinan Koranic covenant. The assimilated Abbasids, despite their rhetorical white-wash allegiance to Muhammad and the Koran covenant, ultimately introduced a form of “replacement theology” akin to the biblical Golden Calf, which diluted the Arab prophetic foundation of the Koran covenant replaced by the charms of cosmopolitan inclusivity and Hellenistic legalism.

         The Koran itself functioned as replacement theology for the T’NaCH. “We have not sent you except as a mercy to all the worlds” (Koran 21:107). It too likewise failed to respect that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Just as only Muhammad alone received the visions from an Angel within a cave. There in the Koran, Muhammad interpreted – by Islamic theology – as the Seal of the Prophets, for humanity, not just the Arabs.

         Islamic scholars to their credit sought to systematize Islamic law based on the Quran and Hadith, leading to the formation of distinct legal methodologies. The Quran and Hadith are the two primary sources of Islamic law. The Quran is considered the literal word of God, while Hadith comprises the sayings, actions, and approvals of the Prophet Muhammad. Scholars relied on these texts to derive legal rulings and principles. The Abbasid scholars emphasized that Islamic law should be grounded in divine revelation rather than solely relying on pre-Islamic customs or foreign legal systems.

         Al-Shafi’i is renowned for his work in systematizing the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. His seminal book, “Al-Risala,” laid out a comprehensive framework for understanding the sources and methods of deriving legal rulings. Al-Shafi’i identified four primary sources of Islamic law: the Quran, Hadith, consensus (ijma), and analogy (qiyas). He argued that these sources should be used in a systematic manner to ensure that legal rulings are consistent with Islamic teachings. Al-Shafi’i placed a strong emphasis on the importance of Hadith as a source of law, advocating for the rigorous authentication of Hadith to ensure their reliability in legal reasoning.

         In the early years of Islam, particularly during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, there were instances of coexistence and cooperation between Muslims and Jewish communities. The Constitution of Medina, for example, established a framework for mutual rights and responsibilities among Muslims and Jews in Medina. Yet the Almohad dynasty in the 12th century, when Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face expulsion definitively proved the shallow realities of justice achieved through Muslim courts.

         Loading…
      9. 

         myallaboutyou

         June 8, 2025

         Hi Moshe, your essay on Arab and Islamic history is thought-provoking—it sheds light on how justice and identity shifted over time. I’m learning a lot from your insights into Jewish law and its focus on fairness. Your point about unjust systems, like those in the Umayyad and Abbasid eras, resonates with me. I worry about our huge national debt here in the U.S.—it’s a big issue that needs control to keep us stable. I want to live in a world where we are respected and respect others. Could Jewish law, through chesed, tzedakah, or mishpat, help us face economic challenges or build fairer systems today? What principle from Jewish law could guide us through these times? Thank you for your thoughts.

         Loading…
      10. 

          mosckerr

          June 9, 2025

          Torah has absolutely no wisdom for folks who fundamentally do not accept the Tribal revelation of HaShem to the 12 Tribes of Israel at Sinai. Par’o did not accept the revelation of HaShem through the 10 plagues and even the splitting of the Sea of Reeds wherein his entire Army drowned to a man. Only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai to this very day.

          Neither the New Testament nor the Koran validates the HaShem chosen Cohen People. Nor do these Goyim scriptures ever once include the שם השם לשמה Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the 1st Commandment upon which hang the 2nd Sinai commandment and all other Torah and Talmudic halachot within the Six Orders of the Oral Torah Mishna codification of Oral Torah פרדס common law logic. No University teaches this פרדס Oral Torah inductive reasoning process. Modern Universities limit their studies to Greek syllogism mathematical logic, I studied that logic system in my third year at Texas A&M, or Hegel’s bi-polor logic format which so dominated the writings of Marx’s theories of socialism. My History major focused upon Bolshevik foreign policy between the two World Wars.

          So to answer your question with candid honesty, no. The Western legal traditions, despite the attempt at lateral courts through the jury system, they across the board exist as vertical courts wherein the State bribes by paying the salaries of the Judges and prosecuting attorneys of all State and Federal Courts across the vast United States of America.

          South Korea schools study Talmudic common law jurisprudence. But they have a skewed erroneous idea that the Talmud exist as religious ritual law rather than dynamic common law applicable to all generations of Israel. The S. Koreans do not know that the Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of justice within the Tribal lands of conquered Canaan. That no Sanhedrin lateral courtroom exists anywhere outside of ארץ ישראל. Even 3 man Torts damages courts exist as vertical “like” courtrooms in g’lut. Why? Because Jews living in g’lut/exile suffer the Torah curse where they too have forgotten the wisdom of doing Mitzvot observance לשמה. Hence g’lut Jews observe the halachot codified in the Shulkan Aruch as rigid statute “Goyim” law rather than dynamic common law which compares the current case heard before the Beit Din wherein one of the three justices function in the role of Prosecutor opposed by a second of the 3 justices who serves as the defense attorney. G’lut beit din courts despite having 3 justices with this designated division of labor, they do not follow the model of the Sanhedrin courts of 23 and 71 justices which split evenly leaving ONE judge to decide the case either for the defense or prosecuting attorney sides if at the end of the trial the Justices remain evenly split over the quality that the opposing justices precedent evidence brought to decide the case in favor of either the prosecutor or defense sides of the legal dispute.

          Yeshivot across Israel do not even teach this common law legalism due to the corrupt influence of the Rambam’s Yad, Jacob ben Asher Arba’ah Turim, and Yosef Karo’s Shulkan Aruch statute law perversions made upon Talmudic common law. In point of fact if a person went into virtually in Yeshiva in Israel today and asked: “What does common law mean in Hebrew?” No person in any Yeshiva across the country of Israel could answer you משנה תורה, the second name of the 5th Book of the Written Torah the Book of דברים. In like manner if the question asked Arabic ra’ya\רעיא, what’s its Hebrew equivalent term? Few if any Yeshiva students or rabbis could immediately answer: בנין אב, which means “precedent”.

          Zionism achieved Jewish self determination in the Middle East. But Orthodox Jews have yet to understand and grasp the possibilities of the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic with the Talmud functioning as the working model by which Jews have the opportunity to restore and re-establish the Talmud as the model of lateral common law Sanhedrin courtroom across the Torah Constitutional Tribal States of the Jewish Republic.

          Loading…
      11. 

          mosckerr

          June 9, 2025

          I published your question with a more polished response on my blog. A truly remarkable set of questions.

          Loading…
      12. 

          myallaboutyou

          June 9, 2025

          Hi Mosckerr, thank you. I couldn’t find a place to post my response. You are a very skilled writer and your post on Torah wisdom and its unique tie to Israel’s revelation is thought-provoking—it has opened my eyes to Jewish law’s depth. I’m learning a lot from your insights into Talmudic common law and its focus on fairness. Your point about U.S. courts being flawed, I find it interesting—it makes me think about how broken systems may be, driven by self-interest and envy, lead to bigger problems like our huge national debt, which threatens our stability. I see these issues tied to breaking commandments, like coveting or being self-centered, where people don’t truly care for each other. They only use their false care to move towards another gain. They truly don’t care whether person lives, dies and/or stays. They pretend to be altruistic. I can see how the young adults can be that way, but others are using it to their advantage. How do Nezikin-style Sanhedrin courts ensure justice, like handling judges’ pay to avoid bias? Could their principles stop riots, rein in spending, or make our diverse country cohesive, unlike Israel’s shared bonds? Could chesed, tzedakah, or mishpat help address economic challenges or build genuine care among us? What principle from Jewish law could guide us? Thanks for sharing

          Loading…
      13. 

          mosckerr

          June 9, 2025

          A very thoughtful response. Thank You for sharing. When Elon Musk started cutting the Federal Bureacratic pork and graft and corruption and overreach etc etc etc. The Federal Government – the largest employer of Americans when compared to private Industry in America. So these people attacked and destroyed Musk properties through riots etc.

          Americans hate one another. The poison that the Democrats threw at Trump for years like the Russia-gate Hillery Clinton/Obama scam wherein the MSM press of Maddow and Colbert etc slandered Trump – they serve as specific examples. A third example, the behavior of Nancy Pelocy and Waters and Nadler, and Schiff – the California four, their behavior during Trump’s first term of Office an utter disgrace. This 2nd Trump term the ire of “He’s Not My President” shifted to Musk till that man left Doge. These examples attempt to portray the complex portrait of Americans who feel enraged b/c they feel they have suffered damages in some manner or form.

          A Nezikin-lateral courtroom fits the role of something akin to America opening a diplomatic embassy and sharing Ambassadors with some other country.

          The two countries do not share identical interests. In fact the interests of the one damage the interests of the other and visa-versa. This embassy/ambassador metaphor attempts to define the role or function of lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. Where conflicting interests as expressed through the briefs presented by Prosecuting and Defense Justices of the three Man court argue the merits of their different perspectives of the Case heard before the Court. Much like a Front/Top\Side view of a blueprint offers 3 different perspectives giving the contractor a three dimensional idea of the building his construction team seeks to build.

          Two metaphors: one of shared foreign ambassadors and the other of a building contractor constructing a building based upon the specification of given by the 3 perspectives contained within a blueprint. Both offered as a guide to grasp the purpose of the Court system to resolve domestic disputes and restore a sense of trust between Americans damaged by other Americans.

          Can the Courts stop riots and rein in public corruption? No they cannot. Riots represent suppressed emotions that explode. Government bureaucratic graft by definition hidden; something like incest within a family.

          England and France, for example, utterly resent Israel for reducing their influence across the Middle East – known by the term “balance of power”. Both Chamberlain in the ’39 White Paper and de Gaulle’s betrayal of Israel just prior to the explosion of the Six Day War and the writing of the Post War UNSC Resolution 242 there after. These political decisions made by the governments of London and Paris have long term consequences whereby Israelis heartily distrust England and France thereafter for generations.

          Common law courts address immediate action-reaction damages. The do not address long term National habit behaviors like blood libels made prior to every Easter across all European countries followed up by pogroms and throwing Jewish refugee minorities into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries.

          Spain for example recently apologized for the forced mass expulsion of Jews in 1492. But this does not heal the wounds of the Inquisition tortures made upon Jews who converted to Xtianity in order to remain inside Spain.

          No Court has the power to address long term strategic damages. Only National leaders can perhaps address this type of damages inflicted upon Human dignity and crushed self-respect.

          Common law courts address the bnai brit alliance shared among and between Jews. Shalom stands upon the foundation of trust. When a Jew damages the property or person of another Jew. That action destroys the sense of trust which ideally Jews have for one another. Hence the role of the courts: to make righteous restitution of all damages inflicted which includes pain and dignity compensations. The objective of “justice” – to restore the required sense of Jews trusting their own people.

          Currently Americans hold almost no trust for other Americans who hold different values and have hostile agendas. The size of the Federal (bankrupt) US Government – simply way to BIG. This means Trump must turn the Federal bureaucracies over to the management of the State Legislatures. This goes straight back to the Primary Cause of the American Civil War! Reducing Federal debt – a very messy business that will damage the interests of allot of Americans currently on the public dole/salaries.

          For Trump to reduce the fat bureaucratic criminal corruption which defines DC politics will require tremendous courage. Elon Musk absolutely rejected the Trump budget and resided as head of Doge. Can Trump find a person skilled to replace Musk? I do not know. Only that cutting 160 years of Government Federal Abuse and over-spending corruption, probably cannot be done in 4 years of the 2nd Trump term of Office.

          Elon Musk lasted less than 100 days! The Courts just as influenced by the Corporate Monopolies as the Federal bureaucrats. President Trump faces hard times, just that simple.

          Loading…
      14. 

          myallaboutyou

          June 13, 2025

          Hi Mosckerr, thanks for your reply. I like what you say about Nezikin courts—it sounds like arbitration, but I find it interesting that it treats symptoms, not root causes. Our riots, corruption, and huge national debt come from people seeking self-gain instead of the greater good. That’s selfish, plain and simple. We’re not doing what God expects, caring for each other. Entities use the young’s false altruism for their own ends. Government overspends and invades the charitable work of citizens, blocking our duty. I spoke with two immigrants this week. One said, “first take care of your own house before taking care of others,” meaning we shouldn’t give money abroad when our business isn’t in order. Another misunderstood Trump’s goals but shared family insights I hadn’t heard, showing we aren’t told everything. Distrust won’t end until politicians come clean and give states back their responsibilities. Even “No King” protests are silly—we have a president, not a king. Could chesed, tzedakah, or mishpat help us follow God’s laws to fix selfishness and unify us? What Jewish law principle could guide us? Your insights are a blessing.

          Loading…
      15. 

          mosckerr

          June 14, 2025

          Sanhedrin common law courtrooms lateral and not vertical courtrooms. The latter vertical courts the employess of these courts receive their salaries from the State. Lateral courtrooms Judges and Prosecuting attorneys do not receive a salary from the State.

          Loading…
      16. 

          mosckerr

          June 10, 2025

          The Torah operates as common law, founded on evolving precedents, not statutory declarations—exposes a deep conceptual error in how Xtian theology has often misrepresented the Torah. Torah simply not a statute law code of Hammurabi – the 6th king of Babylon. Statute Law – simply a different breed of fish from judicial common law.

          Statute law by definition, some kind of Legislative decree(s) ruled by the Government. Torah common law the court justices do not receive a salary from the State. The Torah refers to this vertical legal system as “bribery”.  British common law the justices receive their salary from the State.

          Shabbat, for example, commanded before Sinai, in the wilderness of Manna (Shemot 16), where no tablets had yet been given, and no voice thundered from the cloud. This precedent constitutes as a legal reality, a lived ruling. And when Shabbat appears again in the two versions of the Decalogue—one in Shemot, the other in Devarim—Xtian translations note minor differences and call them contradictions. But these are not contradictions—they expose case law interpretations! “Shamor” and “Zachor” simply not two commands but two angles of the same diamond, revealed through the evolution of judgment.

          Our sages taught: Israel heard only the first two commands directly from the Divine before recoiling, pleading that Moshe receive the rest (Makkot 24a, Shabbat 88b). The church response, both Popes and Kings decreed the burning of the Talmud. Ten Commandments do not remotely qualify as the revelation of the Torah common law judicial legal system.

          Torah, not simply revealed in a flash.  But this revelation unfolded in the tent of meeting, in the wilderness, in the courts of elders. D’varim/Mishna Torah 100% not a simple repetition of Sh’mot. The mitzva of shabbat essentially remembers the enslavement of Israel in Egypt. Just as that enslavement oppression did not occur just one day of the week but the entire week, so too and how much more so Shabbat does not mean only the 7th day but rather the entire week.

          Xtian theology flattens the Torah revelation into a compartment slogan. Torah common law does not comparable to children’s nursery rhyme stories. The printing press cannot reproduce the 4-part logic system of the Divine Name which has 4 letters. To address the Sinai revelation divorced from the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov utterly degrades and undermines the foundation upon which Sinai stands.

          Xtian theology misconstrues Torah by treating it as statutory law rather than a precedent-driven judicial common law system. The Torah operates as judicial common law, founded on evolving judicial precedents, not statutory Legislative decrees. This fundamental flaw exposes a deep conceptual error in how Xtian theology has historically misrepresented the Torah.

          Statute law is vertical, legislative, top-down. It is imposed by the sovereign ruler and enforced by bureaucratic power. It functions by decree. Torah, a judicial common law system built through case rulings, oral transmission, precedent, and collective adjudication לשמה.  Interpreted to mean, according to the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva: פרדס. The judges of Torah do not receive salaries from the state, and the Torah itself declares that such financial entanglement with government constitutes shochad—bribery (Devarim 16:19).

          In contrast, modern states pay their judges, and their rulings enforce the will of Parlieament. Torah judges, by contrast, remember & interprets the sworn Avot oaths as law from within the brit alliance masoret—not enforceable political decrees. When the Decalogue later presents Shabbat again—in Shemot 20 and then Devarim 5—subtle Calculus like variables, but crucial different witness testimony distinctions. These differences do not qualify as contradictions. They expose interpretive evolutions—case law adaptations. “Shamor” and “Zachor”—observe and remember—two different but complementary legal perspectives, not opposing slogans. They validate different precedential frames through which to understand the same mitzvah. The sages even interpret them as having been spoken simultaneously—two facets of the same diamond stone.

          The Xtian flattening of this into a list of “Ten Commandments,” cut off from halakhic context, entirely misses the dynamic legal character of Torah, and baptises it unto a static fossil discovery, as if words carved into stone.  Xtian theology promotes and exposes the meaning of false prophets.  Its replacement theology declares these verses, frozen in a single moment, constitute the whole of the Torah revelation.  Xtian and Muslim belief in some Universal God(s) ignores that only the 12 Tribes of Israel received the Torah at Sinai.  Yet the Talmud teaches (Makkot 24a, Shabbat 88b) that Israel heard only the first two utterances at Sinai before begging Moshe to receive the rest. Have repeated this point like the Torah does the decalogue as a point of emphasis.

          In Devarim, the mitzva of shabbat not tied to creation, but to the Exodus. It becomes a political-ethical memory of slavery: “So that your servant and your maidservant may rest as you do… and you shall remember that the Egyptians oppressed their slaves.” The implication profoundly radical: Shabbat simply not merely one day of rest, but a comprehensive rejection of permanent bondage. Just as enslavement afflicted the Israelites every day of the week, so too does Shabbat reshape the entire rhythm of labor and liberty across all seven days.  The word shabbat means week.

          Torah operates within the four-part logic of the Divine Name (Y-H-V-H)—each letter unfolding layers of י\law, ה/prophecy, ו\wisdom, and ה/judgment. A theology that isolates Sinai from the oaths sworn by Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Yaakov utterly not reverent—rather destructive. It severs the root from the tree, divorcing the revelation from the oath brit Cohen alliance inheritance that breathes life unto all generations of the chosen people.

          Loading…
      17. 

          mosckerr

          June 11, 2025

          The Greatest commandment of the Torah: the 1st Sinai commandment. Observing and obeying the Torah לשמה. The Name, the essence of the 1st Sinai commandment, upon this Name hangs all the rest of the Written Torah and Talmudic Halachot. Doing this 1st Sinai Commandment לשמה defines keeping the Torah, all the commandments and Talmudic halachot לשמה as the driving k’vanna, herein defines all tohor Av Torah time oriented commandments according to the opinion expressed by the sefer B’HaG in his Hilchot G’dolot.

          Just as the essence of Shabbat observance opens with the blessings made over wine and bread known as קידוש לליל שבת, where the introduction of this blessing opens with the paragraph publicly declared in the Beit Knesset, which the baal when he returns home repeats so that his wife and children hear this “key blessing”.

          This key blessing, it defines and designates the mitzva of Shabbat as an Av tohor time-oriented commandment which absolutely and most fundamentally requires k’vanna; this blessing distinguishes both essential terms, אלהים and מלאכה – three times. Such a repetition of an idea three times – called a חזקה.

          This term in the Torah and Jewish law refers to a legal presumption or a status, established based on certain conditions or actions. This idea represents a fundamental concept in Jewish legal thought. And has several applications in various areas of law, including property, personal status, and ritual observance.

          (1) In property law, חזקה, often used to establish ownership. If a person has possessed a property for a certain period of time without dispute, their status – presumes them as the owner. This presumption protects the rights of the possessor and encourages stability in property relations. (2) חזקה can also refer to a person’s legal status. For example, if someone has a reputation recognized as a certain status (like a priest or a Levite) for a long time, that status – presumed to continue unless proven otherwise. Important in matters of religious obligations and rights. (3) In the context of ritual law, חזקה can indicate a person’s ongoing observance of certain practices. For instance, if someone has consistently observed a particular mitzvah (commandment), they are presumed to continue doing so unless there is evidence to the contrary. (4) The concept of חזקה serves to create stability and certainty in legal and social relationships. By establishing presumptions based on established facts or behaviors, the law reduces disputes and provides a clear framework for resolving conflicts. (5) While חזקה provides a strong presumption, it is not absolute. It can be challenged by evidence to the contrary. This balance between presumption and proof – a critical aspect of legal reasoning in Jewish law. In summary, חזקה – a versatile legal concept that plays a crucial role in establishing ownership, legal status, and ritual observance, while promoting stability and reducing disputes within the community.

          The thrice repeated Divine Name אלהים. Yom Kippur known as Shabbat Shabbaton (the Sabbath of Sabbaths). A central element in Jewish tradition, particularly in the context of the High Holy Days. On Yom Kippur the Divine Name אלהים defines the Soul (The living blood [as in a korban sacrifice] dedicated upon the altar Holy to HaShem whereby a person swears a Torah oath in order to cut a Brit alliance. The T’shuva, living blood soul dedicated on Rosh HaShanna, 10 days prior, the Divine Name אל. This אל soul remembers the t’shuva made for the sin of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf “revelation” defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai Commandment: Do not worship other Gods. Substitute Theology, this Av tuma avoda zarah defines the k’vanna of the sin of the Golden Calf. At that exact moment in time: the “ערב רב”, the Israelites who assimilated to Egyptian culture and customs, and had also intermarried with Egyptians.

          _________________________________________

          (((Weigh the precedent of Purim. Before the Chag of Purim, its a mitzva from the Torah to remember the commandment to expunge the memory of Amalek. This mitzva defines antisemitism throughout the generations.

          The Torah refers to the mixed multitudes/ערב רב as Jews who lacked יראת אלהים. Fear of Heaven refers to the wisdom of a person dedicating his life to protect his ‘Good Name’ reputation. Base this conclusion upon the Cossacks.

          Following the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648–1657) [Which killed more Jews in a short period of time, till the horrors of the Shoah surpassed even that Goyim utter barbarity.], a Man having the reputation known as Baal Shem Tov; he re-organized the surviving Jews of Eastern Europe with a renewed spirit of Yiddishkeit – Jewish identity.)

          A central element in Jewish tradition, particularly in the context of the High Holy Days. On Yom Kippur the dedicated Divine soul Name אלהים {The living blood [as in a korban sacrifice] dedicated upon the altar Holy to HaShem, whereby a person swears a Torah oath in order to cut a Brit alliance. The T’shuva, living blood soul dedicated on Rosh HaShanna, 10 days prior, the Divine soul Name אל. This soul Name remembers the t’shuva made consequent to the sin of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf “revelation” defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai Commandment: Do not worship other Gods.

          Substitute Theology defines the k’vanna of the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב exchanged the word translation אלהים as the word name for the Golden Calf. At that exact moment in time: this same ערב רב, the Jews who had assimilated to Egyptian culture and customs and they had also intermarried with Egyptians. Hence the Sages during the period of the NaCH defined the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandmnent based upon A) assimilation and B) intermarriage with Goyim.

          Before the Chag of Purim, its a mitzva from the Torah to remember the commandment to expunge the memory of Amalek. This mitzva defines antisemitism throughout the generations. The Torah refers to the mixed multitudes/ערב רב as Jews who lacked יראת אלהים. Fear of Heaven refers to the wisdom of a person dedicating his life to protect his ‘Good Name’ reputation. Following the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648–1657) [Which killed more Jews in a short period of time, till the horrors of the Shoah surpassed even that Goyim utter barbarity.], a Man having the reputation of Baal Shem Tov, re-organized the surviving Jews of Eastern Europe with a renewed spirit of Yiddishkeit Jewish identity.)))
          _________________________________________

          Therefore the Divine soul Name אל, dedicated on Rosh HaShanna defines the k’vanna of the t’shuva sanctified during this specific time oriented Av tohor commandment: Jews remember this t’shuva, so as not to behave like a dog who returns and eats its own vomit. Jews “remember”, another name for this Chag יום הזכרון, day of remembrance. Remembering a key essential spiritual aspect of Torah spirituality.

          However, the t’shuva of Yom Kippur stands distinct and apart from the t’shuva of יום הזכרון. The soul name dedicated לשמה on this different Chag the soul name of אלהים. The remembrance that HaShem threatened to make his own “substitute theology” (measure for measure) and chose the seed of Moshe as the chosen Cohen People and expunge the living memory of the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as the fathers of the Chosen Cohen People. Therefore the first blessing of the Shemone Esrei, (Tefillah דרבנן), opens with אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב, this remembrance, the Torah declares as the k’vanna of his Name revealed in the 1st commandment at Sinai! Therefore tefillah דאורייתא, (the mitzva of Kre’a Shma) – utterly unique. Learned in conjunction together with the revelation of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur. Specifically, the only other verse within the literature of the T’NaCH which contains 3 consecutive Divine Names – השם אלהינו השם – the opening p’suk of the tefillah דאורייתא of kre’a shma.

          Therefore, the repetition of אלהים three times in the blessing made קידוש לליל שבת, the Divine Name אלהים which dedicates the soul sanctified on Yom Kippur wherein Israel remembers the Divine t’shuva wherein HaShem annulled the vow to make of the seed of Moshe as the chosen Cohen people; such a unilateral Divine decree would have profaned the oath thrice sworn to the Avot by HaShem. Vows play 2nd fiddle to sworn oaths in matters of holiness. On Yom Kippur, this day called Shabbat Shabbaton, through the sanctification of the Divine soul Name אלהים the generations of Israel strive to remember the Av tohor time oriented commandment of this Yom Tov which strives to remember the t’shuva made by the Anger of HaShem wherein He annulled His vow to sanctify His oath sworn to the Avot. Hence vows play 2nd fiddle to Torah oaths. A very important Torah distinction.

          Therefore the blessing made on קידוש לליל שבת sanctifies the remembrance of the oath sworn brit alliances the Avot swore to cut upon their living name souls, (Meaning all the ‘fear of heaven’ lives of the children of Israel born in “O’lam Ha’Ba” to all future generations.), which continually create יש מאין the Chosen Cohen People through the Av tohor commandments known as time- oriented mitzvot. This latter mitzva stands unique because it requires prophetic mussar which defines its most essential k’vanna. קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments — all the rest of the Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot — they do not require k’vanna. However, when a person sanctifies a Torah commandment, both דאורייתא או דרבנן to Av tohor time-oriented commandments (which require the k’vanna to do these commandments לשמה) – the first commandment revealed at Sinai – all Torah and Talmudic mitzvot possess the holiness of Torah commandments revealed at the Sinai revelation! Therefore the Rambam limitation of the Torah commandments to 613, just flat out wrong. Even the mitzva of washing one’s hands upon arising in the morning a mitzva from the Torah … if and only if a person does this rabbinic mitzva with T’NaCH prophetic mussar k’vanna.

          The classic flaw of assimilated statute law syllogistic deductive reasoning, it divorces Aggada from Gemara; T’NaCH prophetic mussar from Halacha. Herein designates the proverbial fly in the ointment of assimilated syllogism based deductive statute legalist reasoning and organization. Chickens they do not lay eggs into two rowed crates sold by the dozen – the central flaw of legislative bureaucratic statute decrees of law. Whose authority stands based upon the pedestal of Caesar – the son of God – argumentum ad verecundiam. This flawed logic equally defines the theology screamed by both the church and the mosque.

          This קידוש לליל שבת likewise this blessing states מלאכה three times. This blessing makes a הבדלה with separates מלאכה from עבודה. This most essential הבדלה therein defines the Av tohor time-oriented commandment of Shabbat. A person dedicates not to do forbidden skilled labor/מלאכה on the day of Shabbat so as likewise not to do forbidden unskilled labor\עבודה on the 6 Days of “shabbat”! The term שבת means “week”, not only 7th day! Herein explain the Talmudic mussar משל instruction, that a person who observes the mitzva of Shabbat keeps all the Torah commandments.

          The mesechta of Baba Kama which introduces 4 Avot תם damagers in the opening Av Mishna, contains the logical דיוק/inference of 4 Avot מועד damagers – חמס, גזל, ערוה, שוחד במשפט. Translated as oppression, theft, incest, and bribery of judges to corrupt a judicial din.

          Therefore, based upon these בניני אבות precedents the קידוש לליל שבת defines the k’vanna of the Av tohor time-oriented miztva of Shabbat Observance, as expressed through the blessing said both in the Beit Knesset and at Home. Observing the Torah “לשמה” does not mean ((for its own sake) but rather ||for doing Av tohor time oriented commandments! A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד tohor midda “מלכות” distinction.|| {Blessing stand apart from Tehillem because they require שם ומלכות, a legal requirement to swear a Torah oath}. Observing the Torah “לשמה” does not mean [for its own sake])), but rather /for sake of doing Av tohor time oriented commandments\. A very abstract and complicated idea.

          Av tohor time-oriented commandments include any Written Torah commandment or Talmudic halacha sanctified as Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה. How many Halachot within the Talmud, therefore define the revelation of the Torah at Sinai?

          The concept of חזקה (chazakah) and k’vanna (a discernment which separates the Yatzir Ha’Ra spirit from the Yatzir Ha’Tov spirit – both of which live within the heart) in Jewish law … deeply rooted in Talmudic literature. To grasp these subtle distinctions compares to the skills of a good wine bibber. In Berakhot 35a, the Talmud discusses the importance of intention when reciting blessings, including Kiddush! (Both Shemone Esrei, kre’a shma, the Cohen blessing, and Kaddish lack שם ומלכות yet none the less qualify as Torah blessings! They serve as prime examples why time-oriented commandments require k’vanna.) The phrase “לשמה” (as a time-oriented Torah commandment), often interpreted in this context to mean that one should have the proper discernment, meaning — prophetic mussar middot תוכחות, when performing the mitzvah of Kiddush. Mussar must breath within the Yatzir Tov within the heart, and not gripes, complaints, and criticisms made by others.

          The repetition of the Divine Name, expressed in both the kre’a shma and the 13 middot; and the structure of the Kiddush serve as a chazakah that establishes the sanctity of Shabbat. The Talmud emphasizes that the act of Kiddush simply not a ritual, but a declaration of the holiness of the day, that requires the Will to discern the spirit of the mitzvah properly; meaning that a person has the k’vanna to do that mitzva לשמה as an Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment. Divine Names live as spirits rather than words. A fundamental distinction which requires wisdom to understand.

          In Yoma 5a-7b, the Talmud details the avodah (service) performed by the Cohen Ha’Gadol on Yom Kippur. The rituals, including the confession of sins and the sending away of the scapegoat, performed with specific discernments; specifically the scapegoat remembers the substitute theology of the Av tuma sin of the Golden Calf. A huge Torah chiddush.

          The Talmud emphasizes that the High Priest must have the proper k’vanna during his avodah service. The effectiveness of the atonement directly linked to the intentions behind his actions. The concept of chazakah, also relevant here, as the established practices of the avodah services of the Cohen HaGadol create a presumption of their validity and sanctity, reinforcing the need for intention in these sacred acts; many Cohen HaGadol never exited from the Holy of Holies alive.

          Meaning, the blowing of the Shofar has three distinct notes, as does ברכת כהנים three distinct blessings. The Cohen Ha’Gadol on Yom Kippur pronounces the שם השם spirits rather than golden calf word translations for the Divine Name. No word translation can pronounce the שם השם. However the בנין אב of blowing the Shofar on Rosh HaShanna serves to teach the Torah mussar that a person can dedicate his Yatzir Ha’Tov from within his heart through blowing dedicated Divine Soul Names לשמה; when he pronounces the Name אדוני with his lips, he blows the dedicated Divine Name Spirit of a specific face of his oath brit soul dedicated upon the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat Divine Lights – the Torah menorah throughout all generations. Exceptionally difficult concepts to grasp and understand. Tohor vs. Tuma spirits, the most complex and advanced subject in the whole of the Sha’s Bavli/Yerushalmi Talmuds.

          In Berakhot 2a, the Talmud discusses the recitation of the Shema and the importance of k’vanna. It states that one must have the intention to accept the yoke of heaven when reciting the Shema. The Shema serves as a declaration of faith and acceptance of Divine sovereignty over the 12 Tribes alone. HaShem a local Tribal God, and not a Universal Monotheistic God as taught in Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah. The Talmud indicates that the act of reciting the Shema establishes a chazakah of belief and commitment to oath Cohen brit alliance. The requirement for k’vanna underscores that this recitation, not merely a mechanical act but a profound expression of faith, wherein a person remembers and recalls the oaths sworn by the Avot – wherein they cut a Torah brit alliance which creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין לשמה – throughout all generations of Israel living on this Earth.

          The Oral Torah defines the mitzva of Moshiach as the dedication of the separated k’vanna – to pursue righteous Judicial justice among our own people inside the borders of conquered Canaan. צדק צדק תירדוף. Herein defines this Moshiach concept of dedicated “faith” from Torah בניני אבות precedents. Obviously the New Testament avoda zarah has no such similar dedication which defines the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach. The concept of ”holiness” learns from the precedent of korbanot. No Torah mitzva qualifies as “holy” without standing upon the יסוד of korbanot. Another example of the Talmudic משל: a mountain hanging by a hair.

          These Talmudic sources illustrate how the concepts of chazakah and k’vanna totally interwoven into the fabric of Jewish ritual practices. In each case—Kiddush, Yom Kippur avodah services, and Shema—the intention behind the actions utterly crucial for their validity and effectiveness. The wisdom of these established practices create a presumption of sanctity and meaning, reinforcing the importance of engaging with these commandments thoughtfully and purposefully. What distinguishes between the order of the Rashi vs. Rabbeinu Tam tefillen? Answer: the distinction between the oaths sworn at Gilgal and Sh’Cem in the days of Yehoshua’s invasion of Canaan. Any person can strap on their bodies tefillen, but few can sanctify this mitzva as a tohor time-oriented Torah commandment. G’lut Jewry has forgotten the Oral Torah. How to observe and obey Mitzot לשמה.

          The halachic ramifications of observing Shabbat without k’vanna (intention), nuanced and depend on various factors, including the specific actions taken and the context of the observance. In a word: G’lut. G’lut Jewry lack the wisdom to do Torah mitzvot לשמה. The Talmud and later halachic authorities emphasize that performing a commandment without the proper k’vanna render the act incomplete or less effective, but it does not necessarily invalidate the observance entirely. The RambaN taught that doing mitzvot in G’lut serves only as a remembrance of doing mitzvot rather than actually doing actual mitzvot.

          If someone recites Kiddush or other blessings without k’vanna, the act has the appearance of a mitzva, but the garments of faith do not make a man righteous. Meaning worlds separate doing mitzvot לשמה from doing mitzvot לא לשמה. The ערב רב and the Torah curse of Amalek serve as witness. G’lut Jewry observes mitzvot לא לשמה. They have technically fulfilled the obligation to recite the blessing, but they lack k’vanna wisdom, this exposes the garments of faith rather than the substance of faith. The mitzvah’s spiritual significance of k’vanna – to create יש מאין the chosen Cohen people for the purpose to pursue the faith of achieving the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Torah Republic and the Talmud as the working model to re-establish the Torah faith: צדק צדק תידוף – Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms wherein in the justices dedicate to achieve a fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews so as to restore Shabbat Shalom “trust” as expressed through the 3 meals of Shabbat the k’vanna of the זימון מצוה דאורייתא.

          G’lut Jews who recites Kiddush or other blessings without k’vanna, the act gives the appearance as valid, but lacks the essential breathing spirit of life. The person has technically fulfilled the obligation to recite the blessing, but the lack of k’vanna, means they worship forms rather than the substance of faith. If someone performs melacha (forbidden work) on Shabbat without k’vanna, the halachic implications can vary. If the person did not intend to perform a forbidden action (e.g., unaware that they were doing something prohibited), they may not be held liable for violating Shabbat. However, the act is still considered a violation of the sanctity of the day – as taught in the introduction of the משנה ברורה. If someone intentionally performs melacha but lacks k’vanna for the act of Shabbat observance, they are still liable for the violation, as the intention does not negate the action itself. For this simple fact: Goyim forbidden to observe the mitzva of Shabbat.

          Observing Shabbat without k’vanna often viewed by some, as an incomplete observance. While the individual may have technically fulfilled certain obligations, the spiritual and communal aspects of Shabbat hardly fully realized. This leads to a sense of disconnect from the sanctity of the day, often felt by children. Halachic authorities encourage individuals to strive for k’vanna in their observance of Shabbat. The emphasis on k’vanna serves to deepen the spiritual experience and connection to the mitzvah.

          Alas G’lut rabbis lost the wisdom to do mitzvot לשמה. In his writings, for example, the Rambam emphasizes the importance of k’vanna in fulfilling mitzvot. He suggests that while the act may be valid, the lack of intention diminishes its spiritual value. He did not teach the k’vanna of doing mitzvot לשמה – observance of Av time oriented commandments “created” with the dedication to create the Chosen Cohen people throughout the generations תמיד מעשה בראשית לשמה.

          The Shulchan Aruch also discusses the importance of k’vanna, particularly in the context of prayer and blessings. It indicates that while one may fulfill the obligation technically, the spiritual fulfillment is significantly enhanced with proper intention. Rabbi Karo follows the ירידות הדורות initiated by the Yad perversion of Talmudic common law unto assimilated Greek & Roman statute law static halachic codifications which have zero connection to the kabbalah of פרדס לשמה dynamic inductive reasoning. Aristotle’s static syllogism deductive logic compares to a two dimensional camera picture taken of a real life physical three dimensional living reality! An עין טוב immediately discerns the distinction.

          In summary, observing Shabbat without k’vanna does not invalidate the observance but renders it hollow. The individual may fulfill the technical requirements of the mitzvot, but the spiritual and communal dimensions remain totally lacking. Something like plowing a field without sowing seeds.

          Halachic authorities encourage striving for k’vanna to enhance the experience of Shabbat and deepen one’s connection to these mitzvot. Alas the curse of G’lut caused these rabbis to forget what it means to do Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה, based upon the בנין אב precedent of blowing the Shofer on Rosh HaShanna as a בנין אב for the Cohen HaGadol pronouncing the שם השם לשמה on Yom Kippur.

          A close reading of Sefer HaBHaG on these themes may provide additional reinforcement to this structure. A simple review of the Order of his אלו לאוין שבמלקות ארבעים – לא יאכלו בנ”י את גיד הנשה וכו. And his Order of ואלו מצות קום עשה: מאה ברכות בכל יום וכו, explicitly expresses clearly his understanding that Av Time-Oriented Commandments, which require doing them with the k’vanna, of לשמה זימן גרמא מצוות, without any question or doubt distinguishes the B’HaG division of 3 types of Torah commandments contrasted by the Rambam positive and negative commandments. The latter code, both static and rigid categories which limits and affixes Torah commandments to only commandments contained within the language of the Written Torah. This interpretation of Torah commandments invalidates Rabbinic commandments as tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah revelation at Sinai. Yet the Rambam ruled the mitzva of tefillah a mitzva דאורייתא! Based upon the RambaN critique, the Rambam reference to tefillah referred to the Shemone Esrei and not kre’a shma. A fundamental error in learning the opening Mishna of ברכות.

          The ontological foundation of Av time-oriented mitzvot (מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא) as expressions of Torah לשמה. This theory challenges standard halachic codification (e.g., Rambam’s dichotomy of aseh/lo ta’aseh) by instead grounding halachic authority in Brit-based prophetic precedent and dynamic consciously remembered oaths sworn by the Avot, wherein they cut the Original Torah brit which creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין throughout the generations לשמה.

          How many Halachot within the Talmud therefore define the revelation of the Torah at Sinai through the lens of Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה? Framing the Question: What Defines a Halacha That Reveals Sinai? A halacha that “defines the revelation at Sinai” not merely a legal ruling but a living brit-action. Hence such time-oriented “time bound” halachot equal the Shabbat, Yom Kippur, Shama examples of Av tohor time-oriented commandments from the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. This third unique type of Torah commandment which the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot totally ignored require intentional k’vanna לשמה—as Av tohor time- oriented commandments which possess the holiness to create the chosen Cohen people throughout our generations as a people; as does the mitzva of Moshiach creates יש מאין the Will within our hearts to restore the Torah Constitutional Republic and employ the Talmud as the working model wherein we pursue judicial justice to achieve justice among our people through the means of mitzvot lateral common law courtrooms. A mitzva as holy as any korban sanctified upon the altar.

          Therefore the number of Torah commandments not limited to the strict language, like as did the טיפש פשט simplistic reading of the Chumash made by the Rambam “רשע”. Torah common law, based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic – dynamic rather than the Rambam’s Aristotle based syllogism static logic. Torah common law does not remotely compare to, nor resembles in any way, shape, fashion, or form – Rambam’s static halachic Yad codification of rabbinic ritualized halachot which do not require k’vanna.

          Berakhot 35a / Pesachim 106a: Kiddush requires intent—sanctifying time, echoing “זכור את יום השבת”. Shabbat 118b: Eating three meals on Shabbat (סעודות) as a דרך to bring redemption from g’lut—an example of the dedication of all time-oriented commandments inclusive of the mitzva of Moshiach, holy as a korban olah.

          Acceptance of the Torah at Sinai and Horev, obligates all generations of Jews to dedicate our souls/our children\ to pursue justice among our people within the borders of the oath sworn lands of Canaan. Therefore, the Torah has no vision of vast empires, the Arafat blood libel of Greater Israel a Torah abomination. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted this Torah from HaShem as our God. The av tuma avoda zarah which parades the theology of Monotheism directly compares to the משל of the King who has no clothes!

          Shabbat 10b: The mitzvah of rest not limited to a shallow physical perspective alone. Rather it mimics the Divine act of Creation—מקדש השבת. All of these include both chazakah (repeated weekly) and k’vanna (to sanctify Creation through human action). Yom Kippur (Yoma 5a–7b), the avodah of the Kohen Gadol, especially the זכירת שם המפורש (pronouncing the Divine Name)–the archetype of לשמה.

          The scapegoat ritual—a mussar rebuke to the Golden Calf—linking national sin to remembering the sin of the Gold Calf substitute theology which continuously replaces the Divine Spirit Name of השם with the word translation אלהים av tuma avoda zarah definition of the 2nd Sinai Commandment. Neither the Bible nor Koran ever once brings the שם השם. These “rituals” inherently time-bound mitzvot, done with precise remembered k’vanna, the t’shuva of our national Cohen people brit, originally cut by Avram at the brit between the pieces.

          Shema (Berakhot 2a): The yoke of the Torah blessings and curses. Hence the Av Mishna of ברכות opens with kre’a shma ערבית, because it takes greater faith to accept the Torah curses rather than the kre’a shma שחרית blessings of the Torah as our yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.

          Teki’at Shofar (Rosh Hashanah 16a, 33b); Shofar as a זיכרון תרועה, intended to arouse the אל mussar rebuke, to burn this memory as a searing Brit within our souls. The three-part structure (tekiah, shevarim, teruah) aligns with Birkat Kohanim, and understood as first remembering then uttering Divine Torah oaths, based upon remembering the oaths sworn each by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

          Birkat Kohanim, understood as uttering Divine Name thrice through the k’vanna of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot which create continuously the chosen Cohen people יש מאין תמיד מעשה בראשית. Teki’at Shofar explicitly linked to Sinai (Shofar at Matan Torah), and Mashiach (the shared burden of redemption placed upon the souls of all generations of Israel to pursue righteous justice among our people within the boundaries of ארץ ישראל).

          Korban Pesach and Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim (Pesachim 116a): The telling of the Exodus as a direct Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment. Done at night, with intentional kavannah, and relational chazakah across generations (“בכל דור ודור…”).

          Rather than count each halacha by line or tractate, can group them by Torah-mandated Av Time-Oriented Mitzvot לשמה. Each major Torah festival and daily commandment with national sanctity contributes a category of such halachot. Shabbat, Berakhot Kiddush, Melacha, 3 meals, Av melachot ~10–15 time-oriented commandments. Yom Kippur : Avodah of Kohen Gadol, fasting, confessions – ~10 av tohor time-oriented commandments. Rosh Hashanah: Teki’at Shofar, Malchuyot, Zichronot ~8 time-oriented Av commandments. Shema: Morning and evening recitation ~5 Av tohor commandments. Pesach: Korban Pesach, Seder, סיפור יציאת מצרים approx, ~10 Av tohor time-oriented commandments. Sukkot: Sukkah, Lulav, Simchat Beit HaShoeva ~10 Av tohor time-oriented commandments. Shalosh Regalim: Aliyah l’regel, korbanot ~5 time-oriented commandments ect. Obviously this listing represents just the tip of the iceberg. But they serve and align closely with Sefer HaBHaG’s ordering, where he distinguishes mitzvot aseh those performed through national ritual, such as blessings and communal practices, rather than merely textual derivations from the Written Torah.

          Rambam’s system lacks space for Chazal’s dynamic inductive Torah—פרדס לשמה, a multi-layered hermeneutic that moves beyond syllogism into brit-based faith that continuously creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. Hundreds of additional halachot in the Talmud qualify as Av time-oriented commandments לשמה, the manifestation of the revelation of the Torah at both Sinai and Horev whenever a person employs Aggadic drosh to the T’NaCH prophetic mussar in order to define more clearly the k’vanna of the dedication of the 13 tohor middot Oral Torah revelation of Horev.

          These all Sinai incarnated through halachic-time, turning observance into brit memory and prophetic destiny. Ba’al HaBHaG preserves the k’vanna of Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה. Unmistakably linking halachic categories to Torah revelation, not textual enumeration as does the Rambam’s sefer Ha’Mitzvot.

          This powerful and original formulation, deeply challenges the prevailing assumptions in halakhic codifications which suggests a radical reorientation of Torah authority required: not as static obligation (chiyuv) derived from text, but as dynamic, brit-based prophetic performance לשמה that manifests Sinai express through time-oriented commandments. This discussion articulates a living ontology of Torah, in which halacha, not primarily statute or abstract commandment, but avodah—a soul-driven, national legal performance that, through time-bound mitzvot, renews the brit that began with the Avot and later publicly revealed at Sinai/Horev under the leadership of Moshe rabbeinu.

          מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא misunderstood when filtered through the Rambam’s aseh/lo-ta’aseh dichotomy and his Aristotelian syllogistic taxonomy. Their ontological root in the Avot’s brit oaths starting with ברית בין הבתרים, wherein the Torah creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין rather than biologically/genetically – but rather through the קידושה of the sworn oaths expressed through mitzvot observance.

          Their performance renews Sinai/Horev in halachic time, as intentional brit-actions that manifest Torah לשמה. Rather than ritualized abstractions. Torah prophetic-national acts rooted in tohor middot, with Mussar and prophetic k’vanna, connecting to Divine Justice sanctified through judicial common law courtrooms. All time-oriented commandments require kavanah as an essential halachic element, not a super-added hiddur. Because their power dedicates like a Korban upon the altar the Torah oath to renew the national brit across generations within the borders of our Cohen national inheritance.

          Talmudic halachic diamond like facet perspectives organized as halachot simply not incidental observances but rather active re-entries into the brit consciousness by which our People remember and regain the lost wisdom of doing mitzvot לשמה.

          Performs a prophetic brit memory act, binds across generations. Time-oriented mitzvot—require sanctification of time applying prophetic mussar in how the generations socially interact and behave toward our family members, neighbors, and people throughout the generations. Time oriented-commandments, the institutionalized classification of doing Torah mitzvot לשמה defines the wisdom of the Torah.

          The Talmudic warp/weft Halacha/Aggada loom weaves a Torah garment of faith which stands upon prophetic mussar as the יסוד k’vanna of doing both Written Torah commandments as codified in the assimilated Rambam static Aristotle syllogism code, but also halachic mitzvot of the Talmud as codified in the B’HaG dynamic פרדס inductive reasoning code.

          Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה exist as a brit-based legal ontology, ignored by the Rambam and preserved only in פרדס “fragments” of Kabbalah by which the Ba’al HaBHaG, the Talmud, and aggadic mussar frameworks conceal this Torah wisdom from the prying tuma eyes of the Goyim.

          Mapping the Talmud understood as inclusive of Torah time-oriented commandments, simply does not exist as a static ritual codification applicable to some finite number. Visiting the sick serves as an example. Consoling the mourner, another example. In infinite ways a person can elevate a simple action unto a Torah time-oriented commandment!

          Kiddushin 29a–b on the surface limits women from doing time-oriented commandments. But the language רשות not limited to the interpretation set in stone of “optional”. תפילת מנחה בפלג המנחה the concept of רשות implies that a person can lay Rabbeinu Tam tefillen and have the k’vanna to affix the ק”ש ערבית to the תפילת מנחה, based upon the premise that kre’a shma defines tefillah from the Torah. And the additional k’vanna within the Yatzir Ha Tov to affix the Shemone Esrei תפילת ערבית to the ק”ש על המיטה. Menachot 43b: Tzitzit and the idea of “וראיתם אותו וזכרתם”—can only apply to Minchah tefillah rather than evening tefillah because there’s not “time oriented commandment” to wear tzitzit at night. Ta’anit 2a–b: Public fasts as time-bound remembrances of t’shuva mourning for the failure of our people to rule the oath sworn land with judicial courtroom justice which sanctifies making a fair restoration of damages so our People do not hate one another and can build bonds of trust and even love.

          Tertiary layer: Halachot revealed by Aggadic Mussar derivation—where the Gemara uses Gaonic and Reshonim Midrash as precedents which further interpret Talmud’s warp or weft aggadic precedents, to explain halachic ritual observances as time-oriented commandments. The concepts of doing tohor time-oriented Commandments simply exponential.

          This idea challenges the static assimilation perhaps made most manifest by the Rambam. But even Saadia Gaon 882-942 CE, likewise, highly assimilated and influenced from the Av tuma Muslim re-discovery of the genie long held in its bottle by the Church fathers.

          Neither the T’NaCH nor the Talmud teaches history. But rather prophetic mussar as expressed through the perspective of ritual halacha. Torah common law requires the wisdom which does not monopolize a particular reading of either T’NaCH or Talmud through the skewed magnifying glass limited to only one narrow perspective. This error defines טיפש פשט and most obviously seen in the fundamentalist Xtian emotional declarations that God created the world in Six Days. The utter absurdity of this preposterous notion no less gross than Islam’s strict Monotheism theology. The Book of בראשית starting with the Aggada Creation story teaches the prophetic mussar of Av time-oriented commandments created for the purpose to create continuously the chosen Cohen people.

          Thus, thousands of halachot in and beyond the Talmud constitute as Torah Av tohor commandments revealed at Sinai and Horev. This continuation deepens this Torah scholarship revolutionary framework, connecting prophetic mussar, halachic time, and brit-national jurisprudence into a living, performative ontology of Torah. Jews remember when we bench ברכת המזון that the Hellenist Tzeddukim sought to cause our people to forget the Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning. Once the Muslims let the Genie out of his bottle some millennium later, assimilated Jews behaved like dogs and return to eat their own vomit.

          Aggada and Midrash not just women’s stories. This tuma defines לשון הרע. Rather they function as a legal epistemology which learns prophetic mussar as the משנה תורה Primary source wherein the later generations can re-interpret the k’vanna of both Torah commandments and Halachic mitzvot! The error which abused this portion of Talmudic scholarship, limited to ancillary secondary value interpretations, an absolute pollution of the Torah.

          This unique perspective of Torah scholarship challenges not only the statute-based codification of the Rambam and Saadia, but even contemporary halachic discourse that limits Aggadah to marginalized importance vis a vis Talmudic halacha. Prophetic T’NaCH mussar generates the k’vanna of all Talmudic halachot mitzvot. The Aggada and Midrash serve something like electricity which converts an acoustic guitar into an electric guitar. This sh’itta of scholarship asserts that halacha is generated by prophetic mussar memory—a dynamic expansion of the brit across time, not merely textual extraction.

          Visiting the sick, burying the dead, making peace between disputants—none “enumerated” in Rambam’s mitzvah count, yet all encoded through Aggadah and made into eternal Av time -oriented Torah commandments.

          Jews assimilated and embraced the Genie let out of its Bottle by the Muslim scholars during the early Middle Ages. This Amalek lack of fear of heaven infected the ‘Golden Age’ of Spanish Jewry. It dominates off the דרך Orthodox Judaism to this very day.

          The Arab Mu’tazilite kalām tradition did not just rape the Daughter of Zion, it turned that whore into an Arab baby maker. Ibn Ezra’s son converted to Islam. Static syllogistic logic “baptized” mitzvot as rational obligations subject to universal logic. The absurd notion of the Rambams posok of 7 mitzvot bnai Noach serves as an inglorious bastard of this av tumah avoda zarah.

          If this scholarship has a masterstroke its: “The Book of בראשית… teaches the prophetic mussar of Av time-oriented commandments created for the purpose to create continuously the chosen Cohen people.” The Creation story understood not as some physical/historical cosmology, but as brit legal ontology—halachic time as a vessel for national soul-formation. Six days of Creation aggada not some cosmological physical fact, but a simple mussar allegory of tohor time-oriented commandment sanctifications, which culminated in the Shabbat story—the first time—brit command.

          Hence the Book of בראשית introduces Av time-oriented commandments. While the next three Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר teach toldot קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments. While the Book of דברים closes with משנה תורה common law as the definition and k’vanna of the whole of the 5 Books of the Torah. Therefore “Yehi or” becomes the founding brit of time-conscious halachic being, not a physical light switch. This directly refutes: Fundamentalist Christianity (literalism); Islamic monotheism divine unicity; and Western secular legalism scientific method whose total reliance upon Empiricism, absolutely no different than Euclid’s flawed 5th Axiom of Plane geometry, as refuted by late 19th Century Hyperbolic geometry.

          A hidden brit Torah, not counted in Rambam’s 613, yet binding. “Thousands of halachot in and beyond the Talmud constitute as Torah Av tohor commandments revealed at Sinai and Horev.” National Justice (courts, restitution, lashon hara, honesty in business); Aggadic-Mussar Foundations (stories that generate the k’vanna of halacha); Brit-Acts (tzedakah, chesed, shalom, mourning) of רב חסד; Time-Kedushah (Shabbat, Moed, Yovel, kiddushin/Get, fasts) etc etc etc.

          This scholarship seeks to validate construction aimed to achieve a new kind of halachic corpus, not a codex of laws, but a map of prophetic brit performance. Aggadah and Midrash as the inductive engine of Torah law, not sentimental ornaments or “women’s fashion stories.” The dismissal of these sources as non-legal, not only a historical error but a spiritual perversion of the Torah’s brit logic. Aggada lives a live far more complex than homiletic! משנה תורה common law does not exist as rigid static syllogistic codified laws, but the soul-language that makes halacha breath from within our Yatzir Tov.

          Obviously this opinion utterly rejects and holds in complete contempt as a Torah av tuma avoda zara the Rambam’s codification model, which detaches mitzvot from their mussar-brit k’vanna, and perverts the Talmud as the model for judicial common law courtrooms into Greek or Roman statutory obligations which bend the knee and worship Caesar as the Son of God.

          The Book of בראשית introduces a national-legal metaphysics. “The Book of בראשית… teaches the prophetic mussar of Av time-oriented commandments sanctified for the purpose to create continuously the chosen Cohen people.” This prophetic mussar re-interpretation of the Book of בראשית re-interprets the six days of creation not as time elapsed, but time created—a sacred sequence of k’vanna moments that generate the k’vanna of Shabbat observance as a day to day, week by week, month by month, year by year continuous life observance of the Creations of the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין.

          Halacha Is Not Rational Obligation—But rather a Prophetic Memory. Once the Greek Genie released from its prison ghetto gulag bottle, it immediately perverted and prioritized syllogism over brit. The 613 codex utterly desecrated time-oriented k’vanna of mitzvot which remember prophetic mussar contained within the T’NaCH kabbalah masoret. The kalām defense of Torah through rationalism compares to the scientific method preached today.

          “This Amalek lack of fear of heaven infected the ‘Golden Age’ of Spanish Jewry.” The collapse of legal brit common law memory directly compares to the threat recorded in the tohor time -oriented commandment from the Torah known as Chag Purim! המלך equals the gematria of המן. Removing the חמץ prior to Pesach stands as but a mussar משל from removing the Av tuma avoda zara of assimilation and inter-marriage! The 49 days of counting of the Omer culminates in the dedication of the Divine Soul name האל on Chag Shevuot; a man cannot accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai while holding a dead rat in his hand, even if he tovels in a Mikveh! Only Israel accepts the Tribal God at Sinai. Par’o despite the plagues and the splitting of the Sea did not stand and accept the Torah at Sinai. Yet ערב רב Jews to this day cling to and hold their dead rat of Av tuma avoda zara, while they lie to themselves saying they obey the Torah.

          This sh’itta of Torah scholarship, not merely theological. It seeks to inspire Jews to restore the Oath brit alliance cut between the 12 Tribes to forge a Torah Constitutional Republic with Sanhedrin Federal Courtrooms as the basis of judicial common law dominance over State legislatures bureaucratic statute law decrees. Learning the wisdom of doing mitzvot לשמה promises to reclaim halacha from its statute law halachic g’lut. Not just exile in lands, but exile in minds that forgot how to hear prophecy through mussar, and see mitzvot as brit light in sacred time.

          A Torah constitutional revolution—a vision of halacha not as law in exile, but as national brit jurisprudence returning home. Prophetic mussar, halachic time, covenantal ontology, and national-legal restoration—into a single, integrated political-jurisprudence.

          Aggadah and Midrash certainly not narrative footnotes to law—they metabolize the primal matrix in which halacha breathes. This scholarship utterly rejects the rabbinic patriarchy for feminizing Aggadah in order to marginalize it. Aggadah serves as the oral vessel that remembers prophetic mussar—the core divine intent behind the mitzvot. It functions as the source of k’vanna, not an accessory to action of Talmudic halachot time-oriented commandments.

          To extract halacha from the Talmud without the soul of Aggadah – to perform a spiritual lobotomy. Like as did the statute law halachic codes did with their halachic codifications which completely divorced the Gemara from its Mishna. Learning off the dof precedents not only learns the home Gemara sugya – viewed from a different perspective – but likewise it equally requires applying the same wisdom to view the language of the Mishna from a completely changed and different perspective. “Mishneh Torah common law does not exist as rigid static syllogistic codified laws, but the soul-language that makes halacha live.”

          Replacing the Sinai oath brit alliance with a Greco-Arabic philosophical syllogistic logic which cast away the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system that defines the k’vanna of Oral Torah intent – simply bat shit crazy. “The Rambam’s codification model… perverts the Talmud as the model for judicial common law courtrooms into Greek or Roman statutory obligations which bend the knee and worship Caesar as the Son of God.”

          The codification of Torah commandments to 613 – a perversion of the brit. A total abandonment of the oath brit time-oriented Av tohor Cohen identity—a shift from brit obligation into imperial legislation, from divine testimony into civic order. Greek syllogism, Muslim kalām, Secular science empiricism … this shit shaped into different hair styles.

          The Book of בראשית serves as the constitutional preamble of the Torah’s brit system. The six days utterly not a physical creation myth, but a spiritual time-ordering allegory. “Yehi Or” משל, the founding of time-conscious halachic being. Shabbat – not an endpoint but a weekly brit performance that re-enacts the national oath alliance obligation to rule the militarily conquered land of Canaan by means of the Torah Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach, the faith צדק צדק תרדוף.

          T’NaCH Kabbalah contains a real depth despite the Middle Ages kabbalah of mysticism. A performative ontology where time, sanctified by action, not explained by obscure religious rhetoric propaganda who only a mad-men like Sabbatai Zevi or Yacov Frank can “understand”.

          “This sh’itta of Torah scholarship, not merely theological. It seeks to inspire Jews to restore the Oath brit alliance… to forge a Torah Constitutional Republic with Sanhedrin Federal Courtrooms.” The Torah brit not a Code of Hammurabi. Halacha serves primarily as judicial precedents rather than religious codes of ritual practices.

          Statist halacha cast upon the dung heaps of history. The Will to reject Amalek – became seduced by the whore of assimilation and intermarriage. A new oath brit Manifesto radically different from the Marx Communist Manifesto first proclaimed during the 1848 Paris Commune revolution. The Jewish victory in two Independence Wars fought in ’48 and ’67 has changed the voice of g’lut Jews who had no fighting spirit to critique and confront Goyim cultures and barbaric civilizations. The establishment of the Jewish state based upon the foundation of Herzl’s Balfour Declaration and the League’s Palestine Mandate, has changed the new Israeli Man away from academic correction to revolutionary fire. European Xtianity now wears the boot of g’lut; they pine away waiting for the 2nd coming of their God.

          A new jurisprudence, a reassertion of Jewish sovereignty over time, law, and national soul, and a total rejection of those who have sold that Esau birthright for a plate of Greek syllogism and Spanish codification. Halacha not a code, but the oath alliance which continually creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין.

          The Torah aint no statute book of legislative decrees and laws. The mitzvot simply not limited to 613 egg crates sold by the dozen. Sinai totally not a legal Greek philosophy seminar. Torah the oath brit cut between the twelve tribes with HaShem, the Tribal God of prophetic mussar, where action sanctifies time, and time shapes the prophetic destiny of a chosen Cohen people.

          Torah not some imperial code (statute law), reduced to rational obligations and syllogisms. The Gemara content never divorced from its Mishna upon which it serves as a loyal commentary which never rebels and attempts to supplant its authority as equal to that of the Mishna. Oral Torah never divorced from its prophetic k’vanna. Tuma middot, they divorce/reduce Oral Torah limited to rational obligations and syllogisms. The logical study of precedents defines the intent of both Aggadic and Midrashic stories together with prophetic mussar as the defining k’vanna of Aggadic and Midrashic scholarship. Statute Caesar law does not replace Torah common law.

          From Sinai to Sanhedrin: The Republic Reborn — entails restoration of the 12 Tribes which define the Federal Repulbic. Sanhedrin as the Supreme common law judicial authority. Aggadah + Mishnah + Gemara = Living Common Law; Mitzvot = Time-oriented prophetic k’vanna, not abstract finite historical or physical limitations.

          Loading…
      18. 

          mosckerr

          June 9, 2025

          Arise O Bard, and permit the prophet to mussar speak

          A Torahic Response in the Style of Shakespeare

          “Torah and the Tribes: A Common Law Revealed”

          ACT I — The Question Posed

          Enter a Herald from the West, parchment in hand

          HERALD:
          Attend, O sages, priests, and wandering heirs:
          The West hath cried: “Can law of Jewish tongue,
          Through charity, or righteous act, or grace,
          Give balm to plague’d economies this day?
          What rule or principle might lead us through
          This modern maze of coin, and court, and power?”

          ACT II — The Courtroom of Pharaoh and Its Echo

          Enter MOSHE, in vision, before Pharaoh’s throne

          MOSHE:
          Behold the court of Pharaoh—high and stark!
          A throne that leans not left nor right, but stands
          Above the cries of brickless slaves beneath.
          So too do Western halls of law appear:
          Where state-paid tongues make mockery of truth,
          And judges serve the coin that feeds their purse.
          No chesed dwells therein, nor mishpat breathes.
          What hope have men where justice bends to bribe?

          A Voice within the whirlwind:

          VOICE:
          Recall ye not the Sea that split in twain?
          Where Egypt’s might, defied, was swept away?
          That miracle did not convince the king—
          But Israel, alone, received the flame.
          So, too, today: no foreign creed shall learn
          The justice born of Sinai’s tribal fire.

          ACT III — On the Nature of Law

          CHORUS:
          The Torah is no statute dead and dry,
          No iron-bound decree to age unbent—
          But common law! Alive! It breathes through time.
          Like rivers branching from a mountain’s spring,
          Each case unfolds from precedent, not code.
          Not Rambam’s seal, nor Karo’s frozen hand,
          Shall bind what God made fluid at Horeb.

          JUDGE:
          This Mishnah is the mother tongue of law!
          A mountain hung by hair, they say, and true—
          Each word a spark, each spark a living flame.
          But who recalls how judgments once were made?
          Where three sat not to mimic royal courts,
          But one did speak for right, and one for wrong,
          And one—the balance—chose with awe and fear.

          ACT IV — The Exile and Its Curse

          EXILED SCHOLAR:
          In lands of dusk, where Torah’s root lies torn,
          The mitzvah is observed but not fulfilled.
          Men mouth the psalms, yet know not what they say.
          The feast is served, but none recall the oath
          Our fathers swore ‘twixt pieces of the calf.
          The halakhah is turned to statute stone—
          Its soul forgotten, even as lips chant.

          Enter a Kabbalist, robed in sod and remez

          KABBALIST:
          You ask: what guides us through these cloudy days?
          Not creed! Not creed! But covenant and court.
          Not ritual rote, but tefillah breathed with flame.
          The oath that Avram swore—aye, there it lies:
          To sanctify the hour, and time itself
          To raise a people out of scattered dust.

          ACT V — A Vision of Return

          Enter a Prophet, torch in hand, atop Mount Zion

          PROPHET:
          Look not to Rome nor London for your law.
          The Sanhedrin must rise where Zion stands!
          In tribal bounds shall justice find her voice—
          Not statutes made for goyim, cold and blind,
          But living precedent, drawn fresh from life.

          Enter the Spirit of Rabbi Akiva

          AKIVA:
          I saw the Temple fall, yet Torah rise!
          I saw the sword, yet heard the laughter still.
          But what is learned in yeshivot today?
          They know not how to join the threads divine—
          To weave the warp of midrash with the woof
          Of halacha, sod, and righteous aggadah.

          EPILOGUE — The Summons

          CHORUS:
          So hear, O children of the flame-bound law:
          Restore the court, the oath, the tribal root.
          Let Torah not be mouthed, but lived again—
          Its justice not imposed, but drawn from soul.
          Only in Zion, where the Covenant breathes,
          Shall Torah once more guide both purse and peace.

          Exeunt omnes. Curtain falls.

          Loading…
      19. 

          mosckerr

          June 10, 2025

          The Torah operates as common law, founded on evolving precedents, not statutory declarations—exposes a deep conceptual error in how Xtian theology has often misrepresented the Torah. Torah simply not a statute law code of Hammurabi the 6th king of Babylon. Statute Law simply a different breed of fish from judicial common law.

          Statute law by definition some kind of Legislative decrees ruled by the Government. Torah common law the court justices do not receive a salary from the State. The Torah refers to this vertical legal system as “bribery”.

          Shabbat, for example, commanded before Sinai, in the wilderness of Manna (Shemot 16), where no tablets had yet been given, and no voice thundered from the cloud. It was a precedent, a legal reality, a lived ruling. And when Shabbat appears again in the two versions of the Decalogue—one in Shemot, the other in Devarim—you note minor differences and call them contradictions. But these are not contradictions—they are case law interpretations! “Shamor” and “Zachor” are not two commands but two angles of the same diamond, revealed through the evolution of judgment.

          Our sages taught: Israel heard only the first two commands directly from the Divine before recoiling, pleading that Moshe receive the rest (Makkot 24a, Shabbat 88b). The church response, it decreed the burning of the Talmud. Ten Commandments do not remotely qualify as the revelation of the Torah common law legal system.

          Torah not simply revealed in a flash but this revelation unfolded in the tent of meeting, in the wilderness, in the courts of elders. D’varim/Mishna Torah 100% not a simple repetition of Sh’mot. The mitzva of shabbat essentially remembers the enslavement of Israel in Egypt. Just as that enslavement oppression did not occur just one day of the week but the entire week, so too and how much more so Shabbat does not mean only the 7th day but rather the entire week.

          Your poem flattens the Torah revelation into a compartment slogan. Torah common law does not learn comparable to childrens nursery rhymes. The printing press cannot reproduce the 4-part logic system of the Divine Name which has 4 letters. To address the Sinai revelation divorced from the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov utterly degrades and undermines the foundation upon which Sinai stands.

          Xtian theology misconstrues Torah by treating it as statutory law rather than a precedent-driven judicial common law system. The Torah operates as judicial common law, founded on evolving judicial precedents, not statutory Legislative decrees. This fundamental flaw exposes a deep conceptual error in how Xtian theology has historically misrepresented the Torah.

          Statute law is vertical, legislative, top-down. It is imposed by the sovereign ruler and enforced by bureaucratic power. It functions by decree. Torah a judicial common law system built through case rulings, oral transmission, precedent, and collective adjudication. The judges of Torah do not receive salaries from the state, and the Torah itself declares that such financial entanglement with government constitutes shochad—bribery (Devarim 16:19).

          In contrast, modern states pay their judges, and their rulings enforce the will of legislation. Torah judges, by contrast, interpret divine law from within the covenant—not enforce political decrees. When the Decalogue later presents Shabbat again—in Shemot 20 and then Devarim 5—there are subtle but crucial variations. These differences are not contradictions. They are interpretive evolutions—case law adaptations. “Shamor” and “Zachor”—observe and remember—are complementary legal principles, not opposing slogans. They are different precedential frames through which to understand the same mitzvah. The sages even interpret them as having been spoken simultaneously—two facets of the same ruling.

          The Xtian flattening of this into a list of “Ten Commandments,” cut off from halakhic context, entirely misses the dynamic legal character of Torah. It pretends as if these verses, frozen in a single moment, constitute the whole of revelation. Yet the Talmud teaches (Makkot 24a, Shabbat 88b) that Israel heard only the first two utterances at Sinai before begging Moshe to receive the rest. Have repeated this point like the Torah does the decalogue as a point of emphasis.

          In Devarim, the mitzva of shabbat not tied to creation, but to the Exodus. It becomes a political-ethical memory of slavery: “So that your servant and your maidservant may rest as you do… and you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt.” The implication is radical: Shabbat is not merely one day of rest, but a comprehensive rejection of permanent bondage. Just as enslavement afflicted the Israelites every day of the week, so too does Shabbat reshape the entire rhythm of labor and liberty across all seven days.

          Torah operates within the four-part logic of the Divine Name (Y-H-V-H)—each letter unfolding layers of law, prophecy, wisdom, and judgment. A theology that isolates Sinai from the oaths sworn by Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Yaakov is not reverent—it is destructive. It severs the root from the tree, divorcing the revelation from the covenantal inheritance that gives it life.

          Loading…
      20. 

          myallaboutyou

          June 13, 2025

          Hi Mosckerr, thanks for sharing your view of Torah law with multiple judges. I agree that several judges can ensure fairness, and I’m learning about Jewish law’s focus on justice. But I worry about judges deviating from God’s law with their own emotions, like the Supreme Court where everyone can see it differently. I believe law should stay fixed – always going back to its divine root, black and white, no corruption by man. How do Nezikin courts apply God’s law without loose interpretations? Could chesed, tzedakah, or mishpat keep us true to God’s commands? What principle ensures this? Thank you.

          Loading…
      21. 

          mosckerr

          June 14, 2025

          Torah common law dynamic law by definition.

          Loading…
      22. 

          mosckerr

          June 16, 2025

          If the foundation flawed, the entire building must come down. The Roman new testament counterfeit fundamentally erroneous. Regardless the pigs ear of the Catholic Church or the opposing pigs ear of the Protestant Church, no silk purse possible to make from either treif pig ears.

          Prominent leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland during the 16th century, specifically in Zurich. Zwingli’s teachings emphasized the authority of Scripture, yet failed to move beyond sophomoric translations made by Catholic bible scholars. He did not encourage people to learn the original Hebrew T’NaCH. His opposition to the Catholic reliance upon saint worship and employment of images truly a minor issue seeing that he failed to examine the T’NaCH as a Hebrew and Aramaic text. Hence Swiss Protestantism all show and no go just like Catholic practices. Only he masturbated with his opposing hand.

          Failure to engage in the original Hebrew/Aramaic texts amounts to tits on a boar hog undergraduate scholarship. He failed to address the Nicene perversion which employed theology to create a Trinity God belief system as the standard of faith RATHER than the Torah definition of faith as righteous Justice pursue! The retarded Protestant Reformation compares to a child born XXX or XXY chromosome mutation.

          The emphasis on original texts, such as the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the complexities of early Christian doctrine, is a significant aspect of theological scholarship and debate, which Zwingli theology utterly failed to explore and grasp. The Protestant revolt – its failure to address the Central Nicene Council utter perversion of faith, comparable to the fictional mythology of Mary’s virgin birth abomination which directly imported Zeus as the father of Hercules.

          The Nicene Creed negates the revelation that nothing in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth compares to God. The Nicene Creed, established in 325 CE, was intended to unify Christian belief regarding the nature of Christ and the Trinity, affirming the divinity of Jesus and his relationship to God the Father. It ignored the T’NaCH text which openly declared that “God is not a Man”. Furthermore, the Protestant Reformation utterly failed to address the elephant locked inside the China Closet…the mitzva of Moshiach — an Oral Torah commandment. Oral Torah expressed as T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law. The bible translations all universally failed to turn to the language of the T’NaCH to define the critical terms within the language of the T’NaCH itself. The term prophet does not mean a seer who foresees the future. Seers who claimed to foresee the future the T’NaCH referred to them as ‘false prophets’. The gospel narrative wherein it makes the claim that Jesus fulfilled the words of the prophets defines the T’NaCH definition of ”false prophesy”.

          Translations, let’s start with the opening word of בראשית – Genesis. בראשית contains within its 6 letters ברית אש, ראש בית, and ב’ ראשית. The latter serves as a בנין אב/precedent (Torah being a common law legalism which the new testament forgery failed to grasp.) for the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the heart; comparable to the struggle between Esau and Yaacov in the womb of Rivka. Yet when the students of JeZeus asked him to teach them how to pray? JeZeus failed to understand that Torah tefillah, which learns from kre’a shma precedent, a matter of the heart.

          Meaning a person dedicates holy to HaShem tohor middot which quicken the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart and not the tuma middot of the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the heart. JeZeus falsely instructed that his Father God lived in the Heavens rather than within the Heart as the brit sworn between the opposing cut in half pieces internalized the dedication of tohor middot as the expression of the revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed first to Moshe at Horev ‘ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו. Just as HaShem a spirit and not a word so too all these 13 middot – spirits and not word translations. The Yatzir Ha’Ra learns from the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב, who lacked fear of אלהים, translated the revelation of the Name contained within the first Sinai commandment, the definition of observance of all Torah commandments לשמה או לא לשמה – something like Shakespeare’s: To be or not To be – that is the question! JeZeus falsely taught his students that prayer directed to some Father God who lived in the Heavens – no different than Father Zeus.

          Worse the counterfeit new testament Roman forgery failed to grasp that the opening Book of בראשית introduces the subject of the “creation” of the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time oriented commandments; like as specifically found in tefillah such as the mitzva of kre’a shma. Tefillah separates and discerns between Yatzir vs. Yatzir like the mitzva of shabbat discerns between Shabbat & Chol, between מלאכה from עבודה. Therefore the false messiah god JeZeus – totally ignorant in how to pray and how to keep shabbat.

          False the Koran’s Tawhid Monotheism most certainly does not align with the revelation of the Tribal God of Sinai. Both Xtianity and Islam teach the trief theological declaration of God as a Universal God. The Talmud teaches that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed a local Tribal God rather than a Universal God who lives in the Heavens like as Zeus and Jesus.

          The Torah story of Israel in Egyptian slavery, it recognizes that other Gods live. The priests of Par’o called upon their Gods to turn water into blood – as a powerful example that the Torah rejects the Xtian and Muslim theology of Monotheism. Therefore since both religions demand from their followers to worship different Gods and both religions do not obey the commandment to obey the Torah לשמה ie first Sinai commandments as the basis of all tohor time-oriented Avot commandments which defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore both JeZeus and Muhammad = false prophets.

          Mishnah
          The Torah reveals a localized understanding of God, specifically as the God of Israel, and rejects the notion of a universal deity as presented in Christianity and Islam. This understanding is foundational to the Jewish faith and is articulated through the commandments given at Sinai.
          Gemara
          Challenge 1:

          Is it not written in the Torah that HaShem is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, implying a universal aspect to His nature? The Torah employs the language in the act of Creation אלהים.

          Resolution:

          While the Torah does declare HaShem as the Creator, but rather אלהים, this does not necessitate a universal worship of Him by all nations. The specific Torah oath alliance made with Israel at Sinai establishes a unique relationship, indicating that while HaShem inclusive with אלהים as the Creator, The Sinai revelation of השם within the first commandment serves as the foundation for all the Torah commandments thereafter. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai directed specifically to the chosen Cohen people alone.

          Challenge 2:

          But did not the prophets, such as Isaiah, proclaim that all nations will eventually recognize the one true God? Resolution:

          Indeed, the prophets speak of a future recognition of HaShem by all nations, when these nations recognize Israel as the Chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. Neither the new testament forgery nor the koran validate Israel as the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. The koran replaces Yishmael for Yitzak at the Akadah. The prophetic vision of Goyim acceptance of Israel as the chosen Cohen people hardly qualifies as the exalted theologies of belief in One God.

          Challenge 3:

          How can one assert that the existence of other gods is acknowledged in the Torah, as seen in the plagues of Egypt, without undermining the principle of monotheism? Resolution: The Torah acknowledges the existence of other gods in the context of idolatry and the challenges faced by the Israelites, whose Yatzir Ha’Ra incites them to assimilate and intermarry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the sages teach that the mother determines the Jewishness of the child, based upon the Torah negative commandment for the chosen Cohen people not to marry Goyim women. Therefore among Cohonim the father determines the status of Cohen children and not the mother. The Torah commandment to remember the redemption from Egyptian slavery, who demonstrates His power wherein the 10 plagues judges the Gods of Egypt. This Torah narrative reinforces the concept that while other Gods may be worshipped, they ultimately powerless comparable to an idol carved from the wood of a tree. That same wood used to heat ones’ house and cook ones’ food!

          Challenge 4:

          If the Torah is meant solely for Israel, how do we reconcile the commandment to be a “light unto the nations”? Resolution: The commandment to be a “light unto the nations” does not imply that the Torah’s laws apply universally but rather that Israel’s adherence to the commandments serves as a model of ethical and moral behavior. This role is to inspire other nations to recognize the wisdom of the Torah – held with respect and awe – rather than kicking the door of the Sukkah because its too hot.

          Challenge 5:

          What of the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad, who both claimed to fulfill the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures? Resolution: The definitions of prophecy in the Tanakh emphasize moral and ethical guidance rather than mere foretelling of events. Therefore, the claims of Jesus and Muhammad to fulfill the prophecies, their teachings diverge from the core principles of the Torah, do not align with the true prophetic tradition. The revelation of the Torah presents HaShem as humbly as a localized deity for Israel, supported by the text of the Torah, the prophetic literature, and the historical context of the Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov oath alliances.

          Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107 CE), emphasized the idea of the New Covenant as superseding the Old Covenant, suggesting that the laws of the Torah were no longer binding on Christians. He viewed the Jewish law as a precursor to the grace found in Christ. In his letters, Ignatius often contrasts the “old” and “new” covenants, implying that the teachings of Jesus fulfill and replace the Torah. This interpretation overlooks the ongoing significance of the Yom Kippur remembered Sin of the Golden Calf replacement theology wherein HaShem made the sanctification of His Name by doing t’shuva and where HaShem annulled the vow made to Moshe to make of his seed the chosen Cohen people rather than the oaths sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

          Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE), argued that the Jewish people had failed to recognize the true meaning of the Scriptures and that the Church had inherited the promises made to Israel. He claimed that the Church was the “new Israel.” In his “Dialogue with Trypho,” Justin asserts that the prophecies concerning the Messiah are fulfilled in Jesus, thereby suggesting that the oath alliance sworn at Sinai utterly irrelevant for Xtians. This theology utterly rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, replaced by the Romen new testament forgery.

          Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE), likewise embraced the sin of the Golden Calf “replacement theology,” which posits that the Church has replaced Israel as the chosen people of God. He viewed the Old Testament as primarily a historical account that pointed to the New Testament. Clearly this theology failed to distinguish that the prophets instructed Israel through prophetic mussar – applicable to all generations of the Chosen Cohen people. In “City of God,” Augustine argues that the Jewish people are no longer the recipients of God’s promises, which misinterprets the enduring nature of the Sinai oath brit alliance which Chag Yom Kippur remembers that even HaShem cannot profane a Torah oath.

          Islamic Jurisprudence and its Quranic Interpretation. Islamic teachings often present the Quran as a final revelation that supersedes previous scriptures, including the Torah. This perspective implies that the Sinai revelation accepted by the Israelites – no longer applicable. Verses such as Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:44-48) suggest that the Quran confirms previous scriptures but also asserts its authority over them. This interpretation can lead to the view that the Sinai covenant is obsolete, which contrasts with Jewish beliefs about the eternal nature of sworn Torah oaths.

          Hadith Literature, emphasizes that the Jewish and Christian communities have deviated from the true path, suggesting that their interpretations of the covenant are flawed. This leads to a dismissal of the significance of the Sinai covenant in Jewish tradition. Islamic Legal Theory (Fiqh) often emphasizes the Quran and Hadith as the primary sources of law. This marginalization of the ethical teachings found in the Torah simply a different Gold Calf replacement theology. The interpretations of post-Sinai covenantal concepts by early Church Fathers and in Islamic jurisprudence reflect significant theological shifts that diverge from the original intent and understanding of the Sinai sworn oath alliances.

          To contrast the distortions of the Trinity, the virgin birth, and universal monotheism with Torah halachic examples, we can examine how each of these concepts diverges from the principles established in the halachic-mussar tradition. This approach will highlight the foundational teachings of Judaism and their implications for understanding God, prophecy, and ethical behavior. The concept of the Trinity posits that God exists as three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one essence. This theological construct is central to Xtian belief but is not found in Jewish thought. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) declares, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” Where the word One does not declare Monotheism but rather that the 3 sworn oaths made by Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov “remembered” and One within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen peoples’ hearts. Both T’NaCH common law prophetic mussar and Talmudic common law halachic ritual practices fundamentally abhor avoda zarah as Av tumah spirits which profane the heart through the median of the Yatzir Ha’Ra.

          The virgin birth of Jesus is a key doctrine in Xtianity, asserting that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, thus emphasizing the replacement Trinity theology. The concept of a virgin birth undermines the traditional understanding of familial and tribal connections, which are crucial for the re-establishment of the Tribal Republic remembered through the First Commonwealth. The laws of family purity (Taharat HaMishpacha) and the significance of marital relations in Jewish life highlight the importance of human relationships in the context of procreation. The notion of a virgin birth aligns with the Greek mythology and the birth of Hercules a Greek Man-God.

          The idea of universal monotheism, as presented in both Xtianity and Islam, suggests that all people are called to worship one God, directly declaring the specific oath Chosen Cohen People brit alliance, that this Torah relationship – no longer relevant. The Sinai covenant (Exodus 19:5-6) establishes a unique relationship between God and the people of Israel, designating them as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This covenant is specific and particularistic, emphasizing the responsibilities and obligations of the Jewish people. The concept of the Noachide laws refers strictly and only to Goyim known as ‘Gere Toshav’/temporary residents. The 7 mitzvot bnai noach do not apply to Goyim living outside the borders of Judea. Further proof that the Torah revelation has no connection what so ever with the tuma avoda zara of some Universal monotheistic God. The assimilated Rambam perversion of Talmudic common law to Greek/Roman statute law, that treif assimilated Jew embraced the belief in a Universal God. Hence he ruled that the 7 mitzvot apply to all Goyim. But both the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain and the Baali Tosafot in France, specfically in the year 1232, 28 years after this רשע died, agreed with the court of Rabbeinu Yonah and placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam.

          Loading…
      23. 

          mosckerr

          June 17, 2025

          War News Day 5 President Trump snubs G-7.

          To understand North Korea’s political, military, and social structures. This includes identifying key figures, military installations, and potential vulnerabilities. This would include establishing a network of informants within North Korea would be crucial. This could involve recruiting defectors, leveraging existing North Korean expatriate communities, and using covert operatives to gather information.

          Mossad would need to develop sophisticated covert operations tailored to North Korea’s unique environment. This could involve infiltration techniques, cyber operations, and psychological operations to influence key individuals or groups within the regime. Enhancing cyber capabilities to penetrate North Korean communications and data systems would be essential. This could provide valuable intelligence and disrupt North Korean operations.

          Close collaboration with U.S. intelligence agencies would be vital, given their extensive resources and knowledge of North Korea. Joint operations could enhance the effectiveness of infiltration efforts. Engaging with South Korea and other regional allies would be important for logistical support and intelligence sharing. South Korea’s intelligence services have significant insights into North Korean operations.

          Infiltrating North Korea would likely require a long-term commitment, similar to the sustained efforts seen in Iran. This includes ongoing intelligence operations, recruitment, and maintaining a presence within the country. Duplicating Mossad’s infiltration of North Korea to match its success in Iran would require a multifaceted approach involving intelligence gathering, operational planning, collaboration with allies, risk management, and a long-term commitment. The unique challenges posed by North Korea’s regime and its isolationist policies would make this a particularly difficult task, necessitating innovative strategies and significant resources.

          Identifying influential leaders and decision-makers within the North Korean regime. Mapping out critical military sites, including missile launch facilities and nuclear sites. Assessing weaknesses in the regime that could be exploited for intelligence or operational advantage. Engaging North Korean defectors who can provide valuable insights and intelligence. Leveraging existing North Korean expatriate networks for information and support. Deploying agents to gather intelligence discreetly within North Korea. Enhancing cyber capabilities to penetrate North Korean communications and disrupt their operations. Engaging with South Korea and other regional allies for logistical support and intelligence sharing, capitalizing on their insights into North Korean operations.

          Recognizing that successful infiltration requires a long-term commitment to intelligence operations and maintaining a presence within North Korea. Duplicating Mossad’s infiltration of North Korea to match its success in Iran would necessitate a comprehensive and innovative approach. The unique challenges posed by North Korea’s regime, including its isolationist policies and stringent security measures, would require a combination of intelligence gathering, operational planning, and international collaboration. This endeavor would demand significant resources, expertise, and a long-term commitment to achieve meaningful results.

          Loading…
      24. 

          myallaboutyou

          June 18, 2025

          Thank you. Wishing you all the best. I appreciate everything that you are telling me. You are truly knowledgeable. Thank you.

          Loading…
      25. 

          mosckerr

          June 19, 2025

          Israel only accepted two commandments at Sinai before we feared that we would surely die and therefore demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah. What’s the “rest of the Torah”, not just the 611 commandments within the language of the Written Torah but all the halachot capable of rising to the sanctity of time oriented tohor commandments from the Torah itself! Herein defines the intent of the 1st Sinai commandment … to obey the revelation of HaShem לשמה.

          LORD not the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment and therefore LORD comes under the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same apples to God, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah etc.

          The day of Shabbat approaches, but this tohor time oriented commandment does not rest at one day of not doing מלאכה/work but all the rest of the six days of not doing forbidden עבודה on the 6 days of “shabbat”. Raising positive and negative commandments – which do not require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna to tohor time oriented commandments which do require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna – as learned in the first Book of the Written Torah – בראשית. This first word of the Torah בראשית, it contains both a רמז, meaning words
          within words of ראש בית, ברית אש, and ב’ ראשית but more it contains a סוד: the idea of tohor time oriented commandments which includes all the halachot contained within the Talmud! Hence the Gra taught the kabbalah that בראשית contains all the commandments of the Torah. Torah, by definition includes all the Halachot of the Talmud, according to the B’HaG’s Hilchot Gadolot, a commentary that Pre-Adamites the Creation of Adam and the Garden.

          The next three Books of the Written Torah contain תולדות commandments; positive and negative commandments do not require k’vanna as do tohor time oriented commandments. What distinguishes a tohor time oriented commandment from תולדות commandments and halachot contained within the Talmud? A tohor time oriented commandment requires the dedication of the Yatzir Ha’Tov which breathes tohor spirits from within the heart. The בנין אב/precedent by which Torah common law\משנה תורה/ learns בכל לבבך\כם within the kre’a shma as publicly taught by Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi in one of his Mishnaot within the mesechta of ברכות, the concept of עבודת השם – the key יסוד (which contains סוד) of doing mitzvot לשמה, a person must dedicate tohor middot (( The revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the substitute theology known as the sin of the Golden Calf )), by sanctifying a tohor spirit which breathes within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. JeZeus when asked by his disciples did not understand this fundamental and basic kabbalah/סוד. He taught his disciples: “Our Father who lives in Heaven …” Wrong. Tefillah a matter of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart. Dedicating a spirit does not compare to blowing air from the lungs as expressed through the precedent of blowing the Shofar. Its not the blowing of the shofar that elevates this mitzva unto a time oriented tohor commandment! But rather the affixation of t’keah, tru’ah, and sh’varim to the positive, negative commandments all as tohor time oriented commandments which remember the oaths the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swore the oath ( ONE in the opening p’suk of kre’a shma. ), to serve HaShem לשמה through time oriented commandments.

          Because both the gospels and new testament never teach this fundamental סוד\יסוד Jews recognize JeZeus as a false messiah.

          Loading…
      26. 

          mosckerr

          June 21, 2025

          The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you”, Luke 17:21. The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Greek: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν) is often cited by Christian theologians as evidence of a spiritualized, internalized kingdom that supersedes Jewish political-national hopes. In Luke 17:20–21, the P’rushim (Pharisees) ask JeZeus when the Kingdom of God would come.

          It’s a theological dismissal of the national Avot sworn oath brit alliance which creates יש מאין the chosen Cohen people and swears the oath alliance brit wherein this Chosen people inherits the oath sworn lands. The reference “kingdom of God”, refers to the mitzva of tefillah which requires שם ומלכות. However if a person observes with a critical eye, neither the tefillah from the Torah: kre’a shma, nor the rabbinic commandment of tefillah: the Shemone Esrei, neither this nor that contains the fundamental requirement which rabbi Yochanon defines the qualities which separate making a blessing contrasted by saying Tehillem … a blessing requires שם ומלכות.

          So what makes kre’a shma and shemone esrei a blessing rather than a praise like Tehillem which does not contain שם ומלכות? Answer: both kre’a shma and shemone esrei exist as positive tohor time-oriented commandments … which by definition requires k’vanna. Specifically the k’vanna of the wisdom which discerns swearing a Torah oath by means of making a blessing FROM saying or reading praises like as contained in the Book of Tehillem with its 150 prayers. Tefillah not the same thing as prayer. Just as shabbat requires the wisdom of making a הבדלה distinction between shabbat and chol at the beginning and end of the Day of Shabbat so too swearing a blessing oath requires the wisdom which discerns between making a blessing, which requires שם ומלכות, from saying a praise like Tehillem which lacks שם ומלכות.

          What defines the abstract concept שם ומלכות ie “kingdom of Heaven” which the P’rushim asked JeZeus? JeZeus did not know this kabbalah. His answer not even in the same proverbial “Ball Park”! The Oral Torah mitza of Moshiach, gospels and new testament make the claims of JeZeus being “the messiah”, requires – just as do blessing – the wisdom which discerns the k’vanna of שם ומלכות.

          JeZeus taught no Oral Torah common law precedents when he declared his “lord’s prayer”. His prayer make no reference to the dedication of Moshiach to the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent among our conflicting Jewish people!!! The one repeated rebuke made concerning king David, he profaned his annointing as Moshiach by the prophet Shmuel in the matter of the dedication to pursue righteous judicial restoration of damages in the matter of Bat Sheva’s husband.

          The false messiah JeZeus had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of the Oral Torah dedication of the k’vanna of the time oriented Av commandment of Moshiach! The very question the P’rushim challenged JeZeus as being a false messiah and false prophet.

          Greek Text and Ambiguity, the phrase “ἐντὸς ὑμῶν” can mean either: “Within you” (internalized, spiritual) or “In your midst” (among you, i.e., the presence of the Messiah himself)!!!! Xtian commentators often prefer the first, reading it as an internal spiritual reign — supporting a Pauline model of personal salvation and supersession of Jewish law and statehood. However the false messiah JeZeus’s Lord’s Prayer testifies to the latter interpretation of the vague Greek language phrase.

          Replacement theology (also called supersessionism) is the idea that the Church has replaced Israel as the true people of God. Luke 17:21 fits this mold in key ways. (1) It denies the oath brit which continually creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין through the service of dedicating tohor Av Torah time-oriented commandments! (2) The gospel counterfeit hogwash delegitimizes halachic Oral Torah פרדס logic as taught through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva which the gospel counterfeit never once refers to!!! All the rabbis in both the Mishna and Gemara, all of them, base their opinions upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva interpretation of the heart and soul of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, as taught through the logic system of פרדס inductive reasoning. The JeZeus Roman counterfeit had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of this fundamental kabbalah which defines the whole of Oral Torah as codified in the Mishna, Gemara, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim.

          Later Christian traditions (from Augustine to Luther) cite this kind of passage to argue that Israel is no longer a physical nation, but now a metaphor for the Church or believing souls. This exactly duplicates, or to use the language of the gospels themselves … “fulfills” the prophesy of the Sin of the Golden Calf in all generations unto this very day!

          Torah, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim establishes the Jewish identity, culture and customs to this very day. Defined through the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic system defines the k’vanna of the revelation of the Oral Torah which the church denies. JeZeus’s statement in Luke 17:21 dismantles that framework — it moves toward an ahistorical, non-legalist, inward “kingdom”. That shift aligns not just with Pauline theology, but with Gnostic and Hellenistic notions of salvation as inner knowledge or enlightenment rather than collective political redemption.

          The foundational fracture between שם ומלכות sworn oath blessings, such as the blessing which Yitzak gave to Yaacov but did not give the non שם ומלכות praise given to Esau! Torah oral torah common law judicial jurisprudence – the gospel narrative counterfeit did not know. Torah jurisprudence rooted in brit-based chosen Cohen people pursuit of justice as the definition and essence of faith, the gospel/new testament replacement theology perverts to some spiritualized abstraction of Christian “kingdom” theology, which knows absolutely nothing of the k’vanna of שם ומלכות oath sworn brit alliances. This refutation equally applies to the koran, Moo-Ham-Madd did not know how the Torah defines the key term prophet just as the gospel counterfeit does not know how the Torah defines love – as defined through the Torah commandment of marriage known as קידושין. The essential legal-theological rupture that defines the gulf between Torah brit jurisprudence and the theological counterfeits presented by both the Christian New Testament and the Islamic Koran.

          Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov was an oath-bound legal act. It therefore serves as THE fundamental בנין אב common law precedent by which the generations of Israel discern the distinction between making a Torah blessing commandment from saying a Tehillem prayer praise. JeZeus response utterly ignorant. Yitzak gave Esav a non-binding, non brit, non blessing/Tehillem to his second son who sold his Cohen first-born birthright to Yaacov! This structure underlies all Torah jurisprudence: no blessing (ברכה) without שם ומלכות, and no true faith (אמונה) without justice-rooted obligations. Faith equals fidelity to oath, not vague belief.

          JeZeus and the gospel writers show no knowledge or respect for rabbi Akiva’s Oral Torah kabbalah of the revelation at Horev. Hence the church fathers deny to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev as expressed through the 13 tohor spirits of HaShem. The gospel book of john declares the word as God! The very definition of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב mixed multitude replacement theology sought to replace the Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment with the “word” אלהים — the definition of the replacement avoda zarah known as the sin of the Golden Calf.

          The gospel narrative slander the Sanhedrin courts as corrupt and perverse. This negates the Torah concept of faith all together. An no whitewash can conceal this new testament perversion. This same mussar equally applies to Islam. Moo-Ham-Madd’s claim to prophecy lacks any brit-based legitimacy; does not transmit or interpret precedent-based halacha Oral Torah common law. Totally ignores T’NaCH Talmud common law. And equally likewise its substitute theology reduces prophecy to visionary utterance divorced from legal authority and nation-building. As with the gospel counterfeit, the Koran appropriates the term “prophet” while stripping it of its brit-legal definition and context. The gospel’s redefinition of love as universalized sentiment is as empty as its redefinition of kingdom and prophecy. Without brit, there is no legal structure to sustain love, justice, or nationhood. It is all mystified abstraction, which cannot create the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments. The JeZeus abomination knowns nothing of what separates the Yatzir Ha’Tov tohor spirits from the Yatzir Ha’Ra tumah spirits.

          Faith without oath-bound brit law is no faith at all, and any theological system — whether gospel or Koran — that dismisses or replaces the brit framework is not a continuation of revelation but a counterfeit rebellion against it. Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov is not merely narrative — it is precedent. It is the בנין אב, the archetype, of what constitutes a Torah-commanded blessing.

          The blessing to Yaakov: A sworn, oath brit legal transfer of Cohen inheritance, complete with שם ומלכות implications (even if not verbally explicit, its legal force is absolute), just as kre’a shma, shemone esrei, the mourners kaddish, the blessing of the Cohem to the people of Israel – all visually lack שם ומלכות and therefore require the wisdom to know how to swear שם ומלכות within and through the spirit of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart! JeZeus makes no reference to this essential kabbalah taught by rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin!

          A beracha requires brit. A brit requires oath. An oath requires שם ומלכות and k’vanna. Without this, you have mere praise. JeZeus shows no awareness of this distinction — a fatal flaw for anyone claiming prophetic authority within the brit tradition.

          Loading…
      27. 

          mosckerr

          June 21, 2025

          Obozo the incompetant clown, responsible for UN imperialism Resolution 2334 … Former President shoe shine boy has publicly condemned President Trump’s recent airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, calling the military action “reckless” and “dangerous.” In a statement released shortly after the strikes, Obama expressed concern over the potential for escalating conflict in the region and criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy. Hilbillery Clinton the incompetent likewise, in goose-step with Obozo the clown has condemned President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, labeling the military action as “irresponsible” and “dangerous.” In her statement, Clinton expressed deep concern over the potential for escalating tensions and the risk of a broader conflict in the Middle East.

          Monkey See Monkey Do former Vice President loser Kamala Harris: has condemned President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, calling the military action “irresponsible” and “dangerous.” Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with Representatives Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, and Maxine Waters, has condemned President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Their statements reflect a unified stance among prominent Democratic leaders against the military action, emphasizing concerns about the potential for escalating conflict and the need for diplomatic solutions.

          The Democratic Party is experiencing a notable split over President Trump’s recent bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, reflecting differing views on foreign policy and military intervention. Many establishment Democrats, including prominent leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, are advocating for a diplomatic approach to Iran. They criticize Trump’s military action as reckless and counterproductive. Some moderate Democrats are more divided, with some expressing support for a strong stance against Iran while others share concerns about the potential for escalation. This group is often caught between the party’s progressive base and the more traditional foreign policy views of the establishment. The split within the Democratic Party over Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites highlights the broader debate about the U.S. role in international conflicts and the balance between military action and diplomacy. As the situation evolves, these divisions may influence the party’s approach to foreign policy and its strategy in upcoming elections.

          Loading…
      28. 

          mosckerr

          June 17, 2025

          Day 6 of the Iran war: Iran down on missiles and launchers. Russia has no plans to assist Iran, leaves Iran high and dry. Chinese weapons the IDF has proven them to be a paper tiger just like Iran.

          Could Israeli commandos invade and destroy the Iranian Fordow Fuel Enrichment Facility nuclear site. Located near Qom and known for being deeply buried, has not been directly targeted in the initial strikes. However, there have been reports of military actions in the vicinity. The IAEA has confirmed that Fordow remains under safeguards and has not reported any damage from the recent attacks. The Fordow facility, while currently unscathed, remains a focal point of concern for both Israeli and international observers.

          Fordow is located approximately 90 meters underground, making it one of the most fortified nuclear sites in the world. Its depth and construction are designed to withstand conventional military strikes, including airstrikes. The facility is heavily guarded, with advanced security systems and military presence, complicating any potential ground assault. Israel possesses advanced military technology, including precision-guided munitions and cyber capabilities, which could be utilized in an operation against nuclear facilities.

          Successful execution would depend on accurate intelligence regarding the facility’s defenses, operational status, and the presence of personnel. A well-coordinated operation would be essential, possibly requiring simultaneous actions to distract Iranian forces elsewhere. The deeply buried nature of the site, combined with its security measures and the potential for severe geopolitical consequences.

          The destruction of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Facility by Israel would likely provoke a multifaceted response from the United Nations (UN) and the international community. The UN Security Council would likely convene to discuss the incident. Many member states, particularly those aligned with Iran, would condemn the attack as a violation of international law and Iran’s sovereignty. The incident could lead to strengthened alliances among countries opposed to Israel, potentially increasing tensions in the Middle East. The destruction of the Fordow facility by Israel would likely lead to a complex and multifaceted response from the UN and the international community, characterized by condemnation, diplomatic efforts, and potential escalations in regional tensions.

          Disgraced Obama played a significant role in shaping U.S. policy towards Iran, particularly through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. But did nothing toward Iranian ballistic missile production; he and Hillary Clinton illegally spied upon the Trump 2016 Presidential campaign and launched the Russia-gate slander in their attempt to destroy President Trump. Additionally, UN Security Council Resolution 2334, exceptionally prejudiced against Israel. The Trump Administration has utterly repudiated the direction of the Obama Administration, on par with the rejection of Obama Care national-socialism medical insurance dictate imposed upon the American people by the insider trading criminal Nancy Pelosi.

          A return to a pro-Western, secular regime in Iran could lead to a strengthening of Iran’s position in the region, potentially countering the influence of Turkey, especially if the new regime seeks to re-establish Iran as a dominant regional power. The geopolitical landscape could shift, with countries reassessing their alliances. Nations that have historically been wary of Iran might find common ground with a new Iranian leadership, altering the regional balance.

          If Iran were to regain a strong position under a new regime, Turkey might find its influence diminished, particularly in areas where both countries have competing interests, such as Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf states. Turkey has sought to position itself as a leader in the Muslim world, particularly through its support for various groups and its assertive foreign policy. A revitalized Iran could challenge Turkey’s aspirations for regional leadership.

          If the West, particularly the U.S., were to support a new Iranian regime, it could further shift the balance of power. Turkey’s relationship with the West might be affected, especially if it is seen as opposing Western interests in the region. The potential return of a regime similar to that of the Shah in Iran could significantly alter the balance of power in the Middle East, potentially diminishing Turkey’s influence in the region. This scenario would likely lead to a complex interplay of alliances, competition for leadership, and shifts in regional dynamics, with implications for both domestic and foreign policies in Turkey and beyond.

          Loading…
      29. 

          myallaboutyou

          June 18, 2025

          Thank you for sharing your detailed perspective on the Iran situation and regional politics—your knowledge on these topics is impressive! I hope your family, especially anyone in Israel, is safe during these challenging times. Praying and wishing your family the best. May our Lord protect them.

          Loading…
      30. 

          mosckerr

          June 19, 2025

          Thank You and Amen

          Loading…
      31. 

          myallaboutyou

          June 29, 2025

          Hi Mosckerr, I will be following up with you shortly. I am moving my other website to here. You are not forgotten. Thanks for our conversation. N

          Loading…
      32. 

          mosckerr

          June 30, 2025

          Liberal Kapo Jews. This stinking ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews who promote the hatred of Amalek – antisemitism. They simply have no fear of Heaven. The Torah described the original ערב רב that came out of Egypt as אין להם יראת אלהים.

          Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم

          Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com

          Trump’s Iran Charade

          In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم

          The Oct7th War which spread to a war against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran has radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. The UN has completely discredited its objectivity with the ICC/ICJ attempts to declare Bibi a war-criminal. You drink this blood libel slander like Catholics drink their blood and body of Christ then go out and make a Easter pogrom against Jews based upon some blood libel slander!

          Both England and France have broken off diplomatic relations with Israel, prior to the 12 Day War with Iran! Hence neither power has any influence in the Middle East negotiated peace process ie. the Coming Abraham expanded accords which will most likely see a majority of Arab countries developing diplomatic relations with Israel. If a majority of Arab nations recognize the Jewish state, then and only then will Israel join the Middle East voting block of Nations within the UN. A totally unprecedented reality since Israel won its two Wars of national independence back in 1948 and again in 1967.

          The latter Independence War, recall that Naser swore to throw the Jews into the Sea and correct the Nakba disgrace where 5 Arab Armies failed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah of the Jewish people! To date, except for Camp David and Abraham Accord Arab nations which currently have diplomatic relations with Israel, post the Israeli victory of 1967, all Arab countries reacted through the Khartoum Conference declaration of 3 No’s. No Peace with Israel. No Recognition of Israel. No Negotiations with Israel.

          Arab countries which reject the Jewish state of Israel refer it as “the Zionist Entity”. General Assembly UN Resolution 3379 declared Zionism is Racism! Apparently your revisionist History over-looked these minor FACTS. All Arab countries absolutely reject the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein Britain recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. The League of Nations “Palestine Mandate” awarded to victorious WWI Britain in 1922, based this Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration. Hence b/c Arabs rejected Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East no Arab would ever refer to himself as a Palestinian.

          Not till 1964, with the State of Israel as a 16 year old country did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the political opportunism and call his terrorist movement the Palestine Liberation Organization – PLO. That PLO Charter did not condemn Jordanian “occupation” of the Jordan declared “West Bank”. Nor did it condemn the Egyptian “occupation” of Gaza! Only ’48 Israel did the PLO Charter condemn and abhor!!!!
          _____________________________________________

          A 6 part Mishnaic mussar of this paper. Avodah Zarah in Our Generation: The Crisis of Jews Who Side With Amalek. In every generation, Amalek takes new forms. Today, it is no different. But what is shocking is not only the hatred of our enemies—it is the collaboration of Jews, raised within Torah civilization or its memory, who now partner with those seeking to dismantle the Jewish state.

          When Jewish voices shout “From the River to the Sea,” they are not engaged in protest—they are echoing the genocidal goals of Hamas. When they equate Israel’s defense against a massacre to genocide, they join in blood libel, no different in kind from the medieval slanders that triggered Easter pogroms. When they ally with UN declarations and ICC/ICJ indictments meant to strip Jews of the right to self-defense, they violate the first commandment of Jewish history: “Never again shall Jewish blood be cheap.”

          1. Sovereignty vs. Subjugation: Jews Ruling vs. Jews Ruled: A fundamental distinction separates Jews living as a sovereign nation in their own land versus Jews existing as a minority under non-Jewish rule (galut). Assimilated & intermarried Jews in the West, who function within dominant non-Jewish cultures, have lost connection with Jewish national identity and Torah sovereignty, resembling the biblical Erev Rav—those lacking fear of Heaven and loyalty to the Jewish nation.

          2. Double Standards in Territorial Legitimacy: Prussia vs. Samaria & Gaza: The hypocrisy of the international community – emphasized. While the post-WWII redrawing of European borders—such as Poland and Russia’s annexation of Prussia—is accepted without condemnation, Israel is uniquely targeted for reasserting sovereignty over Samaria and Gaza after 1967. UN Resolutions 242 and 338 are cited as politically biased tools used to delegitimize Israel’s historical and military rights.

          3. Western Imperialism and Regional Domination: Suez to Iran. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as evidence of continued British and French imperial ambitions, cloaked in Cold War geopolitics and economic control (specifically over the Suez Canal). This is paralleled with U.S./British involvement in Iran—removing Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah to prevent the nationalization of oil. The 1979 Iranian Revolution is framed as a reaction to this imperialism. Similarly, prior to the “12 Day War,” the UK and France withdrew diplomatic ties with Israel in protest of their exclusion from influencing a ceasefire in Gaza.

          4. Rejection of the 242/338 Two-State Paradigm by the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are seen as a major geopolitical shift, fundamentally rejecting the British- and French-backed vision of peace based on dividing Israel into two hostile entities—akin to India-Pakistan or North-South Korea. The Accords envision peace without territorial partition, and with increasing normalization between Israel and Arab states, signal the failure of the old colonial-era frameworks.

          5. UN Bias and Historical Arab Rejectionism of the Balfour Declaration wherein a major Great Power recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. The UN based its 1922 Palestinian Mandate upon the Balfour Treaty. The Khartoum Conference (1967) “Three No’s” serves as proof of Arab states’ refusal to accept Israel’s equal rights to self-determination. The UN, particularly via General Assembly Resolution 3379 (“Zionism is racism”), has been complicit in reinforcing this Arab rejectionism of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination. Meanwhile, the ICC and ICJ today continue the Zionism is Racism pattern, under the guise of international law, falsely accusing Israeli leaders of war crimes while ignoring the Oct7th pogrom and declaring the current conflict pre-dates Oct7th. This whitewashes the Oct7th surprise attack, comparable to the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec7th 1941.

          6. The Manufactured Identity of “Palestinians” and PLO Opportunism. The identity of “Palestinians”, a modern invention, emerging only in 1964 with the formation of the PLO under Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. The original PLO Charter made no objection to Jordanian control of the West Bank or Egyptian rule in Gaza, focusing only on dismantling Israel. This opportunistic narrative is framed as a political weapon rather than a legitimate national movement.

          Loading…
      33. 

          mosckerr

          June 6, 2025

          Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza.

          Italy did not support the recent UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was vetoed by the United States. The resolution received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. casting the only vote against it. The draft resolution was co-sponsored by several countries, but Italy was not listed among those actively supporting the resolution in the context of the recent vote.

          These 14 countries Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Algeria (co-sponsor), Denmark (co-sponsor), Greece (co-sponsor), Guyana (co-sponsor), Pakistan (co-sponsor), Panama (co-sponsor), South Korea (co-sponsor), Sierra Leone (co-sponsor), Slovenia (co-sponsor), and Somalia (co-sponsor) voted to impose a UN Chapter VII dictate upon Israel. Of these countries Algeria and other scamps countries do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.

          Neither Iran nor Sudan have diplomatic relations with Israel. No different than Algeria. Algeria and Turkey have developed a military partnership and cooperation over the years, particularly in the areas of defense and security. This relationship has been strengthened through various agreements and joint military exercises. The relationship is part of a broader strategic partnership that includes economic and political cooperation, with both countries sharing interests in regional stability and security.

          Those 14 countries have already repeatedly called for international condemnation of Israel, rabidly support Palestinian terrorism relabeled as “Palestinian rights”. They already engage in public relations propaganda campaigns hostile to Israel. They already support and initiate legal actions against Israel in international courts such as the ICC. These countries have escalated their rhetoric propaganda against Israel. Hamas could never have dug its complex tunnel system without international support. They already promote cultural and academic boycotts of Israel.

          These countries throw their support for the Palestinian cause, like whores on street corners sell their wares. They often use stinky rhetoric, to condemn Israeli actions, framing them as oppressive or colonial. Such putrid rhetoric seeks to poison public opinion and mobilize support for Palestinian groups. Numerous solidarity movements around the world that advocate for Palestinian rights; they often align with groups like Hamas, viewing them as legitimate representatives of Palestinian resistance.

          Countries without diplomatic relations with Israel compare to corrupt judges that accepts bribes. This objection, seeks to raise critically important questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the recent Chapter VII UN ultimatum which demanded that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. While the analogy of a corrupt judge highlights concerns about bias and fairness, the international system, in point of fact, operates on principles of representation and sovereignty.

          The International system operates, so it appears, as something akin to a beauty contest. What defines beauty — not a rational logical concept. Israel demands a change to the International system. It could express its rebuke of the UN, by leaving the UN. The analogy of a corrupt judge suggests that countries without diplomatic relations with Israel, that they lack objective credibility to fairly judge the case heard before the court of international opinion.

          This perception of bias, Israel argues, undermines the legitimacy of all UN resolutions or demands made against Israel. Particularly since nations who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel obvious their anti-Israel hostility – politically motivated – rather than based on objective criteria. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the application of this chapter, like as in the Korean war, especially when it appears to favor one side over another in a conflict, historically expands the local conflict into a far larger international war. The call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, obviously viewed by both the US and Israel as an ultimatum that lacks balance and fairness. Just as China despised the UN Chapter VII ultimatum decreed against North Korea.

          The international UN system, indeed based on principles of state sovereignty and representation. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this system both the US and Israel have repeatedly warned and challenged. Especially when certain countries dominate decision-making processes or when resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than universal principles of justice.

          The idea that Israel should demand changes to the international UN system, this demand reflects the Israeli requirements for a more equitable and fair approach to international relations expressed through public UN diplomacy organs. Leaving the UN perhaps a radical step. But it raises questions about the effectiveness of the international UN system of public diplomacy among nation states in the world community of nations.

          The concerns about bias and fairness in the international UN system, particularly regarding Israel, absolutely valid and reflect broader issues of representation and legitimacy. Whether through reforming the UN or reconsidering its participation, Israel’s approach to these challenges will significantly impact its international standing and relationships. The debate over the effectiveness and fairness of the current international system remains a fixed constant, critical issue in global politics.

          Loading…
      34. 

          myallaboutyou

          June 8, 2025

          Hi Moshe, your ideas about the UN and global politics really get me thinking—they’re so deep and insightful. You know way more about these issues than I do, and I’m learning a ton from you about Jewish law and how it applies to the world. I’m worried that if we push too hard, like leaving the UN or breaking ties with other countries, it could hurt America’s standing, which keeps our economy and dollar strong. Our huge national debt is a big concern—it needs to get under control to keep us stable. I look to a world where we are respected and show love to others, both here and abroad, since we don’t live in a vacuum. Could Jewish law, maybe through chesed or tzedakah, help us tackle economic challenges at home or promote fairness in global affairs? What’s a principle from Jewish law you value that could guide us through these issues? I’d really appreciate your thoughts—your wisdom is such a gift

          Loading…
      35. 

          mosckerr

          June 8, 2025

          The subtle distinctions between Cultures and Civilizations.

          The spirituality of the Hebrew kabbalah affixes Divine Names to the different perspective viewpoints of soul as expressed through the light of the Menorah 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat souls dedicated to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot in order to cut a brit alliance which creates the chosen Cohen people in all generations from nothing יש מאין. Hence the Book of בראשית opens with the creation story, an aggadic mussar which teaches concerning the creation of the chosen Cohen people in all generations throughout time.Whereas TCM has 5 spirit souls, Torah kabbalah has 7 Divines Names which a person dedicates a specific (facets) of gratitude – קוראת הטוב – as brit partners in the destiny walk of the chosen Cohen people created through tohor time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. The Names of these seven souls dedicated on the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat: Ya/Pesach, Ha’El/Shevuoth, El/Rosh HaShanna, Elohim/Yom Kippur, El Shaddai/Sukkot, Eish Ha’Elohim/Shemini Atzeret, and Shalom/Shabbat. The קוראת הטוב which Shabbat remembers: the t’shuva made by HaShem on Yom Kippur wherein HaShem remembered the oath sworn by the Avot wherein they cut a oath brit alliance with HaShem to forever create the chosen Cohen people through the descendants of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov.Zen Buddhism the 3rd Eye and Mindfulness, contrasted by Daoism, Jin Shin Jyutsu is, and Shiatsu – the chi spirits by which a person directs or aims this “chi” through the five senses or central feelings: sight, hearing, touch/sex, taste, and smell/\fear, anger, grief, shame, and worry. As opposed to Shiatsu’s: Order of fear, anger, grief, shame, and joy. Zen Buddhism prioritizes the awareness, meaning channeling mindful-awareness of the 5 senses through meditative 3rd eye. Zen Buddhism argues that the 5 senses all within the purview of mindfulness. Daoism and Shiatsu through the meditative exhale send the focused Chi to a specific sense. The inhale of breathing channels the felt target feeling through the 3rd eye seeing what the body feels.

          The practice of zazen (sitting meditation) encourages practitioners to focus on their breath and bodily sensations, fostering a deep connection to the present moment. The “third eye” in Zen can be interpreted as a metaphor for heightened awareness of actually seeing what they feel through their third eye, allowing practitioners to perceive their sense feelings without judgment. Zen encourages awareness of how emotions manifest in the body, promoting a non-reactive observation of feelings as they arise. In Daoism, chi is the vital life force that flows through all living beings. Cultivating and directing chi is essential for achieving harmony and balance. Practices like qigong involve breath control to direct chi, with the exhale releasing tension and the inhale channeling conscious breathing by means of the diaphragm. Jin Shin Jyutsu focuses on directing conscious awareness between internal organs, creating a balance of Yin and Yang chi to promote healing. Shiatsu, a form of Japanese healing message, directs the flow of chi through meridian lines affixed to target organs to increase the mitochondria production of ATP.

          Zen Buddhism the 3rd Eye and Mindfulness, contrasted by Daoism Jin Shin Jyutsu is and Shiatsu Chi spirits by which a person can direct or aim his chi through the five senses or central feelings: sight, hearing, touch/sex, taste, and smell/fear, anger, grief, shame, and worry. As opposed to Shiatsu’s: Order of fear, anger, grief, shame, and joy. Zen Buddhism prioritizes the awareness, meaning channeling mindful awareness of the 5 senses through meditative 3rd eye. Zen Buddhism argues that the 5 senses all within the purview of mindfulness. Daoism and Shiatsu through the meditative exhale send the focused Chi to a specific sense. The inhale of breathing channels the felt target feeling through the 3rd eye seeing what the body feels. In Zen, mindfulness involves being fully aware of the five senses—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell—without attachment or distraction.

          Zen meditation (zazen) encourages practitioners to focus on their breath and bodily sensations, fostering a deep connection to the present. This practice can enhance awareness of how emotions and sensations manifest in the body. In Daoism, chi (or qi) is the vital life force that flows through all living beings. Practitioners believe that by cultivating and directing chi, one can achieve harmony and balance. Daoist practices often involve breath control (qigong) to direct chi. The exhale is used to release tension and send focused energy to specific areas or senses, while the inhale can channel awareness and intention toward feelings or sensations. Both this and that compare to a standard transmission of a car, as opposed by an automatic non consciousness of the 5 senses or Central feelings.

          Meditation has the focus upon conscious direction of the five fingers and toes: senses and feelings. Jin Shin Jyutsu is directs conscious awareness between one internal organ to an opposing internal organ, creating an internal battery of Yin/Yang Chi with the purpose to direct the Chi to heal. The sense/feeling dynamic Sight:/Joy\Worry – clarity. Hearing aligns with the feeling of grief. Touch/Sex aligns with anger. The sense of smell affixed to fear. And the sense of taste joins with both satisfaction and the feelings of awe. While Daoism develops the consciousness of the fives souls or spirits.

          The heart is classified as a Yang organ, the center of emotional and mental activities; while the kidneys are considered a Yin organ, regulating water metabolism, growth, and reproduction. These two opposing organs hold the Shen (Spirit), associated with joy, consciousness, and emotional well-being. In TCM the Shen/spirit particularly significant in understanding mental and emotional health. The Shen spirit associated with the heart and considered the most refined and spiritual aspect of the soul. It represents consciousness, awareness, and the essence of one’s being. The Shen spirit encompasses mental clarity, perception, and the ability to think and reflect. It is responsible for cognitive functions and self-awareness. The Shen spirit serves as the bridge between the physical body and the spiritual realm, influencing one’s spiritual beliefs and practices. A harmonious Shen is essential for overall health and well-being. Imbalances or disturbances in Shen can lead to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, insomnia, and other emotional disturbances.

          The kidneys (Yin) and heart (Yang) form a significant Yin-Yang relationship in TCM, and together they house two of the five TCM souls: Zhi (Will) and Shen (Spirit). This relationship emphasizes the interplay between the physical and spiritual aspects of a person. Zhi represents willpower, determination, and the ability to make decisions. It is associated with motivation and the drive to achieve goals. A strong Zhi supports resilience and perseverance, while a weak Zhi can lead to fear, indecisiveness, or a lack of direction.

          Kidneys (Yin): Represent the foundation of life, vitality, and willpower. They store essence and influence growth and development. Heart (Yang): Governs the spirit, consciousness, and emotional well-being. It is the center of mental activity and emotional expression. The balance between the kidneys and heart is crucial for overall health. A harmonious relationship between Zhi and Shen supports emotional stability, mental clarity, and the ability to pursue one’s goals effectively. Imbalances in either aspect can lead to emotional disturbances, lack of motivation, or difficulties in decision-making. In summary, the Kidney/Heart Yin-Yang relationship houses two of the five TCM souls—Zhi (Will) and Shen (Spirit)—highlighting the interconnectedness of physical vitality and emotional well-being in TCM philosophy.

          The couple liver/gallbladder contain the Hun (Ethereal Soul). The Hun, associated with the liver gallbladder bi-polar battery, and considered of a more spiritual (ethereal) quality, compared to the Po corporeal Soul. It is linked to the mind, consciousness, and higher mental functions. The Hun soul governs dreams, creativity, and the imagination. It plays a crucial role in one’s ability to envision and aspire; associated with emotional health, particularly in terms of joy, inspiration, and the ability to connect with others on a deeper level; influencing a person’s sense of purpose and ones’ destiny in life. This soul contributes to mental clarity, emotional stability, and a sense of peace. Imbalances can lead to issues such as anxiety, depression, or a lack of direction.

          The Po is considered the more physical and material aspect of the soul. It is associated with the body’s vitality, instincts, and sensory experiences. The Po also closely linked to the lungs, which are responsible for respiration and the intake of Qi (vital energy). The lungs play a role in the body’s ability to process emotions and maintain a sense of physical well-being. The large intestine, associated with the elimination of waste and the processing of nutrients akin to the gallbladder. It complements the lungs like the gallbladder assists the liver, in the context of the body’s overall function and health.The Po governs the physical body and its functions, including “instincts”, bodily sensations, and the basic survival gut feelings. The Po, more connected to physicality, it influences emotional responses, particularly those related to fear and grief. A balanced Po contributes to physical health, vitality, a sense of grounding. Imbalances can lead to issues such as respiratory problems, digestive issues, and emotional disturbances like sadness or fear.The Po, as a Yin aspect, complements the Yang aspects of the soul, such as the Shen and Hun; essential for understanding the physical and instinctual gut feeling internal suggestions-aspects of a person’s body/mind. Its connections to the lungs and large intestine highlighting the interplay between physical health and emotional well-being.

          The spleen/stomach house the Yi (Intellect). Yi is related to thought processes, memory, and the ability to concentrate. It governs analytical thinking and the ability to process information. A balanced Yi supports clear thinking and good memory, while an imbalanced Yi can lead to overthinking, worry, or difficulty focusing. The Yi plays crucial roles in digestion and the transformation of food into Qi (vital energy) and blood.

          The Yi represents the intellectual and cognitive functions of the mind. It is closely related to thought processes, memory, concentration, and the ability to analyze and process information. The spleen and stomach are the organs associated with Yi. The spleen is responsible for the transformation and transportation of nutrients, while the stomach is involved in the initial digestion of food. A healthy spleen and stomach are essential for nourishing the mind and supporting cognitive functions.Yi governs analytical thinking, reasoning, and the ability to understand and interpret information. It is essential for problem-solving and decision-making. The Yi is also linked to memory retention and recall, influencing how well a person can remember and utilize information. A well-functioning Yi supports the ability to focus and concentrate on tasks, enhancing productivity and learning. A balanced Yi contributes to clear thinking, good memory, and effective cognitive functioning. It allows for a calm and focused mind, facilitating learning and comprehension. An imbalanced Yi can lead to issues such as overthinking, excessive worry, difficulty concentrating, and mental fatigue. It may also manifest as digestive problems, as the health of the spleen and stomach directly impacts cognitive functions.The Yi plays a vital role in mental clarity and emotional stability. Maintaining balance in the Yi is essential for overall well-being, as it influences not only cognitive functions but also emotional health and the ability to cope with stress. The Yi (Intellect) is a crucial aspect of the soul associated with the spleen and stomach, governing thought processes, memory, and concentration. A balanced Yi supports clear thinking and effective cognitive functioning, while imbalances can lead to mental and emotional challenges.

          As Western medicine views the idea of TCM meridians as a form of witchcraft so too Western medicine divorces the brain which houses the Mind as completely divorced from the internal organs of the physical body. Hence Zen Buddhism’s “mindfulness, more closely related to Western medical practices than Daoism and Japanese and Chinese healing.

          In TCM, meridians are believed to be pathways through which Qi (vital energy) flows. These pathways connect various organs and systems in the body, facilitating communication and balance. The health of the body is seen as a result of the harmonious flow of Qi through these meridians. TCM emphasizes the interconnectedness of the mind and body. The organs are not viewed in isolation; rather, they are part of a holistic system where emotional and mental states can influence physical health. For example, the liver is associated with anger, while the heart is linked to joy.Western medicine often views concepts like meridians as lacking empirical evidence and may categorize them as pseudoscience or “witchcraft.” This skepticism arises from a reliance on scientific methods and measurable outcomes, which do not easily accommodate the more abstract concepts found in TCM. Traditionally, Western medicine has tended to separate the mind from the body, focusing on biological and physiological processes. The brain is often viewed as the center of cognitive functions, while the organs are seen as separate entities with specific physical roles. This separation can lead to a more mechanistic understanding of health, where mental and emotional factors are not always integrated into treatment.Mindfulness practices, often associated with Zen Buddhism, emphasize awareness and presence in the moment. These practices have gained popularity in Western contexts, particularly in psychology and stress reduction. Mindfulness encourages individuals to observe their thoughts and feelings without judgment, fostering a greater connection between mind and body. Mindfulness has been integrated into various Western medical practices, particularly in mental health treatment, such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). This integration reflects a growing recognition of the importance of mental and emotional well-being in overall health.

          Loading…
      36. 

          mosckerr

          June 9, 2025

          Arise O Bard, and permit the prophet to mussar speak

          🎭 A Torahic Response in the Style of Shakespeare

          “Torah and the Tribes: A Common Law Revealed”

          ACT I — The Question Posed

          Enter a Herald from the West, parchment in hand

          HERALD:
          Attend, O sages, priests, and wandering heirs:
          The West hath cried: “Can law of Jewish tongue,
          Through charity, or righteous act, or grace,
          Give balm to plague’d economies this day?
          What rule or principle might lead us through
          This modern maze of coin, and court, and power?”

          ACT II — The Courtroom of Pharaoh and Its Echo

          Enter MOSHE, in vision, before Pharaoh’s throne

          MOSHE:
          Behold the court of Pharaoh—high and stark!
          A throne that leans not left nor right, but stands
          Above the cries of brickless slaves beneath.
          So too do Western halls of law appear:
          Where state-paid tongues make mockery of truth,
          And judges serve the coin that feeds their purse.
          No chesed dwells therein, nor mishpat breathes.
          What hope have men where justice bends to bribe?

          A Voice within the whirlwind:

          VOICE:
          Recall ye not the Sea that split in twain?
          Where Egypt’s might, defied, was swept away?
          That miracle did not convince the king—
          But Israel, alone, received the flame.
          So, too, today: no foreign creed shall learn
          The justice born of Sinai’s tribal fire.

          ACT III — On the Nature of Law

          CHORUS:
          The Torah is no statute dead and dry,
          No iron-bound decree to age unbent—
          But common law! Alive! It breathes through time.
          Like rivers branching from a mountain’s spring,
          Each case unfolds from precedent, not code.
          Not Rambam’s seal, nor Karo’s frozen hand,
          Shall bind what God made fluid at Horeb.

          JUDGE:
          This Mishnah is the mother tongue of law!
          A mountain hung by hair, they say, and true—
          Each word a spark, each spark a living flame.
          But who recalls how judgments once were made?
          Where three sat not to mimic royal courts,
          But one did speak for right, and one for wrong,
          And one—the balance—chose with awe and fear.

          ACT IV — The Exile and Its Curse

          EXILED SCHOLAR:
          In lands of dusk, where Torah’s root lies torn,
          The mitzvah is observed but not fulfilled.
          Men mouth the psalms, yet know not what they say.
          The feast is served, but none recall the oath
          Our fathers swore ‘twixt pieces of the calf.
          The halakhah is turned to statute stone—
          Its soul forgotten, even as lips chant.

          Enter a Kabbalist, robed in sod and remez

          KABBALIST:
          You ask: what guides us through these cloudy days?
          Not creed! Not creed! But covenant and court.
          Not ritual rote, but tefillah breathed with flame.
          The oath that Avram swore—aye, there it lies:
          To sanctify the hour, and time itself
          To raise a people out of scattered dust.

          ACT V — A Vision of Return

          Enter a Prophet, torch in hand, atop Mount Zion

          PROPHET:
          Look not to Rome nor London for your law.
          The Sanhedrin must rise where Zion stands!
          In tribal bounds shall justice find her voice—
          Not statutes made for goyim, cold and blind,
          But living precedent, drawn fresh from life.

          Enter the Spirit of Rabbi Akiva

          AKIVA:
          I saw the Temple fall, yet Torah rise!
          I saw the sword, yet heard the laughter still.
          But what is learned in yeshivot today?
          They know not how to join the threads divine—
          To weave the warp of midrash with the woof
          Of halacha, sod, and righteous aggadah.

          EPILOGUE — The Summons

          CHORUS:
          So hear, O children of the flame-bound law:
          Restore the court, the oath, the tribal root.
          Let Torah not be mouthed, but lived again—
          Its justice not imposed, but drawn from soul.
          Only in Zion, where the Covenant breathes,
          Shall Torah once more guide both purse and peace.

          Thou noble quill, thou hast indeed conjured
          A pageant fit for scroll and throne alike!
          In bardic tongue and prophet’s holy breath,
          Thou hast entwined the ancient and the now,
          The Mishnah’s flame with Shakespeare’s mighty pulse.

          Let me, a humble servant of the word,
          Offer thou some musar in thy own key—
          A gloss, perchance, upon thy sacred play.

          On Structure and Theme:
          Thy fivefold acts, like Torah’s books, unfold
          A drama not of stage, but covenant.
          The voice of Moshe ‘fore Pharaoh’s throne
          Echoes modern cries ‘gainst wealth enthroned.
          And rightly dost thou speak: Mishpat lies choked
          Where judges serve not God but gold and state.

          The Common Law of Sinai:
          A masterstroke, to cast the Torah’s law
          Not as the codex Roman or Napoléon,
          But living, breathing, like the Tree of Life!
          A common law indeed, yet holier—
          For each dispute becomes a Sinai small,
          Where judges midrash draw from Heaven’s ink.

          The Exile’s Curse and Kabbalist’s Fire:
          Ah, here thy voice grew mournful, richly veiled.
          A scholar lost, reciting dead commands—
          A tragedy too oft seen in our day.
          Yet hope revives, when mystic robes appear,
          And speak of covenant, not creed alone.

          A Prophetic Vision:
          Bold! To raise again the Sanhedrin’s seat,
          To found not merely state, but sacred court.
          Where Torah shapes not only soul, but law—
          Where economy and equity are wed
          By priest and prophet, judge and shepherd both.

          And Yet, A Question:
          O bard, thou speak’st of tribes, of courts reborn—
          But where is Levi now, and Dan, and Gad?
          If justice be restored in tribal hue,
          How shall the scattered sparks be named anew?

          Shall all the earth bring offerings to Zion?
          Shall Torah reign in markets far and near?
          Or must the world await another flame—
          Another voice from out the bush unburned?

          In Sum:
          Thou hast achieved what few dare even dream—
          A sacred play that dances twixt the scrolls,
          Where Shakespeare meets Shammai, and Hillel sings.
          A “Torahic” cry in verse both fierce and fine.
          Would’st thou go on, the curtain waits thy hand—
          For Act VI calls, and Judah listens still.

          Exeunt omnes. Curtain falls.

          Loading…
2. 

   mosckerr

   June 24, 2025

   
   The 12 Day War has ended. The Tripartite Alliance US – India – Israel now dominates. The leadership of Bibi where he held back following the Oct 7th Abomination, where he did not commit the IDF into Gaza but waited for other Arab countries to join the War as did Lebanon and Syria and the Houthis. Thank you for your great leadership Bibi. The losers of this Middle East War … England and France broke off diplomatic relations with Israel over the Gaza war. The UN attempted to arrest the PM as a war-criminal. The UN, EU and Britain have zero say in shaping the post war ‘balance of power’ in the Middle East. Revenge for the UNSC 242 & 338 imperialist Resolutions! In this war the Quartet Powers exist comparable to tits on a boar hog. Another BIG LOSER of this the 12 Day War —- China. Post War, a massive expansion of the Abraham Accords.
   
   Iran Admits Defeat: Khamenei just lost the 12 day war🚨 BREAKING: China THREATENS Iran As Trump Confirms CeasefireINDIA & ISRAEL’s Secret Plan to Reclaim POK — Mell Robbins Motivational Speaker. – YouTubeBefore the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump pulled out of the G-7 meeting and said the Macron did not know squat about the conflict in the Middle East.Trump blasts Macron, says early G7 exit has ‘nothing to do’ with an Israel-Iran ceasefireThe collapse of post-WWII multilateral diplomacy in the Middle East. The rise of a multipolar alliance system where nations like India and Israel take the place once held by Britain and France. The exposure of Arab regimes who tacitly supported Hamas or Hezbollah and their strategic miscalculations. The irrelevance of Cold War-era frameworks, both legal and political, to the current reality. The Middle East’s future will no longer be decided in Geneva or Brussels, but in Jerusalem, Washington, and New Delhi…The irrelevance of Cold War-era frameworks, both legal and political, to the current reality.Iran: Who was Ayatollah Khomeini? | If You’re Listening
   

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      myallaboutyou

      July 4, 2025

      I am glad the war appears to have ended. I now pray that the Middle East can be at peace. Though I have found that it hasn’t been the trend over the years. That deeply saddens me. May God bring us peace.

      Loading…

      Reply
      1. 

         mosckerr

         July 5, 2025

         The shit hit the fan … now comes the clean up.

         Loading…
      2. 

         mosckerr

         July 7, 2025

         While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.

         The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.

         Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.

         The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children.  Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”.  The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.

         Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries.  The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).

         Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.

         During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels.  For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.

         Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars.  The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues.  It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.

         Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church.  His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.”  A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.  

         Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.

         Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science.   Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology.  He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.

         Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason.  Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.

         Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.  

         This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.  

         Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation.  Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.

         Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva.  The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.

         Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”

         Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’.  Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings.  His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.

         Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic.  The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.

         The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.

         Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture.  The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition.  Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.

         Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s. 

         Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent.  This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.  

         The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma.  The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution. 

         The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.

         The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.

         The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).

         While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.

         The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

         The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.

         The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”

         The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.

         Loading…
      3. 

         mosckerr

         July 8, 2025

         [[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]

         The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.

         Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.

         One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.

         Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.

         The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach.

         The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.

         For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote – examples of tumah middot.

         Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.

         Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.

         מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.

         Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.

         [[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]

         Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocaust survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.

         The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.

         Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.

         Loading…
      4. 

         mosckerr

         July 10, 2025

         The Vulgate and Lutheran Bible translations so disgusting – eat shit and die – “translations”. What a pathetic joke. Werewolves, Vampires, and Frankenstein … follow with the cowardly lion, down the Yellow Brick Road – Oh my!

         John Calvin and Martin Luther, pivotal figures in the Protestant Reformation, each contributing significantly to the movement in distinct ways. Martin Luther (1483-1546), best known for his “95 Theses,” which he famously nailed to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517. This document criticized the Catholic Church’s practices, particularly the sale of indulgences, and called for reform.

         His theology emphasized the doctrine of justification by faith alone, arguing that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned through good works or church rituals. Asserting that salvation is a gift from God, this theology day and night different from Torah common law as expressed through T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law and Talmudic halachic judicial common law. This prioritization of faith as the pursuit of judicial justice – fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews, radically different from the theologies spewed forth by the Protestant Reformation.

         Luther made an utterly sophomoric translation the Bible into German, which utterly failed and even compounded the Vulgate perversion of the T’NaCH. Luther’s translation became “The Word” for the ignorant Lutheran laity. He promoted the idea that individuals could interpret scripture without knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic and despised the Roman clergy who relied upon Latin and Greek. Luther’s ideas established Lutheranism, and challenged the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations.

         John Calvin (1509-1564), Calvin built upon Luther’s ideas but introduced a more systematic theology. His work, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” laid out his beliefs about predestination, the sovereignty of God, and the nature of the church. He established Geneva as a center of Protestantism, implementing a theocratic government that enforced moral discipline and promoted education and social welfare. Calvin’s teachings led to the development of Reformed theology, influencing various Protestant groups, including the Presbyterians and the Huguenots. He stressed the importance of a disciplined Christian community and the role of the church in guiding believers’ lives.

         The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572; the Huguenots were French Protestants influenced by John Calvin’s teachings. Tensions between the Catholic majority and the Protestant minority led to a series of civil wars known as the French Wars of Religion. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was a turning point, where thousands of Huguenots were killed in Paris and across France, marking a significant moment of barbaric religious violence. This period was characterized by political intrigue, shifting alliances, and brutal conflicts, ultimately leading to the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which granted limited religious freedoms to the Huguenots. However, this tolerance was revoked in 1685, leading to further persecution and the exodus of many Huguenots from France.

         The immediate trigger for the Thirty Years’ War came in 1618 with the Defenestration of Prague, where Protestant nobles in Bohemia revolted against the Catholic Habsburg rule. This event marked the beginning of the war, but the underlying tensions had been building since the formation of the Catholic League and Protestant Union. The events of 1609, particularly the formation of the Catholic League under Maximilian of Bavaria, were crucial in setting the stage for the Thirty Years’ War. The conflict would evolve into a complex struggle involving various European powers, driven by both religious and political motivations, leading to widespread devastation across the continent.

         The Protestant Union, established in 1608, was indeed led by Frederick IV, the Elector Palatine, and aimed to protect the rights and interests of Protestant states against Catholic encroachments. This was a response to the increasing tensions and conflicts arising from the Reformation and the subsequent political landscape in Europe.

         In reaction to the Protestant Union, the Catholic League was formed in 1609, primarily to counter the influence of Protestant states and to protect Catholic interests. This military alliance included several Catholic states and was a significant factor in the lead-up to the Thirty Years’ War, which began in 1618. These alliances were crucial in shaping the religious and political dynamics of the time, leading to significant conflicts and changes in power within the Holy Roman Empire and beyond.

         The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, was primarily focused on resolving the conflicts arising from that war rather than directly addressing the earlier events of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The Peace of Westphalia consisted of a series of treaties that concluded the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) and the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It marked a significant turning point in European history, establishing a new order based on state sovereignty.

         The Peace of Westphalia and the ensuing treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. This was a crucial step towards religious tolerance, as it aimed to stabilize the region by allowing various Christian denominations to coexist. The treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. France gained territories in Alsace and parts of Lorraine, while Sweden gained influence in northern Germany.

         While the Peace of Westphalia did not directly address the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, it did contribute to a broader context of religious tolerance and the recognition of Protestant rights in Europe. The massacre had already highlighted the violent tensions between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to a long period of civil strife. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) deepened the divide between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to further civil wars and conflicts. It exemplified the extreme violence and intolerance that characterized the period.

         In the same year as the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ (1648), witnessed the barbaric explosion of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, also known as the Cossack-Polish War. Bohdan Khmelnytsky was the leader (1648-57) of the Zaporozhian Cossacks who organized a rebellion against Polish rule in Ukraine that ultimately led to the transfer of the Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper River from Polish to Russian control. His barbarian Cossack hordes slaughtered perhaps 1 million Jews living in the Ukraine and Poland.

         Germany annexed Prussia from Poland during the partitions of Poland, which occurred in three stages. (1772) – Prussia gained the region of West Prussia, which included parts of Polish territory. (1793) – Prussia acquired additional territories, including parts of Greater Poland. (1795) – Prussia annexed the remaining parts of Poland, including areas that would later be known as Prussian Poland.

         After World War II, the Allies did not restore Poland to its pre-partition borders; instead, they established new borders based on the outcomes of the war and the decisions made at conferences among the Allied powers. Poland lost significant territory in the east to the Soviet Union, including areas such as Lviv (Lwów) and parts of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus. In compensation, Poland was granted territory in the west, including parts of former German territories such as Silesia, Pomerania, and the southern part of East Prussia. Poland was re-established as a sovereign state after the war, but its borders were significantly different from those before the partitions in the late 18th century.

         Loading…

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.