[Prefatory Note: The short assessment of Israel’s strategic objectives that are not addressed in the Trump Twenty-Point Plan was initially written in response to a question put to by a Brazilian journalist with a special interest in the Middle East.]
Reading Israel Katz’s comments on Annexation of WB, permanent presence in Gaza, and Policies of Disproportionate Reprisal
Israel Katz, Israel’s Minister of Defense, used blunt language to express his version of ‘Greater Israel’ that is alone an acceptable outcome of this long struggle culminating in the Gaza Genocide. What Katz proposes is at minimum the de facto annexation of the West Bank and Israel’s permanent presence in the 53% of Gaza that Israel now occupies, made irreversible by the establishment of Jewish settlements in Northern Gaza. Katz can be read as implicitly recognizing Israel’s inability to reach these goals de jure, which can be understood as an expression of Zionist realism as to the limits of Israel’s influence at any given time. Such remarks may have been unscripted, and not indicative of how Netanyahu proposes to handle this interaction between the Trump Plan and the Zionist Endgame.
This controversial language of Katz should be interpreted both as trouble ahead for the Trump diplomacy, an exhibition of Israel’s growing awareness that the contradictions between the further implementation of remaining fundamental tenets of the Zionist vision and the Trump diplomacy may collide in the future. In the past this gap between what geopolitical managers were willing to grant Israel and what Israel insists upon as the price of peace meant a frozen diplomacy. Before Katz spoke this acceptance of a de facto version of realizing Israeli goals had rarely openly acknowledged by a public official in relation to these expansionist and hegemonic ambitions.
This official silence in relation to Israel’s unattained strategic objectives may have been intended as a temporary expression of deference to the international consensus on an endgame for the struggle between Jews and Palestinians, which has been the case since the General Assembly 1947 Partition Resolution of 181, continues to support a ‘two-state solution.’ Such solution is not favored by a wide spectrum of opinion among the political elites and citizenry of Israel that currently affirm a commitment to a single Israeli state, often known as ‘Greater Israel’, but seemingly excluded from the Trump Plan. This helps explain why Netanyahu and other prominent Israelis have in recent months made their determined opposition to Palestinian statehood in any form. Also relevant is that criticism directed at Israel’s tactics of starvation and civilian targeting has been made by the governments most complicit with the genocide (except the US), including France, the UK, and Canada, that pointedly and stubbornly support the establishment of a Palestinian state. [See French-backed New York Declaration:United Nations High-Level International Conference – New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State solution (29 July 2025)]
A previous signal of Israeli one-statism was the refusal to declare existing territorial borders as final.
Katz has made other disturbing comments in his official response to a deadly stabbing attack in the West Bank a few days ago. Katz declared that he has “ordered a military action against the home village” of the Palestinian attacker, a measure of reprisal contrary to international law in two respects: openly attacking a civilian village and inflicting collective punishment on an innocent community. Israel newspapers reports more measured Israeli responses to the incident of course labeled as ‘terrorism’ that may suggest that Katz’s provocative words should be partially discounted given his reputation as a stand-alone ‘hothead.’
All along Israel has opted for disproportionate and indiscriminate responses to any signs of armed Palestinian resistance. Israel formulated the so-called Dahiya Doctrine, first enunciated in 2006 as an articulation of Israel’s response to Hezbollah operating out of Lebanon in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. As Dahiya was long understood it was nothing new. It made explicit what Israel had been doing all along in the name of national security.
What may be noteworthy with respect to these utterances by Katz is their relevance to territorial sovereignty ambitions and the future of Gaza. It has long been agreed upon by expert observers of Israel that the current leadership of Israel to varying degrees adhered to Zionist ideology that included the prospect of West Bank annexation and further Judaification by way of the settlement movement as well as the partial annexation of Gaza reinforced by Jewish settlements situated in northern Gaza. That Zionist ambitions along these lines existed in Tel Aviv should not have come as a surprise in informed circles, although its open acknowledgement at this time is unexpected, especially as it rubs against the grain of US efforts to build wide international support for the Trump 20 Point Plan, which is strongly weighted in favor of Israel and dismissive of Palestinian grievances.
The timing of Katz’s utterances may reflect Israeli concern about the nature of Trump’s regional approach that seemed to preclude such territorial expansion. This might slow down Israel’s timetable, but would not likely inhibit the Israeli leadership, that Israel will move forward with its ‘day after’ diplomacy while paying lip service to the Trump Plan. Trump’s diplomacy has major benefits for Israel. It masks accountability issues, thereby ensuring impunity for Israel’s engagement with the criminality of genocide and apartheid, and possibly ecocide, exhibited daily in the past two plus years to the entire world. The Miami meeting scheduled for Monday, December 29 between Netanyahu and Trump may cast light on whether Katz’s comments touched on points of tension between Washington and Tel Aviv or were just a way of reminding the world of a major tenet of Zionist ideology at a critical moment when the non-Israelis were formulating the future of what has become known as Occupied Palestinian Territories. Time will tell us more about the relative leverage of Israel and the United States in crafting a post-genocide future for the two peoples. In this sense, it is most unfortunate that no modality of Palestinian participation could be agreed upon during this period of Trump diplomacy.
As such thoughts linger, the people of Gaza have not been treated with dignity but mostly left homeless amid the rubble to cope with fierce Winter without heat, adequate food, and a conscientious Israel effort to abide by the ceasefire that it has consistently violated in ways that overcome any uncertainty. There is little reason to doubt that Israel’s annexationist and expansionist goals retain their position at the top of Israel’s policy agenda.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Greetings Richard! I’m so disappointed I only learned of the Canadian Border Service detaining you the Day after your address in Ottawa last month. If I knew in advance I would have registered to listen to you.
I posted this to several Zionists on X lately.
The Balfour Declaration: A Wartime Expediency that Doomed a Region
Issued on All Souls’ Day, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was a 67-word letter from the British Foreign Secretary to a Zionist banker. It pledged British support for “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine,” with a crucial caveat: it must not harm the rights of the “existing non-Jewish communities” (over 90% of the population).
Its core truths are:
A War Weapon, Not a Moral Vision: It was issued to secure wartime loans from American Jews, keep Russia fighting, and lock in British control of Jerusalem as troops advanced.
A Triple Betrayal: It directly contradicted two other secret British promises: the Sykes-Picot Agreement (to split the region with France) and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence (promising Arab independence).
The Seed of Endless Conflict: It provided the legal foundation for the state of Israel and is simultaneously remembered by Palestinians as the foundational document of the Nakba (Catastrophe).
A Deliberate Contradiction: It promised a Jewish homeland in a land where Jews were 8% of the population, while vowing to protect the majority’s rights—an impossible, knowingly dishonest formula.
In essence, the Balfour Declaration was a cynical, imperial act that mortgaged one people’s homeland to secure another empire’s victory, creating a century of conflict from its very first, contradictory words.
With Peace and Blessing,
Ray
Ray:
Sending you holiday blessings for Christmas and the New Year, hopefully with
brighter glimmers of light.
Your comment clarifying the legacy of the Balfour Declaration is helpful for an
understanionading of current events.
Our Canadian incident was peculiar, allegedly concerned with whether we should be
excluded as ‘risks to Canadian national security.’
May 2026 treat you benevolently,
Richard
Richard, you’re an inspiration to others that at your advanced Years, but still a babe in Eternity, you are still engaged in the struggle to have people come alive and active understanding our Common Humanity in this Common Era of Christ.
Between you and I we’re a 1 – 2 punch! You to the Israeli Defence Minister, and me speaking Truth to Power on X to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar and other World Leaders. They’re all on X!
I had to reply, seeing Sa’ar’s comment in my X news feed; Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער @gidonsaar
Israel strongly rejects the statement issued by foreign countries regarding the Cabinet decision on settlements in Judea and Samaria. Foreign governments will not restrict the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel, and any such call is morally wrong and discriminatory against Jews. The Cabinet decision to establish 11 new settlements and to formalize eight additional settlements is intended, among other things, to help address the security threats Israel is facing. All of the settlements are located in Area C and are situated on state land. Israel acts in accordance with International Law. The incorporation of the 1917 Balfour Declaration into the Mandate was explicitly agreed upon at the San Remo Conference in 1920. According to the Mandate, the right of the Jewish people to establish its national home extends over the entire territory of “Mandatory Palestine.” These rights were preserved in Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations. In the aforementioned statement, the blatant silence of foreign states regarding the Palestinian Authority’s illegal construction in Area C is extremely striking. My reply:
Ray Joseph Cormier @RayJC_Com
The Promised Land is a promise. It can’t be taken by force! ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the LORD of hosts’ Zechariah 4:6
The Israeli Foreign Minister is ignorant of the Commandment of the God of the Jews in the Torah and the Prophets:
‘And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwells with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19: 33-34
And it shall come to pass, that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be to you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourns, there shall you give him his inheritance, say the Lord GOD.” Ezekiel 47: 32-33
Continuing our study of the Gemara of Kiddushin. משנה תורה אב משנה, סוגיה ב’ — מניינא דף ג
Understanding the basics of Oral Torah a fundamentally required absolute. Wrote of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט compared to rabbi Yishmael’s כלל – פרט, פרט – כלל middot by which both men interpreted through different sh’ittot the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic reasoning. Clearly neither Boris Badenov, nor his boot licking sidekick Natasha Fatale (Rambam & Yosef Karo) understood the distinctions which separate Torah common law from Roman statute law.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק”ו. למעוטי מאי? למעוטי חליפין. ס”ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, מה שדה מקניא בחליפין, אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין. קמ”ל. This “משל” term “קמ”ל”, what defines its נמשל interpretation? The Gemara asks: למעוטי מאי? Hence, our Gemara contrasts rabbi Yishmael’s midda of ק”ו against rabbi Akiva’s midda of רבוי מיעט. When ever encountering a קמ”ל, this משל teaches the נמשל of either a רבוי מיעט. A fundamental chiddush, how to correctly read the Talmud with an understanding discerning eye – comparable to the tongue of a wine bibber. The Talmud defines understanding as: discernment like from like.
The פרט of בראשית כד:ב requires research. Let’s open by making a מדרש רבה analysis. Midrash functions as a reference resource for Talmudic study. The flat assimilated Yeshiva education system totally ignores learning Talmud together with Midrash, a clumsy yet cunning schemer basic Snidely Whiplash error. Which utterly backfires in a pathetic shallow addiction to the Rambam error of literal word translation Orthodox Judaism religious stupidity.
בראשית רבה נט:ח – Midrash Rabbah connects this verse through the midda of גזירה שוה to כי יקח איש אשה. Avraham & servant Eliezer cut an oath alliance Torah common law legal precedent prototype. The hand-under-thigh Torah language refers to an oath sworn obligation through which the גזירה שוה equally applies to the קידושין oath brit obligation which obligates a Man to give a get to his ex-wife if he divorces her. What does the mitzva of קידושין acquire? The Nefesh O’lam Ha’Ba of the woman’s soul! Specifically learned from the Torah precedent בכל נפשך repeated twice in the opening first two paragraphs of the ק”ש. Bereishit Rabbah learns this critical גזרה שוה, as a critical proto–common law precedent; a foundational legal principles or decisions that define the development of Oral Torah common law as we know it today.
The רבוי מיעט – The acquired “wife” does not lose her independent da’at. Kiddushin-betrothal does not confer ownership over the woman, her various aspect: such as her body, labor or personhood. She exits marital status through get, not resale. Never does she qualify as ממון: money, valuable possessions, and property. Herein interprets the k’vanna of the language of our Av Mishna, which does not say: האשה נקנית לאיש, but האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים — the mitzva of קידושין separates this woman from all other women. Herein understand how the gospel Av tuma avoda zara touching the vile story of virgin birth follows Greek mythology of Hercules rather than Oral Torah common law.
The precedent of Avraham and his servant sworn oath, this Torah brit alliance obligates. Hence this Torah precedent critical in understanding the mitzva of קידושין as an oath alliance brit obligation which obligates both Man and Woman equally. קידושין acquires exclusive – מיעט – over the woman’s nefesh-standing vis-à-vis other men. Herein explains why adultery qualifies as a Capital Crime case which only a Sanhedrin court can adjudicate. Hence no Goyim court qualifies as having authority to issue a divorce. This fundamental recognition that only Torah courts shall determine “the Jewish Problem”, as expressed through the post Shoah oath: NEVER AGAIN.
Oral Torah does not function as a תולדות commentary on the Written Torah —Oral Torah common law derived from precedent תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments. קידושין acquires a brit-level oath obligation as a Av Torah time-oriented commandment. This oath alliance obligation establishes enforceable duties such as כתובה, גט, & fidelity. This mitzva does not treat the acquisition of a wife comparable to how a man acquires ownership of a עבד כנעני; the concept of “soul” understood as title acquired to all future born children fathered consequent to this קידושין. This Torah mitzva serves to amplify the k’vanna of swearing an oath alliance לשמה – the first Sinai commandment; the greatest commandment in the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק״ו
למעוטי מאי
למעוטי חליפין
This question cannot be asked within Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל–פרט system alone, because: A pure ק״ו would expand; a pure גזירה שוה from שדה עפרון would import all kinyanim. Hence the danger: ס״ד אמינא:
הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון
מה שדה מקניא בחליפין
אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין
This while logically correct under Rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta. But rabbi Akiva’s קמ״ל = רבוי מיעט, not כלל–פרט. So קמ״ל here teaches the negative boundary of the רבוי, just as it likewise understands the relationship between Shabbat to Chol! A very important precedent since the mitzva of shabbat critically defines: HOLY; just as korbanot dedications define the kingship mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron to dedicate the nation to pursue righteous judicial justice. The prophet Natan cursed the House of David with eternal Civil War after he failed to rule with justice in the matter of the baal of Bat Sheva. Just as Aaron did not offer up barbeques to Heaven through korbanot, so to the Moshiach does not rule as king if he fails to establish righteous common law Federal Sanhedrin courts!
Acquisition to the “title” Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of the woman’s soul does not compare to buying or selling chattel. Reading the Talmud as if it compares to the novel of a Harry Potter NT false messiah – Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud-literalism, destroys and uproots precedent-based Oral Torah common law/משנה תורה. Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, ancient Greek syllogism deductive logic simply does not work any more than does the Yad, Tur, or Shulkan Aruch assists students to correctly understand how to study and learn the Talmud. Hence the sages codified in the Talmud referred to as “Oral Torah”, whereas the Rambam Yad in no way, shape, manner, or form qualifies as Oral Torah. The two systems compare to the Planets of Mars and Venus.
The קמ”ל always signals רבוי–מיעט. In this particular case: it excludes chalipin, despite the valid ק״ו logic. Because the acquired object – a brit obligation over the “nefesh” soul. Which likewise the Oral Torah differs from the Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch counterfeits, the acquisition of “nefesh” simply not ממון, but rather the future born children – the definition of the first Torah commandment: be fruitful and multiply. The רבוי מיעט of the קידושין acquisition of “soul”, separates Goyim from the chosen מיעט Cohen people created through the Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment of קידושין. Which aligns perfectly with Bereishit Rabbah’s oath-alliance precedent.
The concluding statement of מדרש רבה נט:ח — א”ר יצחק חטיא דקרתך זונין זרע מנהון. Rabbi Yitzhak stated: ‘The wrongdoing of your actions prevents their sustenance from coming;’ restated: “produces continuity only when obligation is preserved.” This closing statement of Midrash Rabbah נט:ח functions as a juridical boundary marker – informing how legal drosh “borders”; the Tosafists reasoning perhaps qualifies it as הלכה למעשה. My sh’itta of inductive reasoning argues the comparison between the case of our Gemara — to the case introduced by Midrash Rabba (the definition of inductive vs deductive reasoning) – do not interpret the קידושין oath brit alliance as the acquisition of an object but rather as the very definition of creating the chosen cohen people through tohor time-oriented commandments.
Torah common law draws category boundaries, such as Sanhedrin courts only have legal jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Or prophets serve as the police enforcers of judicial common law legal rulings; if no Sanhedrin courts then likewise no prophets. Despite the koran narishkeit which declares that prophets sent to all peoples across the Planet and the Arabs the last people on Earth to receive their “chosen” prophet; hence their absurd declaration that Muhammad was the last of the prophets!
חליפין has the legal meaning which presumes חפץ – a thing. ‘Fungible goods items’ qualify as horse-trading, interchangeable goods. Fungibility facilitates easy transactions and exchanges. Representative by contrast refers to something or someone who stands in for or symbolizes someone or something else. Like Representatives voted into the Federal Congress, they serve as proxies for the voting electorate within any given US State. In basic horse-trading, money functions as a representative of legal trade instead of barter. A common custom practiced by Goyim societies: wife swapping.
Torah law never universalizes categories without jurisdiction. This fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד middah forever separates Torah common law from Islamic (and Christian) universal-prophetic claims, which erase jurisdictional boundaries entirely.
Kiddushin cannot tolerate representation … wife swapping. A nefesh cannot be substituted; brit cannot be “grafted” to Goyim who do not and never have accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Fidelity cannot be symbolically reassigned; the Torah oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people defined to Talmudic established culture and customs, personal, exclusive, & non-fungible. The Torah phrase “והיו לבשר אחד” — not metaphysics — rather anti-fungibility common law. Therefore חליפין utterly treif in the matter of קידושין because it baptizes brit into a substitute theology exchange which replaces the pursuit of justice as faith for belief in some theologically created new God as faith.
The mitzva of קידושין rejects the Goyim custom which perceives marital bonds as transferable; persons as interchangeable units; relationships as revocable exchanges which defines the legal concept of fungibility in human marital relations. Therefore our Gemara blocks that endpoint at the root by excluding חליפין. Herein our Gemara separate kiddushin from market place logic of acquisition of goods and property.
Therefore, קמ״ל in Kiddushin functions as a רבוי–מיעט marker: it affirms that Kiddushin functions as a true kinyan, while excluding any kinyan whose logic presumes fungible object-ownership; therefore חליפין – excluded because brit over nefesh cannot be represented, substituted, or exchanged.
Why Jews view both the NT and Koran as av tuma avoda zara – a Torah abomination.
The Codex Sinaiticus is significant in biblical scholarship, but it does not explicitly include the Nicene Creed itself. However, its contents reflect early Christian theology, which aligns with the Nicene understanding of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed was formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea to address debates over the nature of Christ and the Trinity. It affirms the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The text within Codex Sinaiticus, including various New Testament writings (like Philippians), supports the core concepts of the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed. Passages affirming the divinity and humanity of Christ—such as Philippians 2:5-11—align with Nicene teachings. The theological sentiments present in the manuscript reflect a developing understanding of beliefs that would be formalized in creeds like the Nicene.
Philippians 2:5-11 aligns with Nicene teachings which violate the First and Second Commandments of Sinai – a complex theological assertion. First Commandment: I am HaShem who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The Nicene Creed makes absolutely no reference to the revelation of this first Commandment Divine Name. Translating the Divine Name into other words duplicates the Sin of the Golden calf wherein the mixed multitudes, which the Torah describes as people who had no fear of “Elohim”.
Why did the Torah refer to the very error of the mixed multitudes who translated the Spirit Name revelation – first Sinai commandment with the word “Elohim”. The Torah directly commands not to compare the revelation of the Spirit Name not to anything in the Earth, Heavens, or Seas –yet would permit word translations which ignore the revelation of the Sinai Divine Spirit which so horrified Israel that they thought they would die after hearing only the first two commandments; therefore Israel demanded from Moshe that he rise up upon Sinai and receive the rest of the Torah!
The Second Commandment does not say You shall not make for yourself an idol; as if avoda zarah – the Av tuma negative commandment of Sinai – limit itself to physical graven images. The T’NaCH defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment to A) Do not follow the cultures and customs/practices of peoples who rejected the revelation at Sinai. B) Do not marry any man or woman of these alien foreign peoples who rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Both the New Testament and Koran – no different than the worship of Baal. Only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Sinai revelation. The revelation of this local god differs totally and completely from the Monotheistic theological creed creation of new Gods as expressed by both the authors of the New Testament and Koran.
Furthermore Philippians 2:5-11 likewise perverts the Torah mitzva of Moshiach unto some “Savior of death”, in accordance with the Apostle Paul’s perversion of the exile of Adam from the Garden (A major Torah theme likewise expressed in the stories of Noach, Israel in Egypt, and the 40 years in the Wilderness.), as the fall of all Man Kind condemned to eternal death till the NT theology of messiah created a new Universal God which defeats Satan and frees Man kind from the prison of Hell.
The theology of Monotheism, this creed subverts the revelation of the Divine Spirit Presence revealed in the First Sinai commandment. This Spirit not a word which Human lips can pronounce. Hence the theology of monotheism utterly and totally rejects the revelation of the Divine Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Furthermore, the theology creeds which pervert the 2nd Sinai commandment limited strictly and only to physical idols (a fundamental dispute which separates Catholic and Protestant theology to this very day), utterly ignores the Torah commandment as interpreted by the stories of King Shlomo’s foreign wives and Ezra’s commandment for Israel to divorce their foreign wives.
The First Commandment states, “I am HaShem your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” It focuses on HaShem’s identity and His relationship with Israel, rather than explicitly declaring monotheism as understood in later avoda zarah theological frameworks. HaShem judging the Egyptian gods implies that the existence of other deities reject the avoda zarah simplistic theology as defined by the established creeds of both religious belief systems. Torah defines the pursuit of judicial justice as FAITH, not believe in some Trinity or Allah as faith. This distinction highlights a relationship based on an oath brit alliance rather than a theological religious “covenant”. The Hebrew term brit does not correctly translate as “covenant”.
Implications for Worship: known as the mitzva of Avodat HaShem refers to doing time oriented commandments during the 6 days of the week and ceasing to do time oriented commandments on the day of Shabbat. Based upon the creation story of בראשית/Genesis. Neither the NT nor Koran accepted the revelation of the first two Sinai commandments; therefore both fraudulent religions reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The Xtian creed of Holy Spirit has no connection what so ever with the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The koran replacement theology of Allah no different than the error of the Nicene creed Holy Spirit. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai, HaShem by definition a local tribal god and not some grand Universal Monotheistic God as both Xtianity and Islam dictates. Peoples around the world throughout the span of Human history worship and believe in other Gods. To negate the existence of other Gods therefore constitutes as revisionist history.
Time oriented commandments express a Torah wisdom not bound by some child-like rote understanding which limits “time” as some linear event. Torah wisdom, such as required to build the Mishkan, herein serves as the strongest Torah common law precedent wherein the Torah itself defines time oriented commandments. Neither the NT nor Koran have the least bit of a clue concerning Torah wisdom as the definition of all time oriented Torah commandments. Therefore neither the NT nor Koran qualify as valid continuation of the Divine Revelation at Sinai which only Israel accepts to this very day.
Torah common law shares no common ground with av tuma NT & Koran theology/creed belief systems. A judge who hears a case before his court having strong “beliefs” pro or con concerning the details of the case argued before his court – righteousness demands that he recuse and excuse himself as a judge in that current case debated by both prosecutor and defense justices of the 3 man Torts common law court.
mosckerr
Read your 1979 article. You are the real definition of a “useful idiot.”
As of January 2026, it has been observed that many residents of Gaza, including members of Hamas, are continuing to distribute candies and sweets to commemorate October 7, 2023. Both Hamas and the UN still rejoice in the Oct 7th Abomination War. The United Nations has formally condemned Israeli actions following the events of October 7, 2023.
Talmud scholarship directly compares to enslaved Israelites who build Par’o Egyptian cities by making bricks with straw. This metaphor משל requires that the reading audience themselves make the required דיוק-logical inference which the Talmud calls: נמשל. This Talmudic requirement defines a key aspect of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic that defines how the sages in the Talmud understand the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. Clearly the Gemara, sealed in approximately 450 CE in Iraq not the same as the period of time when Moshe Rabbeinu heard the revelation of the 13 tohor middot at Horev which define how to comprehend the revelation of the שם השם לשמה expressed in the first Sinai Torah commandment.
Goyim religious leaders therefore disregard the Talmud “codification” known as the “Oral Torah” by Jewish audiences who study T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. Talmud compares to the metaphor of a Loom which has warp & weft opposing threads; the kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning logic splits דרוש-פשט affixed to the Aggadic threads of the chosen Cohen peoples culture and customs which the T’NaCH\Talmud weaves; akin to the Torah garments which the Book of שמות commands for Aaron and his sons.
The construction of Cohen culture and customs (still another metaphor משל) compares to Israelite slave who built treasure cities for Par’o. The Talmud employs as its “straw made into bricks”, the 7 middot of Hillel, 10 middot of Akiva, 13 middot of Yishmael, and 32 middot of HaGalill. The specifics of the opening Av Mishna of קידושין, both Mishna together with its Gemara commentary “construct” Talmudic פרדס inductive logic through the “bricks” of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט line of reasoning. The opening first two words of this Mishna האשה נקנית makes a מיעט which excluded a קטנה-little girl from the mitzva of קידושין. The legalism of Talmudic scholarship requires that the reading public differentiate the kabbalah of rabbinic middot bricks. Failure to discern the type of “middot bricks” used in the “construction” of a specific Mishna/Gemara results in catastrophic error. The Rambam in his statute law halachic code, organized based upon the Order of Roman statute law which “shapes” law into legal categories failed to grasp that small young girls excluded from the Mitzva of קידושין like a lame animal excluded from being a korban dedicated upon the altar. This gross fundamental error post ירידות הדורות-domino effect – down stream generations – failed to grasp and correct. This fundamental error compares to aiming a rifle at a down range target.
Both Adin Steinsalts and the ArtScroll Schottenstein Editions attempt to impose their versions of a Talmudic translation. Steinsalts resembles the Rambam in that both men translated Talmudic Aramaic into Hebrew. The ArtScroll attempts to translate the Talmud into English. The most basic fundamental which translation theories fail to grasp: T’NaCH mussar aggadic common law and Halachic Gemara common law (warp vs weft) both stand upon precedents from other similar Case/Din outside sources of T’NaCH or Talmudic Primary Sources. Neither the Hebrew T’NaCH nor the Talmud read like the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran non common law “translations”.
Only Israel accepts, to this day the revelation of the Torah לשמה – but only within the borders of the oath sworn lands. The counterfeit translations of both bible and koran worship word translation – Golden Calves. אלהים did not take Israel out of Egypt. The דיוק which the Sinai revelation makes upon Divine Names previously introduced in the opening Book of בראשית – the Sinai revelation לשמה … the difference between God in the heavens to god in the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the Cohen hearts in this Earth below. The משל of the Mishkan further emphasizes this absolutely critical distinction which both the Xtian bible and Muslim koran “translations” lose through their “translations”. Both fail to make the absolutely required דיוק נמשל – the Sinai revelation separates the dwelling of רוח הקודש tohor Oral Torah middot spirits, living inside the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts — from Universal Monotheistic theologies which worship God in the Heavens. The substance of the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Translating do not worship אלהים אחרים to idols compares to assuming that קידושין – a mitzva that includes little girls.
Granted, king Shlomo’s grand Temple idol of wood and stone qualifies as within the bounds of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Torah wisdom discerns and does not confuse forms for substance. The substance of Torah “faith”: the righteous pursuit of justice among the bnai brit people NOT belief in theologically “created” New Gods – name Jesus or Allah respectively.
ס”ד אמינא הואיל ו … קמ”ל this Gemara phrase exposes the logical “brick” known as a middah – רבוי מיעט. Both the Xtian and Muslim faiths declare: I might have thought that both Jesus and Allah exist as one Monotheistic Universal God for all Mankind … קמ”ל. No. These av tuma avoda zara “New Gods”, a Torah abomination; both Av tuma theologies pervert the revelation of Torah common law – faith, into twisted and perverted religions belief systems. Both reject the revelation of Torah common law as the faith obligation – “Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven” – placed upon the shoulders of all generations of the chosen Cohen people alone. The revelation of the שם השם לשמה at Sinai — the local tribal god of the Jewish people alone. Goyim by definition worship אלהים אחרים.
Xtianity worships a false messiah. While Islam pretends that prophets sent to all peoples speaking in the native tongues of those peoples who fundamentally reject the revelation of the Torah common law legalism at Sinai. Both corrupted religions translate “prophets” into little girls fit for the mitzva of קידושין through rape. Yonah sent to the refugees the king of Assyria forcefully expelled from the conquered kingdom of Israel. Just as pre-g’lut prophets equally travelled to the kingdom of Samaria to command mussar. Torah prophets never sent to all peoples across the Earth as the koran falsely declares. Prophets do not predict the future as the NT falsely declares. Prophets – like the mitzva of Shabbat defines the mitzva of Moshiach in that both Torah commandments apply equally to all peoples and generations of bnai brit to pursue and rule the chosen Cohen people with righteous justice based upon the מיעט פרט of Uriah the Hittite mussar rebuke by which the prophet Natan cursed David with eternal Civil War blood shed; David failed in this specific particular case to sanctify the mitzva of Moshiach, no different than king Shaul who failed to obey the prophetic mussar commanded by Shemuel which order Shaul to slaughter Amalek. This כלל – פרט middah “brick” of rabbi Yishmael serves to defines the k’vanna dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach, like as does the רבוי מיעט excludes little girls from the mitzva of kiddushin.
The wisdom of the Torah affixed through Av tohor time-oriented commandments. As positive & negative Torah commandments serves as common law precedents having the purpose to discern k’vanna required for av time oriented commandment … thereby elevated to av tohor commandments rather than remaining as secondary precedent commandments which do not require k’vanna. This “Torah wisdom” equally applies to Oral Torah halachic mitzvot within and across the Talmud which too do not require k’vanna. The Aggadic portions of the Talmud make a דרוש\פשט to T’NaCH Primary sources which permits all generations of Talmudic scholarship to learn the k’vanna of prophetic mussar and “weave” this prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of observing halachic mitzvot ritual observances as codified in the later rabbinic codes. The halachot codified in the Shulkan Aruch statute law assimilated perversion of the Rambam base error – do not require k’vanna. The commentaries made upon the Rambam’s Yad fail to affix his halachic “translations” to a specific halachah within the B’HaG or Rif or Rosh common law codes which open with a specific Mishna. Hence all these ירידות הדורות-domino effect, down stream generations of error – treif.
The fundamental restrictions of the Sinai brit.
The Torah Cohanim laws in ויקרא, encompass various aspects of Jewish life, particularly regarding sexual morality\ערבה, the tohor-tuma holiness Code, where this Book closes with the Blessing/Curse revelation of the k’vanna of the accepted Sinai brit. The concepts of tahor (purity) and tamei (impurity) – spirits within the YaTzir Tov\Ya Tzir Raw within the heart, herein defines the נמשל of the revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai. All Torah commandments subsumed under the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; the greatest Torah commandment of all Torah commandments – the first Sinai commandment. No Torah commandment has greater authority than the 1st Torah commandment at Sinai.
This crucial important understanding כלל, the overall spiritual and communal framework of Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach, פרט which defines this כלל. The mitzva of Moshiach no more applicable to Goyim any more than the observance of shabbat. The latter mitzva requires the ability to discern between מלאכה from עבודה. The NT Greek language, for example, does not discern any fundamental or even secondary distinction between these two completely different Hebrew verbs which the Greek NT translates as work. Hence the Xtian Man-God JeZeus did not grasp how to sanctify the time-oriented wisdom commandment NOT shabbat NOR moshiach. Consequently both the NT and Koran exist as false prophet theology which seeks to entice Israel to worship other Gods.
ויקרא יח — כ laws of Cohonim as applicable to Goyim who reject the revelation the Torah at Sinai as Mars lack of water compares to Earth covered by vast majority in water. Goyim outsiders cannot usurp the Hebrew T’NaCH simply by renaming it “Old Testament”. Dishonesty defines the Xtian bible from start to finish; the revelation of Torah judicial common law Sanhedrin mandate radically different from Goyim worship of their Gods who live in the Heavens above.
For example: The Goyim bible knows nothing of the oath sworn brit at Sh’Cem prior to the 7 year war to conquer Canaan. Goyim know nothing of how Torah defines the culture, customs, and practices which shape the identity of the Jewish people. Their ‘I am saved through JeZeus’ reflected in the post WWII ‘born again’ fad – completely oblivious to the church crimes (both Catholic & Protestant) that culminated in the Shoah European guilt. Actions have their consequences. 2000+ years of Xtian war crimes against Humanity by no means limited to the Jews alone.
Xtian faith exists only as mythology, especially after 2000+ years of failed 2nd coming “Good News”. Where was JeZeus during the Shoah? Church has no shame b/c its believers take no responsibility for their criminal behavior from generation to generation to generation — only evil and wickedness. Answer for the crimes of the Inquisition or the forced mass population transfers or the extermination of entire populations in the New World and across the Pacific Islands and Africa. Never has any Xtian country made religious war criminals stand trial. Post WWII the Church opened rat-lines to assist Nazis to flee from standing trial. And Poland initiated pogroms against Jews returning to reclaim title to their properties!
The 7 mitzvot bnai noach, an Aggadah within mesechta Sanhedrin addresses the type of Goy temporary resident known as Ger Toshav. By contrast mesechta Baba Kama addresses the 2nd type of Goy living within the borders of the oath sworn lands “brit” sworn as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot and only to this chosen seed. Hence the Torah records that Moshe received command not to invade the lands of Esau!
Mesechta Baba Kama refers to the Goyim whom the king of Assyria settled in the captured 10 Tribe kingdom of Samaria/Israel. The Book of Ezra/Nehemiah refers to these people who converted out of ‘fear of lions’ as Shomronim – which the NT calls ‘Samaritans’. The Book of D’varim refers to both types of Goyim in the case of treif meat: its permitted to give this type of flesh as a present to the ger toshav or sell it to the “nacree”. The Talmud, multiple generations of sages, debated the status of the Nacreeim and reached the conclusion which excluded them as having any legal connection to Torah judicial justice laws. Why? The Samaritan forerunners of the Karaim and Xtians – one and all declared themselves the ‘NEW Israel’.
The Rambam held that the 7 mitzvot bnain Noach apply to all Goyim. Aggada makes a drosh/p’shat back to interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar based upon similar T’NaCH case/din mussar rulings. This prophetic mussar has the power when “woven” into halachic ritual observances to elevate a positive rabbinic mitzva into a Av tohor Torah time-oriented wisdom commandment. Confusing the private opinion by the Rambam, whom both the court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and the majority of the Baali Tosafot in France both condemned the Rambam’s statute halachic code and Guide Greek philosophy as a Torah abomination — based upon the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah wherein the P’rushim dedicated the korban of lights to only interpret the Written Torah with the logic of the Oral Torah. Greek deductive logic the blessing on Hanukkah recalls that the Greeks sought to cause Israel to forget the (Oral) Torah.
Assimilated Rambam from Spain worships the Universal God theologies which both the NT and Koran espouse. No Sanhedrin Court has jurisdiction to judge Capital Crimes cases outside the borders of the Torah defined oath sworn land inheritance of Canaan and as further defined within the expanded language of the Torah and clarified by Moshe Rabbeinu which requires expanded National territories include small Sanhedrin cities of refuge Capital Crimes courtrooms. Hence the Rambam notion of Universal 7 mitzvot applicable to all Goyim – an utter narishkeit as the NT dictate on the mitzva of Moshiach.
The Rambam “world to come” as pie in the sky as the NT false messiah. Goyim not under Torah law. Therefore just as Americans do not determine Russian strategic interests to invade a Ukraine threatening to join NATO – especially after Napoleon and Hitler both invaded Russia through the flat plains of the Ukraine – so too Goyim, not under the law, do not determine Torah commandments, specifically in the NT case – the commandment of Moshiach.
Torah common law stands the vision of “life in the word to come” based upon the Torah oath brit cut between the pieces wherein childless Avram swore and oath and in turn his local god El Shaddai swore an oath back to Avram. This concept of brit – totally alien to the Torah. Secondary sources like the NT or Koran do not supersede the Torah; anymore that Goyim who reject the Torah can qualify as ger tzeddik converts. The Pauline ‘graphed onto’ narishkeit equal to the Koran declaration of Yishmael bound upon the altar at the Akadah.
The seven Noahide laws are presented in Jewish sources as a universal moral code binding on all humanity (the “descendants of Noah”), independent of the Land of Israel or the Sanhedrin’s geographic jurisdiction for Jewish capital cases. False. Violation of any of these 7 laws by a ger toshav constitutes as a Capital Crime Case that only the Sanhedrin courts can adjudicate. One of the 7 mitzvot requires gere toshav to establish courts of law. The Talmud does not mandate any court ger toshav in Judea the authority to adjudicate any Capital Crime case. Rather ger toshav courts limited to Torts damages courts like Jewish Torts courts in g’lut.
Sanhedrin Capital Crimes courts inclusive of Small Sanhedrin courts in all cities of refuge as well as the Great Sanhedrin Court of 71, define the Torah mandated Federal Sanhedrin common law court system. The NaCree (language of the Torah)/Canaani (language of Baba Kama) refers strictly and only to despised refugee populations/Shomronim\Samaritans.
No Sanhedrin court can put a “Bnai Noach” living in London or Paris or Berlin or Moscow to death. Violation of any of the 7 mitzvot therefore strictly and only apply to gere toshav living within the judicial domain of Sanhedrin Capital Crime courtrooms. Makkot 9a illustrates distinctions: a ger toshav who unintentionally kills another ger toshav is exiled (treated somewhat like a Jew), while killing a Jew leads to execution without exile—handled under Jewish judicial frameworks in the Land. Only Sanhedrin court justices have the Torah mandate to judge and try Capital Crimes Cases. The courts of Gere Toshav temporary residents do not have greater authority than Jewish Torts courts within the borders of Judea.
The small Sanhedrin courts function as lower courts which permits appeal to the two Great Sanhedrin courts held within the Court of Hewn State within the Temple. Secondary sources of Talmudic scholarship made after the sealing of the T’NaCH, Mishna, Gemara, and Siddur exist as opinions. These secondary sources cannot over-ride nor negate sealed Primary sources. The Rambam statute halachic codes does just that, it equates his halachic posok rulings as if they stood upon their own merit. By stark and obvious contrast the Gemara halachot serve as precedent to interpret the language of the Mishna which that Gemara comments upon and nothing more. Herein separates T’NaCH\Talmudic common law from Roman & Rambam statute law.
Aggada does not determine halacha – except in the opinion of the Rambam. Quoting Genesis 9:9–17 does not amount to squat. It amounts to a dream which has no interpretation; a letter never opened and read. Sanhedrin 56a–57a addresses Gere Toshav – based upon the Book of D’varim which differentiates two types of Goyim: Ger Toshav vs. NaCreeim. The Talmud restricted to these to classifications of Goyim within the borders of the Oath sworn lands.
Sanhedrin 56–60, which treats these laws as pre‑Sinaitic and universal? Post Sinai revelation the Torah no longer perceives Torah as Universal/in the heavens above. תורה לא בשמים היא – represents a key fundamental of the revelation and acceptance by Israel of the Torah. The Book of בראשית does not over-ride the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, any more than can post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli Reshonim scholars can add to or subtract from the sealed Talmud.
Only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – to this very day. Torah common law post Reshonim opinions do not modify except to the limitations of the needs of that particular generations. Clearly the Dark Age social political and societal anarchy and chaos do not prevail today in any even near comparison to the darkest Ages of Xtian Europe under the Church Inquisition dictatorships.
Pre-Sinaitic Universal ethics defines the 2nd Sinai commandment. Therefore any attempt to interpret 7 mitzvot bnai noach out of its Talmudic restriction which limits it to gere toshav temporary residents invalidates the Torah precedent in D’varim which separates giving treif meats as a gift vs selling this treif flesh to a Na’cree. The Baali Tosafot common law commentary on Avodah Zarah 64b – ger toshav exists only when Yovel observed supports this strong restriction against learning 7 mitzvot as Universal av tuma avoda zara commandments. The Yovel only applies to produce grown within the borders of the oath sworn lands.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai – mandates the Federal Sanhedrin Court system based upon the Torah serving as the Constitution of the Republic. Just as the Constitution of the US does not spread its Bill of Rights to Goyim living in foreign lands so too the Torah as the Constitution of the Cohen 12 Tribe Republic limited only to the borders of the oath sworn lands of this Republic. Therefore any post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli by Reshonim who seek to pervert the 1st Sinai revelation of the Name to some Universal God – like as expressed in the Av tuma avoda zara of both Xtianity and Islam – through ruling that the 7 mitzvot bnai noach apply Universally to all Goyim, such false instruction directly compares to av tuma false prophesy.
Yet the church never accepted the authority of the Oral Torah codified in the Talmud and mesechta Sanhedrin in particular! Halacha only applicable to Jews not Goyim. Both the Church and Mosque developed their own unique religious codes of theological creed belief systems. Religion never has anything to do with the Sinai brit obligation to rule the oath sworn Cohen inheritance lands sworn to the Avot with judicial common law court room legislative review based upon Torah Constitutional mandate. Any attempt by Shomronim, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Xtians or Muslims to superimpose religious theology belief system as a replacement theology qualifies as the Torah definition of av tuma false prophets who seek to persuade Jews to worship other Gods.