There’s always a crucial reason for the US to bomb the Middle East. It always leads to more problems and more powerful reasons to bomb the Middle East.
There seems absolutely nothing whatsoever that can prevent the US political establishment from being obsessed with waging war in the Middle East.
This sounds like the Climate Change hysteria made by a 13 year old girl. The US supplies Israel with bombs. Just that simple. No need to complicate a local war. Arab propaganda continually seeks to expand all Arab-Israeli wars into an international conflict through the UN. This strategy of political warfare based upon Ho Chi Minh’s successful strategy employed against both the French and the US known as “Peoples War”.
This strategy prioritizes making the conflict into an international conflict. Most specifically a intra-French and American conflict which pits the people of France and America against themselves. Hanoi Jane Fanda, or the Kent State National Guard shooting of protesting students. Two examples of Peoples War strategy success which ultimately undermined American support for Washingtons’ imperialism.
LikeLike
Dude, control yourself. You haven’t demonstrated the depth of analysis or insight that would justify you condescending to anybody.
LikeLike
I just found out that, apparently, JD Vance opposed the bombing of Yemen. I now like him more.
Somebody needs to see reason and stop this insanity that has been going on for decades.
LikeLike
Clarissa its your blog. Do not understand your rants and irrational hostility.
LikeLike
You have insulted my country of origin, my religion and my culture. You’ve said tactless cruel things and refused to listen when I politely and on numerous occasions explained to you that you are mistaken. If you think that hostility in response to such behavior is “irrational”, I fail to understand your definition of rationality.
LikeLike
Wow I read the same books you read and commented on them. Though I specialized in Soviet Foreign Policy between the two world wars, this did not make me a fan of Russia. Russia forced my people into Pale of Russia ghettos. The Cossacks of the Ukraine butchered my people in the 1648 pogroms – unmatched in barbarity till the Shoah. But if you bring a Russian book I can read it in Russian. How many Americans do you know that can do that? To me that’s respect.
LikeLike
I don’t respect anybody who respects Russia or its language. Can I be any clearer?
LikeLike
Can speak German too :))), well Yiddish anyway.
LikeLike
Clarissa I use Word as entertainment. Torah scholarship my primary interests.
Here’s an example of my latest scholarship. I share it not because its up your alley but to communicate what I value in my life.
What is the best way to describe the struggle to grasp the wisdom of the k’vanna of positive and negative commandments, and halachic mitzvot, all elevated to time oriented commandments? For example the difference in k’vanna between the dedication of the אל NaShama from the dedication of the אלהים Chyyah souls on the New Year and Day of Atonement – respectively. T’shuva vs. T’shuva, what’s the difference? Yom Ha’Din weighs the t’shuva of the Sin of the Golden Calf יום הזכרון. Yom Kippur remembers the T’shuva of HaShem, when Moshe Rabbeinu’s seed did not replace Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov as the chosen Cohen people. The distinction between annulling a vow from swearing an oath.
The struggle to engage the wisdom how to interpret the k’vanna of postive and negative commandments and halachic mitzvot.
No such thing as “Jewish Values” divorced from T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary sources. Israel Salanter’s late 19th Century mussar movement lost most of the wind in its sails due to its failure to link Mussar scholarship back to T’NaCH and Talmudic Common law. For example: I bet dollars to donuts that you do not know what separates Judicial Courtroom Common Law from Legislative decrees: Statute Law.
Judicial Court Room legal rulings do not compare in any way to religious halachic rulings based upon cults of personality statute law halachic codes. A mortal dispute which erupted into a Civil War that clearly divides Reshonim and Achronim Talmudic scholarship to this very day!
The modern day struggle of restoring the cultural heritage, as exemplified in the T’NaCH and Talmudic literature, has the focus, not limiting Zionism based upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917. But rather, Jewish self-determination to rebuild a Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes; together with employing the T’NaCH and Talmud as models to re-establish lateral common law Small and Great Sanhedrin Courtrooms and re-ignite the Torah faith to pursue righteous judicial justice which sanctifies, like a korban upon the altar, make a fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B, among the Jewish People within the borders of the Republic of Israel.
The modern pilpul method, Jacob Pollak and Shalom Shachna considered its founders, which emerged primarily in the 16th and 17th centuries, heavily focused on highly analytical and abstract Talmudic reasoning. Pilpulists sought to reconcile seemingly contradictory interpretations from various Rishonim (early commentators) and often relied on complex distinctions to clarify Talmudic discussions.
The Baali Tosafot, by stark contrast, sought through comparison of outside halachic Primary source precedents from different mesechtot of the Talmud, in order to force a change of perspective. Not just to the sugya of Gemara but more importantly to the language of the Mishna, which the Gemara comments upon in the first place.
The critical distinction between common law (as seen in the Ba’alei Tosafot) and statutory law (as embodied by Maimonides and later Yosef Karo) absolutely vital. Common law, based on case law and precedents, a more flexible and contextual sh’itta. Whereas statutory law is codified, systematic, and focuses on creating clear, universal rules. The Ba’alei Tosafot deep rooted case-based, dialectical approach, whose logic drew analogies and comparisons across different tractates of the Talmud. This sh’itta\method driven by the fluidity of legal reasoning and the premise that law simply derived from the text in a way that accommodates a multiplicity of interpretations. As opposed to Maimonides’ goal of codifying Jewish law into a Goy systematic code that seeks to provide clearer guidance for Jewish life. Hence the Czar of Russia wanted to replace the study of the Talmud with the study of the Rambam code.
The intellectual conflict between the Tosafists and Maimonides——reflects a fundamental tension in Jewish legal scholarship. The ban (cherem) placed on Maimonides’ writings by both the Court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and the French rabbis in 1232, particularly in response to his Yad Chazakah, highlighted the deep divide between those who sought to codify Jewish law and those who insisted on a more dynamic, contextual approach to halachic analysis. This divide has severe historical repercussions, especially when Jewish communities found themselves increasingly split between those who supported Maimonides’ legal systematization and those who followed the common law model of the Tosafists, and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor.
Modern day Zionism represents a modern day Jewish identity crisis. Can Jews in Israel re-establish a Torah Constitutional Republic and Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms as our Moshiach Beit Ha’Mikdash?! Torah faith defined as: Judicial righteous justice continually pursue.
The modern Pilpul movement itself began in the late 16th and early 17th centuries with figures like Rabbi Moses Isserles (Rema), Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Maharshal), and Rabbi Menachem Azariah de Fano, who played important roles in shaping and popularizing this method of Talmudic study.
The Baali Tosafot almost totally ignored the Statute law\Roman Law assimilation introduced most specifically by the Rambam. Only twice throughout the Sha’s Bavli commentary did the Tosafot mention opinions made by the Rambam. And on both occasions the Baali Tosafot disputed the Rambam’s opinions. The Baali Tosafot agreed with Rabbeinu Yonah’s cherem condemnation of the Rambam. In 1232 the French rabbis of Paris likewise placed the ban of charem upon the Rambam and his books.
The pilpul scholars, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries, primarily concerned with resolving Talmudic contradictions and analyzing the fine distinctions in legal discussions. Their approach often emphasized logical acumen and intellectual sophistication in reconciling varying opinions, but this led to a lack of clarity regarding the foundational differences between common law (as seen in the Tosafot) and statutory law (as seen in the Rambam and the Tur).
Pilpulists, often more focused on Talmudic dialectics—resolving apparent contradictions in the text—than on organizing law into more systematic categories. This made it harder for them to discern the broader structural differences between case-based common law (as seen in the Tosafot) and codified statutory law (as seen in the Rambam and the Tur).
Pilpul scholarship arose during a time of intense intellectual engagement with Jewish texts, particularly the Talmud within the ghetto gullags. However, the concept of statutory law in Jewish tradition, as developed by Maimonides and others, was somewhat distinct from the traditional Talmudic analysis that the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic sh’itta emphasized. Pilpulists simply failed to prioritize the broader organizational structure of Jewish law. This branch of modern scholarship focused on detailed textual analysis, which contributed to their failure to make the critically important distinction which separates T’NaCH\Talmud common law from assimilated Greek/Roman statute law. A fundamental and utterly basic gross error which plagues the Modern Orthodox Movement to this very day.
The failure to distinguish between common law (as exemplified by the Tosafot and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor) and statutory law (as exemplified by Maimonides and the Tur) has had significant consequences for Jewish law and Jewish thought, especially in the context of Modern Orthodoxy.
The Modern Orthodox movement, often marked by an effort to reconcile traditional Jewish law with the modern world, and much of this effort rests on the intellectual framework established by earlier pilpul scholars. However, this dialectical approach to Jewish law always fails to address the fundamental structural differences between case-based common law and systematic statutory law. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic as opposed by Aristotle’s syllogism.
One of the challenges of Modern Orthodoxy, how it navigates the modern legal system, which largely base themselves on statutory law. The pilpul method, with its focus on abstract distinctions and detailed textual analysis, simply ill-suited to rationally address the required legal clarity and uniformity within contemporary legal systems. This has led to some challenges in applying Jewish law to modern circumstances, as the methods developed during the pilpul era often fail to offer clear, systematic guidance.
The Modern Orthodox movement often places heavy emphasis on traditional Talmudic study. The chief tool of their focus, pilpulistic reasoning often obscures the broader structural organization of Jewish law. Pilpulist scholarship, alas more concerned with dialectical analysis and resolving contradictions than with organizing Jewish law into clear, accessible interpretations concerning the k’vanna of those laws. This results in a lack of clarity in Modern Orthodoxy when it comes to engaging with the legal system and the modern world.
The pilpul method’s prioritized focus on abstract textual analysis and dialectical reasoning led scholars to overlook the critical distinction between common law (as seen in the Tosafot and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor) and statutory law (as seen in Maimonides and the Tur).
This intellectual failure to separate and prioritize the difference between interpretation of k’vanna from scholarship which systematizes and categorizes Jewish law; an inherited “genetic” flaw which retarded Torah faith..
This conceptual error, simply fundamental to understanding the tensions and difficulties that continue to shape Modern Orthodox thought today.
Restated: Modern Orthodoxy, by nature, seeks to harmonize Jewish law with the realities of modern life. It aims to preserve traditional Jewish practices and engage with the post American and French revolutions secular world.
However, this reconciliation, often compromised by an intellectual blind spot — the failure to distinguish between common law and statutory law. This Downs syndrome baby can never integrate into larger society.
Pilpul, with its emphasis on dialectical analysis and abstract distinctions, prioritizes complexity over clarity. It seeks to reconcile seemingly contradictory opinions through logical ancient Greek reasoning. While this is valuable for deepening intellectual understanding with Goyim, it falls flat on its face short when it comes to producing clear legal directives or systematic guidance of the k’vanna of halachot as positive time oriented commandments; like the B’hag envisions. In other words, pilpul focuses on understanding details and nuances; its sh’tta strives to separate like from like. But it fails to the legal framework of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law..
The modern legal system, based upon the Rambam\Karo statute legalism, statutory in nature. Modern Orthodoxy functions through codified statute laws organized into clear religious frameworks and categories. This stands in stark contrast to the common law schools based upon Rashi’s Chumash commentary and classic Talmudic commentators. The blind nature of modern pilpul scholarship to the fundamental differences which divided the Reshonim scholars into two hostile camps and exploded into Civil War – totally amazing. On par with the metaphor: remove the beam out of your own eye before attempting to remove the fleck of dust in my eye.
The Rambam Civil War started in assimilated ‘Golden Age’ Spain, and quickly spread to France. A decade after the rabbis of Paris placed the ban of cherem upon the Rambam, the Pope and king of France burned all the Talmudic manuscripts existent in France, 24 cart-loads. The flames of Jewish Civil War then passed to England in 1290 and returned to France in 1306 with the destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of Talmudic scholarship.
Jewish anarchy and chaos then jumped to Spain. The Pope decreed a three Century ghetto imprisonment of all Western European Jewry. This resulted in a mass population transfer of Jews who fled Church oppression and fled to Eastern European countries. In 1648 the Cossack revolts slaughtered Jewish communities across the Ukraine and Poland. The barbarity, unmatched till the Nazi Shoah of the 20th Century.
The Rambam’s approach to statutory law versus the Tosafot’s focus on dialectical reasoning indeed highlights two competing visions of Jewish legal scholarship, and the broader societal and historical consequences important for understanding how these intellectual divides led to much of the turbulence and displacement of Jewish communities.
Modern pilpul—with its focus on abstract reasoning, nuanced analysis, and resolving contradictions—had an immense impact on Jewish legal scholarship within the ghetto gulags. The intellectual approach of Pilpulism, often complicated and unsettling. Students return home after a week in the Yeshiva and discuss chol matters but never their pilpul learning. Why? Only the tip of the iceberg of students studying pilpul scholarship understand the subtle distinctions made by their Rav. Impossible to repeat and duplicate this learning at a Shabbos table with people who have not sat in the shiur the entire week.
The division between statutory law (as represented by Maimonides and the Tur) and common law (as seen in the Tosafot and RaZBI or Baal Ha-Maor) has had a lasting impact on how Jewish law is studied and applied, particularly in the context of Modern Orthodoxy. This historical divide continues to echo in contemporary Jewish intellectual debates. The pilpul method simply ill-suited for engaging with contemporary legal systems, which prioritize clarity, uniformity, and practical application of laws.
The destruction of Jewish texts and cultural disintegration left scars that still influence how Jewish communities in Eastern Europe (and, by extension, the rest of the Jewish world) approached Jewish law. Talmudic scholarship during this period became both an intellectual struggle for survival and a way of preserving Jewish identity amidst immense adversity.
The modern-day Orthodox movement inherits this complex intellectual history, one shaped by deep divisions between pilpul and statutory law, and the tensions resulting from the Rambam Civil War. These tensions continue to play out in how Modern Orthodoxy fails to reconcile Jewish law with modernity.
The intellectual blind spot—the failure to properly distinguish between common law and statutory law—remains one of the central challenges faced by Modern Orthodoxy today. The movement must find a way to move past these intellectual divides, of Jewish ערב רב assimilation and intermarriage which always results in the rise of Amalek/antisemitism. The assimilated Rambam code of Greek & Roman statute law flagrantly profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment not to worship other Gods. Jewish intermarriage in America and Europe has become a cursed plague, worse than all the 10 plagues of Egypt.
This disconnect between high-level scholarship and practical, day-to-day Jewish life, a key critique of pilpul as it evolved. While it’s an intellectually rich method, pilpul tends to focus more on theoretical dialectics rather than providing clear, practical guidance for Jewish law that can be easily applied in real-world court room situations.
This creates a fundamental tension for Modern Orthodoxy, as it tries to preserve Talmudic tradition while adapting to the needs and expectations of a modern, legal society that does not understand that a Torts courtroom splits 2 of the 3 Justices into prosecutor and defence attorneys.
The three Century Ghetto gulag produced famous commentaries to Karo’s statute law halachic code. But when Napoleon freed the Jews from their Ghetto gulag prisons, they faced the total shock of a modern world of Universities, roads, travel, and education! All the super-commentary statute law commentaries and codes upon halacha, transformed unto the value of tits on a boar hog over-night. Reform Judaism sprang from assimilation to statute law legalism and the false messiah movements of the 17th Century.
The Ghetto gulag served as a self-contained environment for Jews, where Jewish law and Talmudic scholarship were crucial to maintaining the fabric of community life. With the oppressive conditions of the Ghetto gulag, the focus on legalistic study became a central intellectual pursuit. In the absence of broader engagement with the secular world, Jewish scholarship turned inward, and figures like Rabbi Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, became central figures in the codification of Jewish assimilated statue law.
Super-commentaries on Karo’s statutory law became incredibly important during this time. They were essential for understanding, interpreting, and applying the halachic system in the context of Jewish life, and paved the way for an entire intellectual tradition focused on codifying Jewish religious ritual law and making it accessible to communities that, for centuries, lived in physical and intellectual isolation from the rest of the world.
When the Ghetto gulag system was lifted, when Russian Jews fled to the goldene medina, or when Napoleon shattered Catholic ghetto gulag walls, the Jews, thrust into an entirely new world that was radically different from the world of statutory law and ritual halacha that had defined their previous existence. The emancipation of Jews——introduced an intellectual and societal shock to Jewish communities. For Jews who had lived for centuries in the confines of Ghetto gulags, the opening up of the world, not just a physical liberation, but also a profound shift in how Jewish law now perceived and applied.
Modernity—with its emphasis on universities, intellectual freedom, secular knowledge, and the rapid growth of the modern state—posed a challenge to the traditional structures of Jewish scholarship and legal authority. The commentaries on Karo’s legal code, which had served to provide clarity and stability in a time of restriction, suddenly seemed irrelevant or even obsolete in a world that was no longer primarily governed by Jewish ritual halachic observances. Jews, now entered universities and interacted with broader society. Jews now exposed to new ways of thinking, new legal systems, and new forms of education.
This transformation led to tensions between Jewish tradition and the modern world. The Reform Movement, which arose in the early 19th century, capitalized on this sense of disorientation and pushed for a more modern, secularized understanding of Judaism that would align more closely with European norms and modern legal frameworks. The Reform Movement’s break from the traditional, legalistic approach to Jewish ritual law was, in part, a reaction to the irrelevance of codified Jewish law in a society that was increasingly governed by secular, statutory legal systems. Berlin became their New Jerusalem!
The rise of Reform Judaism in the 19th century—especially in Europe—was one of the most significant outcomes of the shock of modernity. Reform Jews rejected the rigid ritual legalism of traditional Judaism, and instead emphasized spirituality, ethical teachings, and personal autonomy.
The Reform critique of blind ritual legalism – consumed by the perception that statutory law and legal codes (like those of Karo) were no longer relevant to the new world they inhabited. Reform Judaism embraced a more assimilated, flexible and adaptable approach to Jewish ritual practices, prioritizing ethics and spirituality over strict blind legal adherence to ritual law that had no k’vanna. This response, while representing a significant break from traditional Jewish life, also highlighted the unresolved tension between Jewish law as a statutory code and the demands of modern society.
Assimilation became an inevitable part of this dynamic. The appeal of the modern world, with its emphasis on education, economic opportunity, and social integration, made it increasingly difficult for many Jews to continue adhering to the strict legal systems and Talmudic traditions that had once defined their communities. Especially when Traditional Jewry had clearly gone off the chosen path; Yeshivot skipped over the Aggadic portions because those rabbis had no education how the Addadah makes a drosh back to learn prophetic mussar, based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס.
The modern world, in many ways, represented a temptation for many Jews to leave behind their traditional blind ritualism practices of “magic”, in favor of the opportunities and freedoms that secular society provided.
As Modern Orthodoxy emerged in response to these developments, it found itself tasked with reconciling the legalistic foundations of traditional Jewish ritual life with the demands of modern society. The shock of modernity was deeply felt, and Modern Orthodoxy attempted to navigate between the two worlds: on one hand, preserving traditional blind ritual practices through Jewish assimilated statute law, and on the other, engaging with the secular world in meaningful ways.
However, pilpul—with its emphasis on abstract dialectical reasoning—simply ill-suited for offering clear, practical guidance in the modern world to integrate prophetic musssar as the vision of ritual laws. This tension continues to plague Modern Orthodoxy, especially as it tries to navigate statutory law systems like those of Maimonides and the Tur and Talmudic dialectics that so dominate the post Rambam Civil war Jewish intellectual traditions. The rise of Reform Judaism demonstrated the difficulties that Jews faced in transitioning from a legalistic, codified world to one that demanded pragmatic, ethical, and spiritually centered approaches to Jewish life.
Modern Orthodoxy today faces a dilemma: how to preserve the deep intellectual engagement of traditional Common law while simultaneously providing practical, clear, and systematic legal guidance for the modern world. The failure to reconcile statutory ritual law that has no k’vanna, together with blind pilpulim—and the consequent disconnect between פרדס Ordered dicipline of rabbi Akiva’s logic sh’itta platform which interpreted the k’vanna of halachot, contrasted by Aristotle’s practical applications, which organized halacha into egg-crate codes organized into specific subject matters—remains a significant challenge.
LikeLike
In the past I tried sharing with you things that mattered in my life. You and I live in totally different worlds and have different values.
You asked me to limit my sharing to specifically address your needs. I have tried to obey your request. Your hostility comes as a total shock.
LikeLike
“I tried sharing with you things that mattered in my life”
By obsessively posting about NATO despite much evidence that it was not a major (or maybe even a minor) consideration in russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. And you’ve made it clear you don’t care how many Ukrainians russia kills.
Your posts also frequently used derogatory language about Christians. If you follow Judaism great! But no need to attack other religions (nb. I’m not a Christian but I try not to insult believers).
Your just a rude, unpleasant guy. Try to write with some basic respect and courtesy.
You call it obsessively posting … OK Clarissa told me to tone it down and I respect her authority because its her blog after all. But You Cliff poochie boy, your no different than me, a visitor on this blog.
LikeLike
Another example of Gospel revisionist history which substitute the gospel for the T’NaCH narrative as primary: Luke 19:41-42
The noun peace does not correctly translate the verb shalom. Shalom stands upon the foundation of trust. Peace reflects ancient Greek philosophical rhetoric; where undefined key terms which require the listeners fuzzy logic to define these essential undefined terms, like shalom, upon which all later ideas thereafter hang upon. Herein defines the classic use of Greek rhetoric by which a person controls and directs the masses. The City of David represents the rule of fair and righteous Judicial common law justice. It has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the revisionist history of the imaginary physical history of Jesus the imaginary myth man.
“Shalom” carries far more than the modern Western notion of “peace.” In Hebrew, shalom implies completeness, wholeness, harmony, security, and a just, equitable social order rooted in mutual trust; deeply tied to emunah (faith/trust) and mishpat (justice).
By contrast, the Greek eirēnē—translated into English as “peace”—more passive, & static, whereas shalom utterly dynamic. And when the Gospel of Luke (originally written in Greek) uses eirēnē, translators have historically rendered it as “peace” in English, which utterly obscures the Hebrew mindset behind Jesus’ (the Son of God character’s) lament over Jerusalem.
Greek rhetoric originally employed as a tool for crowd control. Rhetoric sophistry, and later Stoicism or Platonism, deeply shaped and influenced early Christian theology. These systems often pivot on undefined abstractions—”Logos”, “Peace”, “Salvation”, etc.—easily manipulated by rhetoric design, without grounding in lived experience or legal precedent (as Hebrew law absolutely demands).
Revisionist history and the mythologizing of Son of God Jesus. This aligns with the view that the Gospels understood as a allegorical political theology, where the imaginary mythical character of Son of God “Jesus” represents, not a literal historical figure but a narrative device or archetype for deeper sociopolitical critique—especially of Roman occupation and corrupt legal systems.
So if we read Luke 19:42 not as a personal lament by a mythological Son of God Jesus, but rather as a legal or prophetic indictment of Jerusalem’s Torah leadship and their collective failure to uphold mishpat (justice) and trust-based shalom, the entire tone and meaning of the text radically shifts, the Torah becomes demoted in priority – cast under the shadow of the Son of God narrative. Torah, in point of fact, and not the gospel rhetoric narrative, less about emotion and more about the oath brit alliance, the prophetic mussar which rebukes the leaders of the chosen Cohen nation for their failure, sworn at Sinai, their conscious corruption which pursues opportunistic political power over the righteousness of enforced judicial justice.
Shalom functions as a legal-communal framework, rather than merely a trick of rhetoric where mood or emotion dominates the direction taken by the blind mob masses. It reflects a system of relationships rooted in fidelity to the oath brit alliance and reciprocal trust (emunah). In that sense, shalom simply not something felt, but something upheld—a real social order built on mishpat (justice) and righteousness (tzedek), as found in the Torah and enforced by judges (shofetim) and prophets (nevi’im).
When shalom becomes translated into Greek as eirēnē, the foundational juridical content gets lost in abstraction. Eirēnē leans more toward inner tranquility or absence of conflict—passive, internal, de-prioritized obligations to pursue fair compensation to those who suffer damages. Peace reflects a word that fits into a philosophical or imperial religious context, not a oath brit alliance by and through which the Torah defines the term brit; a Sinai commitment לשמה. Greek thought, expressed in the new testament purposely neutralizes\whitwashes the legal and relational substance of Hebrew term Shalom, by absorbing Shalom into idealized peace categories. This Greek rhetoric technique then detached the gospels from historical accountability.
Greek rhetorical systems—especially sophistry and later Platonic-Christian syntheses—weaponize undefined key term peace. Such critical abstractions create semantic fog, where critical abstract terms, their most essential intent meanings. floats above the replaced Hebrew verbs with meaningless noun names. Where the writers of gospel narrative, those in power, both edits and controls this moral gospel narrative through subtle re-defined definitions. “Salvation,” “grace,” “faith,” and even “God” become perverted into malleable terms rather than precise sworn oaths which has a defined intent throughout the generations. The sworn oaths get totally whitewashed from the original T’NaCH prophetic mussar.
This Greek rhetorical shift, makes room for imperial theology, where obedience to Rome’s version of peace (Pax Romana), rebranded as the kosher spiritual obedience, and where Jerusalem’s failure isn’t legal but theological. This new testament justification for Jerusalem’s destruction consequent to the Jewish revolt in 66CE totally and completely ignores the prophetic mussar of the NaCH which warned of the destruction and exile of Judah by both the g’lut exiles caused by the Assyrian and Babylonian empires within the mussar of the T’NaCH itself.
Return the Gospel narrative to its roots of Hebrew common law jurisprudence, strip away the Greco-Roman mythologizing that turned the gospel narrative into its own separate religion, into an abstract religion of personal piety and internal peace. This new testament socio-legal drama, with its son of God figure lamenting the collapse of Jerusalem over its failure to recognize the Son of God true messiah. This gospel narrative replaces the oath sworn dedication to pursue justice within the borders of the chosen Cohen oath brit lands, replaced by a foreign idea of a passive messiah who brings peace to the Goyim people incorporated as part of the chosen Cohen people. This narrative totally ignores the teshuva made by HaShem where on Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make of Moshe’s seed the chosen Cohen poeple. Neither Babylon nor Rome destroyed Jerusalem. The failure of the chosen oath alliance brit, directly comparable to the sin of the Golden Calf, where the chosen Cohen people fail to obey the terms of the Sinai oath alliance, herein defines the basis for the destruction of Jerusalem and the g’lut exile of the Jewish people by the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman empires.
LikeLike
Another example of European and ICC legal corruption and efforts to curse the Jewish people.
The Fig Tree as a Metaphor for Israel Jeremiah 8:13 – “I will surely consume them, saith the Lord: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.” Hosea 9:10 – “I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame…” Micah 7:1 – “Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the first-ripe fruit.”
Second Temple Judaism, the rise of Pharisaic authority, and the Jewish origins of the Oral Torah tradition. The Hasmonean Revolt (c. 167–160 BCE), celebrated during Hanukkah, began as a revolt against Seleucid Greek oppression and the forced Hellenization of Judea. After driving out the Greeks, the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) established a priestly monarchy—but soon aligned with the Tzaddukim (Sadducees), the Temple priestly elite who rejected the Oral Torah and adhered strictly to written Torah (Torah shebikhtav).
The P’rushim (Pharisees) taught the Oral Torah (Torah she-be’al peh)—a living tradition of interpretation, application, and legal debate, rooted in Moshe at Sinai but unfolding through generations of sages. The Pharisees championed halakhic debate, legal flexibility, and ethics, and stood against the rigid, elitist, and Temple-centric Sadducees. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisaic tradition survived and became the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism—codified in the Mishnah, Talmud, and the entire halakhic tradition. Therefore the Jesus curse of the fig tree as fruitless – a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism.
To interpret this passage as a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism clearly reflects later church polemics and slanders made against the Talmud, like the infamous burning of the Talmud in 1242 Paris France and the 1306 destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common law school on the Talmud. The gospels serve as the basis of later church war crimes and racism. Christian polemics have added to Gospel interpretations—especially in how they’ve been weaponized against rabbinic Judaism and the Talmudic tradition. Under the banner of a supersessionist Church, all manner of slander perversions and illegal ghetto imprisonments arbitrarily imposed upon the cursed wandering Jews.
The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19); the “brood of vipers” language, and John’s “the Jews” rhetoric (esp. in passion narratives), the church fathers continuously employed them as their weapons to vilify Pharisaic Judaism, later generalized to all Jews. The church fathers sought to erase Jewish continuity through forced conversions and continuous acts of violent oppression. The church utterly detested the existence of the Talmud. Its revisionist history replacement theology continually declared the church as the ‘true Israel”. Supersessionist theology\replacement theology—represents the ideological backbone of the Church’s effort to erase Jewish identity and delegitimize the halakhic tradition. Church revisionist history proclaimed from the roof tops that – “The Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.” The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19) the church fathers interpreted as the symbolic destruction of the Jewish people. Which the church fathers promoted by referring to Israel as Christ killer Caine. “Brood of vipers”, used to paint all Pharisees (and later all Jews) as inherently deceitful or evil. John’s Gospel, “the Jews”, made Jewish exiled refugees as the collective villain—laying the groundwork for the deicide charge, a central justification for anti-Jewish violence.
John Chrysostom, in his Adversus Judaeos homilies, spewed hatred with phrases like: “The synagogue is worse than a brothel… it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts… the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…” The church fathers abhorred the Talmud, because it embodied Jewish autonomy—an ongoing, vibrant dialogue with God outside of Church control. It was the living heartbeat of rabbinic resistance.
Church biblical translations not only co-opted Jewish sacred texts while condemning their original interpreters, perverted BRIT unto covenant; and reduced the Jewish people to either tragic relics or enemies of God. This theft of narrative and identity allowed the Church to: cast Jews as “wandering witnesses” to Christian truth (see Augustine). And also blame all generations of Jews as Christ killers, which justified almost annual pogroms and forced expulsions of Jewish refugee populations scattered across both West and Eastern Europe.
The deep hypocrisies and historical amnesia baked into so many institutions of power, including European courts and the modern international legal framework, remain staggering. European courts and institutions have long been shaped by Christian hegemony, and that hegemony protected the Church from accountability, even as it presided over centuries of religious violence, forced conversions, inquisitions, pogroms, book burnings, ghettoization, and expulsions—all directed at Jewish communities. The idea of charging the Church itself as a war criminal would have been unthinkable in a Europe where the Church was the ideological and legal center of power.
For most of European history, Church and State were not separate. In many cases, the Church was the state—wielding direct power or deeply entwined with monarchies. The legal apparatus wasn’t neutral—it was Catholic or later Protestant. So, when Jews were expelled from Spain (1492), forced into ghettos in Venice (1516), or burned in the Crusades, these were actions sanctified, not judged, by the powers of the time.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment