Is Zionism Part of Judaism?
The process of replacing old norms with new ones is at the root of Jewish communal tradition
Andrés Spokoiny is president and CEO of Jewish Funders Network.
A REBUTTAL TO:
Examining Zionist Schism
by Daniel Joseph Zawada
We share a similar lineage as SPOKOYNY from Dzialoszyce Poland was about an hour drive from the town of Zawada. Russian, Ukranian Spokoiny of course aliyah to Israel as well.
I find myself in an uncomfortable role when defining the difference between historic authenticity and that of fictional motive when examining articles on the web, mostly in part from academia, but notably by websites engaged to a broad audience.
It’s in this moment that YHWH, my God is blessed as His word states, He will not allow to go unchecked His eternal truths (the plural) by the uneducated and educated alike.
As by all things we have various opinion and can debate ideology and opinion, belief, without discriminating one another and keeping insults to a minimum. Ever since our youth we learn how to insult one another playfully in jest as much as in derelection to what we perceive others to believe based on indoctrinated ethnic status. Depending on where we live of course.
We’re grown men, not so much for youth, but so much that others may take several lifetimes of knowledge to achieve. And as grown men we can argue and mumble amongst ourselves having lived a life which gives us insight into communal issues both secular and religious, whether fiction or truth.
As men of this day and age we argue our opinion and state our mind in freedom without tyranny yet hanging about our necks, ever so close, a breath away. A stark contrast to life in 19th century Poland of which humanity should never suffer again, yet I know this to be naive wishful thinking.
I have no intention of showing the author to be of abysmal knowledge concerning scripture or history as we all were once ignorant of many of the issues facing Judaism, especially the fictional histories examined etymologically.
As men we have no time in this hour upon us to wistfully hope upon humanity to do the right thing, regardless of their ideology, but as mankind to help one another, rather than exterminate one another.
In this regard we can be as a neutral as one is ought to be in such matters and I hope the author feels no attack upon their personna, but rather on the belief system they have embraced, whether indoctrinated by their parents, inserted teachers, or schisms within collegiate discourse, politics, employment, or personal life.
Mr. Spokoiny has my utmost respect and adoration for his accomplishments and I wish him and his family a blessed life filled with joy and wonder.
None of the following change Torah:
First and foremost one must recognize that YHWH preserved His word through multi-language interface.
If you have a hard time with that as a student then you cannot move forward from the precipice until you are well educated in this realm. Either leave your indoctrination at the door or continue to pursue life in ignorance of reality – a difficult choice.
One must count the cost of their knowledge and the sorrow thereof.
This is undoubtedly a difficult process. It takes many years of discipline at the expense of money, leisure, and hobbies, and I don’t mean daf yomi, a page a day; anyone who studies Talmud religiously can be more versed in it than this author writing to you now.
And you should be the correct way.
Realistically you’re never going to do what I do, or what Hila Schlakman has done, completing the daf yomi cycle by the time she was 17.
Hila Schlakman can claim she is Jewish because of what she does (action) and what she believes (Torah).
How many of you out there can say the same?
Your bar mitzvah does not make you Jewish.
Hanukkah doesn’t make you Jewish.
Saying “Oy vey” doesn’t make you Jewish, it’s only a stereotype. So when you use this to categorize your belief to change or mold an audience reception (see A.P. Bio or Star Trek) then we have the schisms in “Jewish” society based on the enforcement of fictional parameters designed by the secular.
I am waiting for the day when strong characters are portrayed wearing Tzitzit like a Liev Schreiber walking down the street of New York not afraid of their own shadows.
It’s lack of faith, not antisemitism, that keeps you from wearing Tzitzit.
It’s a vicious cycle and similar to what occurred with the Greeks in 160 BC. Again, I apologize upfront as I may come across harsh in my language but my heart is toward the people of YHWH that not one should be lost to the wolves! Nor, to academic prose when identity brings monetary gain through abusing a structure setup over centuries.
Examining what we do, as if the words communicated are not enough, I suppose one must be wheel chair bound to be taken seriously when it comes to creation, or it’s opposite, ?, and yes I just used a question mark as a word phrase. Please tell me what the opposite is.
I would like to point out that this examination could take volumes of books as to the historic significance, forensics, and in which would require a team of like minded laborers to comb thousands of documents to paraphrase this one sentence.
Do you believe in God?
If you answer yes this does not make you Jewish. Sorry.
It’s difficult to remember that you’re not hating on an individual – you’re hating on an ideology, or brain washed motif disguised as debunking “the new stuff.”
This works against the lesser educated or general masses that still have opinions that can be swayed one way or another having no philologic study. If you have no anchor of study or historic knowledge then we shall believe everything that is told to us by amateurs of not only archaeology but etymology itself.
I would like to suggest calmly and with respect to Mr. Spokoiny,
If you are unable to grasp the meaning and era (etymology) of the words you use to define your argument then how can you know anything about the argument you propose?
Advanced forensics wipe out all articles, all thesis, and all theory rather quickly with short documents such as Is Zionism Part of Judaism?
The most important aspect one can learn from these negations is that we hardly understand the things that we adamantly suggest is true. Moreover, drawing conclusions on life from previous strata is illogical as one can hardly know the minds of the time, especially when they show reclusion in the understanding of the very phrases and words used to argue their borrowed concepts.
We have all fallen prey to this. And to those who spend their days reflecting on idioms or casting of the nets to reel in our prize, we find ourselves mitigating our response to that of, I guess scolding of a child reaching for the cake, if you will allow me such freedom of expression.
Rather, I would you think me a dear brother out for your best interest, as that is what I am, but not at the cost of the state of Israel, not that of the unbuilt Beis Mikdash that may offer you redemption. In order to save one must be humbled. However, I speak as an uneducated adult and what children can understand my words?
I reflect upon the years as one would reflect upon the deeds of the day. Not those of us who have toiled, thousands of hours, in our relentless pursuit of truth concerning Judaic life, the history thereof, and our very family names that tie us either forever to shoah or those who developed new theories on how Judaic life ought to be with lighting of the candles.
To each their own is all I can say. Those who would reflect on this prose will do so from antisemitic points of view. You are trained no other way. You call enemies brothers and brothers enemies. You cannot be untrained in this dilemma unless YHWH show otherwise.
I believe based on such articles and myriad of books that there must be a YOM YHWH. There is no other way to remove the false ideology as it is embedded so deep, the cancer is in the 4th stage. It’s over done, a dried vine; dead as Nevi’im have spoken.
But that goes against the grain. All the prophets went against the grain, equally hated I surmise. Always loved and adored hundreds of years later for being spot on as we all do the exact same things the prophets despised and said would cause diaspora.
We cannot have a logical conversation about this only denial of reality.
I do not claim myself a prophet and no one declares me as such. Tanakh defines navi and in the modern world we could call them the doomsayers.
The conspiracy theorists, right?
I think it’s no different now from say… the 12th century.
People running around pretending they serve God for money and to retain power, making up new rules about things that occurred three thousand years ago and writing new books to make themselves god.
Here is a little secret for you just to help you in your day. At one time a pious person was considered one who helped the poor or the orphan, was loyal, and astute before God.
Today, every pious teacher will be rich, so they can teach everyone their ideology. Only then, once you absorb the ideology, can you also become rich. You must absorb group think or be cast aside, but YHWH has other plans for those who sell apostacy to Jews and the secular.
For some reason you believe this due to the hiearchy, I’m sorry, charity, this entails. What is the point of showing you in Talmud the tractate and Torah scripture when this has been so beaten into your subconscious. I can say there is no hope.
A wasted generation.
The generation who wandered the desert in their financial lusts I suppose will be the eventual remembrance of all that is today.
Again my words sound like puncture wounds. I suppose a dead carcass is not pleasing nor fit for conversation. Judaism has changed, at least that is what we have been told by Egyptian revisionists and French translations.
How many of us out there actually know the real history rather than follow willy nilly, blindly mind you, the ridiculous Judaic narratives handed down to us outside of Torah.
Worse, pretend we were actually there, first hand eyewitness accounts stamped on PhD’s with a notary signature from a banker.
So here stands a rebuttal of your article for analysis. Maybe this can start a dreadfully needed conversation to close the gap between ideology generating vast amounts of antisemitism globally and the apostate works that should be removed, the cause of the ideology, so that humanity can understand both sides of the fence rather than pogrom after pogrom.
It is my hope that universally we can acknowledge in confidence we reject the Borg from Star Trek, altruistic communism, and fictional tractate that tells you to genocide Christians.
And now to the rebuttal of the full article.
Each paragraph or statements made by Mr. Spokoiny are addressed as an editorial review of the article. My response to his argument is based off how a detractor could respond in a debate and in which I play antagonist for both editing the structure of the argument while identifying etymology error that requires correction.
Editorials of this type, and I stress, should not be published without such an etymologic examination and hopefully my blue pencil will help in future endeavors for those seeking to authoritate historic significance or peer review propensity.
Mr. Spokoiny statements lit in italic and my response to his public statements writ in non-italic text, thank you,
Is Zionism Part of Judaism?
The process of replacing old norms with new ones is at the root of Jewish communal tradition
September 12, 2021
Jewish history presents many instances of boundaries being set, sometimes resulting in schisms. Those processes of “separation” weren’t always simple, fast, or straightforward, but they have been a constant feature of the Jewish journey.
The opening argument seeks an apology for recognizing faulty departures of Torah tenet.
Christianity is one such example. It was started by Jews, was deeply rooted in Jewish texts,…
I have to cut right in here to stop this fiction in it’s trek. I would like to suggest calmly and with respect to Mr. Spokoiny, if you are unable to grasp the meaning and era (etymology) of the words you use to define your argument then how can you know anything about the argument you propose?
Right here is where the article collapses due to lack of proper etymology training. How can the reader move on from here when the words used are simply incorrect?
On the English side, the word “Jew” is from improper translation or slang English from “iewes” found in the Coverdale Bible of 1535 AD. And yes this is the same time as Henry VIII, approximately twelve years before his death.
The word jew is not a root word (nee), from the Greek Ioudaios, (also an invented word) or from Latin Iudaeus, but slang from the English improper idiom iewes.
Why the word was selected to represent modern Judaism one would have to ask Baron Edmond James de Rothschild who helped established the state of Israel. This “Jewish” word makes perfect sense to me since Rothchild was born in France and the word Jew was well known in England at this time.
The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 and had clear language defining the slang word Jews in use via London academia.
Let me make this clear that the word Jew is not a slander word in 1917, just an improper shortened version (elision) of iewe from 15th century Bibles.
In the Balfour document the lingo used is “Jewish Zionist” and “Jewish people,” clearly improper English translation. Once the term was written officially as a charter for a nation state this became the time stamp of recognizing nationality under such lingo, albeit improperly translated.
The nation of Israel, in my opinion, will eventually remove this terminology as history becomes more of a spectacle.
Why should English words define us?
By the 19th century Americans and the English world were fully versed with the word Jew through Germany’s yuden and the mischling of 1933.
To finalize, the word “Jew” is a modern elision etymology from British academia as recorded in the Balfour agreement 1917. If you would like to know the history of the word Jewish please go here.
It was started by Jews, was deeply rooted in Jewish texts, and was purported to present a more “authentic” view of Judaism with what it believed to be the “correct” interpretation of biblical prophecies.
The whole statement here is fallible, lacking understanding of etymology origin, and filled with assumption. Moreover, the statement attempts to address three criteria:
started by Jews
deeply rooted in Jewish texts
purported to present an authentic “correct” interpretation of bible prophecy
The first problem is that the texts are not “Jewish” or 17th century English terminology defining one (1) group of people – Zionists. I understand you wish to use the phrase “Jew” to define all cultures in history that you “feel” belong to this group, but the notion is just ridiculous.
Secondly, what Jewish texts? Again the invention of the word Jewish comes after the 16th century.
Which do you choose, the Talmud from the 12th century or the Masoretic version from the 10th century? Take your pick as that is all we have to work with besides the Greek or Latin. To be more precise we only have approximately 68 extant text to work with according to Dr. Menachem Katz Academic Director Emeritus of the Friedberg Manuscripts Project in Jerusalem.
Third, that’s what a prophet or the Messiah is supposed to do, but you seem to be treating the apostles as if their teaching varied greatly from Jesus based on your fascination with Paul throwing off his shackles of incorrect traditional korbanot, which Paul himself would partake directly within the Beis HaMikdash.
The detractors of our time, yourself included, have never been in the Holy Temple let alone committed one act of korbanot, but you find yourself condemning a man who performed this his whole life as was the Aramaic way in the Levant in 30 AD under Roman occupation.
The fascination with Saul who became Paul and the vicious, relentless, pursuit in attempting to show this man as some phony Jew during the time of Roman occupation is fruitless, disrespectful, and arrogance against YHWH.
To believe that a modern man claiming oneself to be a Jew and that knows more about Judaic life than Paul from 2,000 years ago, who actually sat in the Beit HaMikdash, and LIVED in Israel is just beyond lunacy to logic.
Or is your argument for the Pharisee at the same time?
There is precisely no argument here, just incorrect statements, misconception, and lack of etymology education about the subject.
Anyone can make broad sweeping statements, like the earth is flat, to the vulgar. This simply does not work on someone more educated on the subject than yourself.
That schism represented a dialectical process toward separation led by both Jews and early Christians. The breaking point was probably the defeat of the Jamesian faction (named after Jesus’ brother who believed that Christians—then called Nazarenes—were an integral part of the Jewish people and subject to Jewish Law) by the Paulist faction, a group that looked to convert Gentiles and replace the obligations of Jewish Law with belief in Jesus.
Where does one start with the above, which could be described as fantasy. I would argue mere propaganda as a response, again, the irrationality of logic. The statement says “I do not believe to be a spokesperson in this regard, but rather an ill informed opinion.”
The use of the word dialectical (15th century) display to all the current trend regarding Christianity as a mental illness that require DBT (Dialetical Behavior Therapy). DBT is the first to pull up on a search engine.
What is DBT? Psychotherapy to treat your personality disorder.
What does dialectical actually mean?
From 1540s, “of or pertaining to logical disputation, relating to the art of reasoning;” https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=dialetical
…led by both Jews and early Christians. The breaking point was probably the defeat of the Jamesian faction…Paulist faction, a group that looked to convert Gentiles and replace the obligations
All assumption and fantasy by someone with little philogic understanding of Christos, Judaism, or the translation of the word “Jew”.
Originally, Jewish authorities were split, some favoring the exclusion of the Nazarenes, while others considered them to be simply another of the era’s many sects.
Again, another broad statement that could be filled with at least a dedicated chapter instead of flat semi-fictional drivel.
Eventually, the rabbinic authorities of the time understood that Christianity, with its belief in Jesus as a resurrected messiah, put them “beyond the pale”;
What time frame are you referring to, the 14th century? Certainly not the first century as it’s 180 from what you say.
The authority was terrified after the events and assured that YHWH was going to judge them. The majority of Jerusalem believed that Jesus was indeed either a resurrected prophet or the Messiah. If you believe any other narrative about this time frame you are simply writing propaganda for a side of the fence.
Lets at least be honest here rather than spouting baloney. Who really is getting educated by these fictions?
the Paulist rejection of Jewish Law was the last straw in that separation process. A key factor was, simply, that the overwhelming majority of Jews had rejected Jesus’ divinity. Rabbis were not only defending orthodoxy but channeling the majority sentiment as well.
The first step to recovery is realizing you have an etymology problem. There has never been a Jewish law in history before 1948, sorry. Reading the article is difficult based on seeing modern words used to describe culture and life thousands of years before the word was invented. Fix that.
The overwhelming majority of Jews rejecting Jesus may be true for today, but not 2,000 years ago. How did the rabbis defend “orthodoxy” a French word invented in the 16th century from the Latin orthodoxia? You do realize that the word orthodoxy does not define hassidic origin or rabbinate ideology, but “conformity to the Church creeds.”
What is the term… if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the literal kitchen?
Next thing you’ll be telling me is that the Babylonian Talmud from 1342 AD was made in 5th century BC, sorry.
Eight centuries later, the Karaites, of the Karaite movement led by Anan ben David, presented similar but different dilemmas. The Karaites believed that only the “written Torah”—not its rabbinical interpretations, called collectively “oral Torah”—should be the basis for Jewish observance.
The correct terminology for oral Torah is Shebekhtav or Shebealpeh.
This was an accepted belief since Hillel, but one must account for diaspora in AD 70 which widely dispersed the doomed Herodian kingdom. Vast archives of data were lost and need to be rewritten under Hillel, but again this is all speculation of who authored the material as there is hardly any evidence, not unlike the article.
The Karaite argument, still ongoing today as well with the Yemeni who out date modern Judaism by a thousand years, is mere plaintiff of European fiction or aggadah attached to Torah, like hanukkah.
Karaist-adjacent attitudes had been present in Judaism since the time of the Second Temple (Abraham Geiger, for example, proposes that Karaites continue some Sadducean traditions). But in the 10th century the movement enjoyed a golden age of sorts that demanded a definition in terms regarding its role in Judaism.
The first statement envisions a fictional alternative. The Golden Age you presume was established in Poland not Leningrad. But you can thank the Masoretes for teaching you vowel points and rewriting the Aramaic language, ten centuries after Tanakh had been preserved by Greek. Of course you know Greek was the written language of the Levant in the time of HaMashiach Jesus, who was not Jewish.
Rabbinical opinions diverge, as they often do, about how deviant Karaism was; but a consensus developed around the notion that Karaim were not, as a community, part of the Jewish people.
Deviant… LOL. I believe the karaite will strongly disagree with you about being separate from the descendants of Israel and undoubtedly have more of a lineage claim than Prussians. Karaites argue in fact “Jewish people” are Europeans, Russian, Polish, German in which the counter argument is ridiculous.
It might be the reason your last name ends in Stein or Berg, or perhaps our names Zawada and Spokoiny from Poland and Russia?
Just think about it.
While you think about it I want you to understand the karaite community you say no longer exist is much older than chabad lubavitch. And while chabad was figuring out Torah in Lithuania, the karaite had communed a thousand years from the Levant as a separate Ioudaic sect opposed to shebealpeh the entire time! Trying to grind out a reason for this is futile, a waste of time.
This explains why certain groups can’t stop complaining that they are still around. More of an insult, the audacity any Jew would suggest karaite require an invitation to serve something they had done a thousand years longer than the group making the claim. Fascinating is all I can say regarding the argument between hassidic and karaite.
Yet every group will find something to gripe about based on what a “teacher” in history is purported to have said.
Most medieval Jewish sages, notably Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, wrote powerful justifications for that exclusion.
Here again you use a 12th century French word, sage, which is from the Greek sophos, meaning Greek wise man who worshipped Greek idols. A fallacy many uneducated doctorals make when lacking philologic training. If the rabbinate provided the tools wherewith you could identify your fictions, then you would be eradicating your own ideology. Thus, the community is forbidden to employ such tools until fully indoctrinated.
I have written extensively on the fallacy of using the Greek, σοφὸς – sophos, to French word sage and how absurd it is for any Jewish person to use this word to describe rabbis. Although the etymology is clear and the error grievous it may take some time for those entrenched in orthodox tradition to break off their clasp that bind them to European and Egyptian lore. Or you can just keep believing the fictions, either way.
However, I must say from an academic perspective of those that understand this etymologic truth – failure to understand word origin is terribly ridiculous and deserves osternation. If your expertise is koine Greek the transliteration to sage is blissfully obvious and cringe worthy.
It wasn’t so straightforward, however, for individual Karaim. Maimonides, for example, says that a Karaite can’t be held personally responsible for the beliefs that his parents instilled in him and should be allowed back into the Jewish community if that’s what he wants.
I agree that ger should not be held responsible for their parents belief in Egyptian Arabic doctrine and Sufi mysticism by the Maimonidean dynasty and all Jews should take steps to remove these fictions from interlacing with Tanakh in any way shape or form. Especially, the anti-Christian final solution found in the Laws of Idolatry.
Today the Israeli chief rabbinate considers some Karaim to be Jews, even though they are not considered, as a group, to be part of the Jewish people. Here again, it was critical that the majority of the Jews of the time rejected Karaism.
To be part of the Jewish people? You do realize that Judaism, by law, is not an ethnic culture, but a religion right? The use of “be part of the Jewish people,” is a phrase borrowed from “be part of the church, or be part of the body of Christ,” as clearly the language is hybrid from the original.
Nor is there logic in some lineage unity other than a theory that you belong to a lost tribe from Indo-asia. Israeli law is specific, you must believe in Torah to be Judaic and not to have converted to another religion.
This also DOES NOT define citizenship in Israel. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the law. Perhaps take a look at the government website.
In other cases, like the followers of the false messiah Sabbatai Zevi, a herem (excommunication) was applied, signifying that he and his believers were not considered part of the community.
These are two very separate cases. You are literally saying that Sabbatai, a false messiah birthed from Rabeinu Avraham haChassid sufism, is the same as disagreeing with oral Shebekhtav? Thus the excommunication.
The Rambam was also excised as a heretic, now what?
There is no logic or analogy in your statement – just an incorrect reference in an attempt to prove your point. The article is rife with juxtaposing your negations. You are negating your argument with your contrast. Please analyse your prose.
The setting of boundaries wasn’t easy in this case either. Many prominent Jews believed in Zvi’s messianism; entire communities celebrated his arrival and some in Hamburg and Amsterdam sold their property and moved to the Holy Land in anticipation of redemption.
Quite honestly the reception to Sabbatai was profound as compared to Rambam, who was considered a heretic right up until his death. However, Sabbatai converted to Islam, just as Rambam had done to avoid exile, or in Sabbatai’s case, arrows and a spike for breakfast. Donmeh under Islam was a period of history all Jews would like to forget or rather shove under the janamaz!
The popularity of the movement was such that Rabbi Abraham Sasportas, a leading advocate of the herem, was harassed and ridiculed. But the majority opinion shifted dramatically when two major lines were crossed: Zvi’s declaration that many mitzvoth did not need to be fulfilled anymore and, of course, his final conversion to Islam in 1666.
No different than the Rambam, who omitted verse and rewrote halakha while living and laying to rest in Egypt which is anti-mitzvot. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/there-are-not-613-biblical-commands/
Not every polemic in Jewish history resulted in a schism or exclusion. The emergence of Kabbalah after the 12th century and Hasidism in the 18th century, for example, were both close calls.
If you call replacing Torah with Talmud aggadah close call, what do you call a disaster?
Kabbalah only emerged again due to the Maimonides nagid dynasty, which led to a Sabbatai. After the 19th century the replacement became altruistic communism under the Baal’s up until this day.
The “orthodoxy” of the time was extremely nervous about kabbalistic descriptions of the “inner life of God,” which to them appeared dangerously close to polytheism.
Incorrect, once again it’s 180 from what you say.
Orthodoxy again, is a Christian word you are using to define the rabbinate. Kabbalah was considered the upper echelons of Talmud to be taught after the age of 40…
Have you never read the Zohar or the lock and the key?
Hassidism posed many dilemmas; the most serious was likely the role attributed to the “rebbe” as a sort of intermediary between man and God.
Now you’re starting to hit the nail on the head. Rashi and the new invented French word “sage” defined the rabbinate commentaries as the voice of Elohim,
Nachmanides, “The wisdom of the rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud, as well as the Geonim (rabbis of the early medieval era) was unquestionable. Their words were to be neither doubted nor criticized.”
“We bow before them, and even when the reason for their words is not quite evident to us, we submit to them.”
Sage status is considered “divine” and “infallible” to degrees based on the sect you are from. So the answer is yes, the rebbe becomes your god or Tzadik Moshiach candidate.
These fights were, in fact, more vicious that those we see today between Zionists and anti-Zionists, including some episodes we’d all prefer to forget, such as denunciation to the czarist authorities, imprisonment, and the like.
There are all kinds of fictions that you could be communicating here which require address motion by motion. More importantly the secular use of the word “jew” today describing everyone who claims roots to ownership in the Levant whether from a true or false narrative.
The leading rabbi of the time, the Vilna Gaon, led the Misnagdim (opponents) and issued a ban against the Hasidism. Over time, however, a consensus seemed to emerge; as long as these new movements did not reject the monotheistic idea and continued fulfilling mitzvoth in a traditional fashion, they were considered “within the pale,” even though the divisions between Hasidim and Misnagdim continue to this day.
That’s the second time you used the phrase “within the pale” an English phrase which means Ireland. You love your Brit(ish) phrases. The division you speak of is the fact that over 50% of “Jew(ish)” claim secular belief, or anti-Torah. Please explain to me the secular when Israeli law states you must believe in Judaism (Torah) to be considered Jewish. Thus, the ongoing dilemma.
In the 1970s, Jews for Jesus, the most visible face of the Jewish messianic movement, presented yet another dilemma, for they claimed to be fully Jewish while recognizing the divinity and messianic nature of Jesus as the Son of God.
Here we go, Jew on Jew antisemitism.
You lept right over the 18th, 19th, 20th century and Zionism just like bar DeRoma, right into Jews for Jesus.
What is fully Jewish? Have you ever asked yourself that? I can tell you what it’s not. It’s not your personal interpretation or the “Jewish” description of Torah life in 686 BC, lets be clear about that.
You can’t be full Jewish or half Jewish. But why is that? One simple word – korbanot.
For those who know nothing of korbanot or Torah requirement of Vayikra make bold statements like, “claimed to be fully Jewish;” the phrase itself is child like. Not from an insulting manner, but rather innocent from one who doesn’t know any better.
None of us “Jews” can be fully Jewish, or half Jewish, whatever that conveys. Without Beis HaMikdash you can only receive korbanot from Mashiach. Moreover, the word “Jewish” is a 19th century English word, not a Hebrew word, or a Polish word where most of modern Judaism originated from.
The very use of an English word to define your lineage proves the incorrect assessment and education of our actual history.
Consensus in this case was easier to reach. Not only rabbinical authorities but ordinary Jews tend to think the frontier of Judaism stops at belief in Jesus.
Of course this has always been a 19th century propaganda opinion, one that does not jive for centuries in Kaluszyn. The European and English “Jewish story” is not a sabra Levant story. It’s an imported version of history combined with the history of the Levant from Biblical analysis. If anything your statement means the opposite of what you propose, similar to other statements within your article.
The frontier of Judaism started with belief in Jesus and all of Israel doomed to diaspora would be forced to either accept the Mashiach in which they rejected, or live out the remainder of their lives seeking to be tamiym without korbanot. This has been true for 2,000 years and no amount of argument can asuage history.
In fact, in a rare moment of unity, all Jewish denominations signed on to a declaration that said that “though Hebrew Christianity claims to be a form of Judaism, it is not…”
Again, denominations of a group of people who “say” they represent all Israeli tribes on the planet. I’m sorry sir, you do not, and we reject the aggadah. The Zawada were here before the phrase “Jew” was invented. Out shtetl’s existed in the Partitions of Poland and we suffered diaspora long before the phrase “Jewish Zionist” was invented.
The idea that a new movement can gain acceptance and become normative to the exclusion of others is at the root of Judaism as we practice it today.
This is a communist ideology. Of course, and just like all fads this also will pass as Israel is restored by YHWH and the secular gentiles, whatever name you wish to give them, are eventually removed. Lets not sugar coat the reality of Beit HaMikdash.
Zionism is indeed a “new” movement. It is of course deeply rooted in Jewish history and belief, but it is clearly a product of the historical realities of the 19th century, in which groups of humans bound by certain particularities started to see themselves as “nations” and “peoples” with the right to sovereignty and self-determination within the framework of a nation-state.
That wasn’t it at all. It was simply YHWH and prophecy which you chalk up to “peoples and insight” when again stark reality says half the nation is atheist. Your logic is flawed.
Some activists cite this supposed novelty as an argument against making Zionism a key parameter of belonging to the Jewish collective. How, they ask, can a movement that is so new become the litmus test of belonging to an ancient people?
The mere question is the fallacy. The answer is “it can’t.” Just as the Crusaders and Caliphate couldn’t (the negative aspect is judgment).
Did you forget who owned the Levant for 900 years under YHWH? They shouted “Allah” daily for 900+ years. I guess all those years meant nothing to the descendants of Israel who never left, in whom you say Zionists replaced. Think about that.
But the idea that a new movement can gain acceptance and become normative to the exclusion of others is at the root of Judaism as we practice it today. Rabbinic Judaism triumphed over the Temple-worshipping priestly caste and redefined the basic tenets of Judaism.
That’s called apostacy for the educated and in which YHWH promised to eradicate, as He did with korbanot, which caused cognitive dissonance in perpetual until Mashiach. The use of “Rabbinic Judaism (European Judaism) triumphed over (accepted apostacy) the Temple-worshipping priestly caste (actual Israelites and Levites not allowed to own property)” paints the complete aspect of rebellion to God and why diaspora occurred in the first place. If you read what you actually write you may come away with some enlightening conclusions, or not.
A new movement, in this case the Pharisees, changed the normative positions of Judaism over the course of a century, then excluded from the community those who didn’t share them. Pharisaic Judaism was as “new” in the first century BCE as Zionism is today.
That’s an incorrect analogy for a host of logical reasoning. One major being Pharisee actually sat and worshipped in Beit HaMikdash speaking Aramaic, not Hebrew from the 10th century. At any rate, Zionism is a political movement not a “religious” movement so your comparison is flawed. Neither believe the same ideology.
In fact, Zionists would undoubtedly be considered extreme heretics, as well as the transgender movement, by any Pharisee coming out of the grave today.
It was as influenced by external forces (like Greek philosophy and hermeneutics) as Zionism was influenced by Hegelian views and Italian national “Risorgimento.” Yet, despite their novelty, key beliefs of the Pharisees, such as the “world to come” or resurrection of the dead, became a sort of litmus test in order to be accepted within the rabbinical community. In a way, as Zionism does today, Pharisaic Judaism introduces groundbreaking innovations and then shifts the boundaries by redefining belonging.
Speculation and nonsense do not bode well for etymology comparisons. Just because you want something to be true doesn’t mean it is. Pharisee of Jerusalem, not “of Judaism” as again the word didn’t exist and Pharisee ideology morphed with destruction by Titus of Rome.
A Yom YHWH as foretold to come by both navi and culminating by Jesus Sermon on the Mount, the rejected HaMashiach, son of YHWH, as you said, one thing correct in this article.
Indeed Mashiach was rejected and indeed YHWH rejected the generation by removing the Temple and korbanot as foretold. A reality many are still unable to face after 2,000 years.
Here too, a key factor was that a vast majority of the Jewish people, especially after the destruction of the Temple, embraced Pharisaic Judaism.
In that sense, Zionism is deeply inscribed in a Jewish historic dynamic of boundary setting. If one argues against Zionism redefining the limits of belonging, one should also reject the lines drawn by Pharisees and welcome back into the fold the people they excluded—Saducees, Karaites, and Christians—as full members of the Jewish people.
There is no logic in your statement. You compare Zionism with Pharisee as if they are comparable, which they are not. One is a secular political movement while the other a hardcore religion practiced by actual Israelites who lived there.
Europeans and Americans are conversion in either sense of the word and defined by diaspora as being born “outside of Israel.” What that means is once you have conquered a nation or taken a city and begin to reproduce in that city, you become the owners of that city, and a psychosis of ownership takes over. No different than Romans, Greeks, or any other secular party who wish to control real estate.
This line of thinking also display the “group think” Star Trek Borg like altruistic agenda made popular under the Baal’s who embraced communism in Russia and Poland.
A series of major events in the world and in Jewish history led to the emergence of modern Zionism and the resurrection of Jewish statehood in the land of Israel.
Herein lay the problem, the belief that all tribes identify as emanating from the tribe of Judah. We do not sir, nor does the concept align with ancient Israelites, Moshe, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, Yichezkel, or Shemot.
Those events also brought the overwhelming majority of Jews to consider Zionism as a key element in 21st-century Judaism—so central that denying it puts one beyond the pale.
Ah so desu ka? Now we come to the conclusion of the argument. The same line we are always told by those who wish us to embrace their fictions. Denying your ideology makes everyone “not Jewish” or “Jewish” based on parameters you omit or remit, other than Israeli law mind you, which cannot determine legacy, nor determine being Jewish based on lineage.
Any mother from Israel can claim being “Jewish” either after marrying or getting citizenship, regardless of any historic ties to Israel or living in the Levant for that matter.
We know that during the formation of Israel in 1948 an international flow of dialect, culture, and nationality flooded into the new nation, all claiming to be “Jewish” whether one was atheist or knew anything of Torah for that matter.
The reality is that the banking clan was considered indispensable in the formation of a nation.
But the truth is YHWH uses who He uses and if you want to form some new ideology from this fact laced with secular guerilla belief, whose to stop you?
Your free to believe whatever you like, whether fiction or actual historic tenet. And the use of “beyond the pale” is too repetitive for a single article.
There’s nothing new or intrinsically wrong in that state of affairs. In the same way that Pharisaic Judaism took a good century (and the massive dislocation caused by the destruction of the Temple) to become normative,
Nothing after Beit HaMikdash was “normative” in regards to Torah. All korbanot had ceased and with it any means of purification, remittance of sin, or the light of YHWH protecting the once great nation now scattered.
so Zionism took a hundred years, the massive trauma of the Shoah, and the creation of the State of Israel to become mainstream and normative.
It’s the same argument from hassidic, “keep us in power yada yada yada” when we are fully aware of the ficticious arguments used to keep the population in check under the banner. No different than any nation state aligned under secular power rejecting YHWH. Anything organized for God outside traditional fiction on one side of the fence is treated like America in whom the party wishes to evolve.
Once a position becomes normative, it’s only natural that communal structures will try to find ways to enforce them. One may speak pejoratively about Judaism’s “enforcers,” but isn’t enforcement a necessary if fraught exercise for communities that seek to retain a minimum of cohesion?
In short that means we are bullies and why not? We own the place now. Again no different of a statement than Greece, Romans, Crusaders or the Caliphate. Examine your stated words on paper and you will see that the Romans have stated very similar.
While the existence of ideological limits is a necessity for the existence of a community, we can argue about how those limits are set and by whom. Certainly, claiming that some beliefs don’t belong with us doesn’t mean establishing an inquisition.
We see this theory emerge when in reality Israeli law states what you must believe not “ideological limits.” Those limits are set by what could be called the reform Sanhedrin made up of over 300 rabbis that move political players around in determining halakha, economy, and delegation with the WJC.
There are, of course, many practical issues with the setting of communal boundaries and normative positions. How does such a process even work? What are the consequences for those no longer considered within the pale? How is any of this even relevant for a community that continues to exist largely in diaspora and thus with no centralized source of coercive power? Excommunication might have had dire consequences in the 16th century, but today, most Jews would shrug or even mock a herem.
And of course they should!
Herem is based off Elohim telling you to destroy a culture or race of people. How dramatic if one finds out that the prophet declaring such a people or city destroyed is a false prophet!
Rambam calls for the destruction of Christians and lived in died in Fustat Egypt, as Torah states,
“But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’” D’varim 17:16.
And that is how we know Rambam is a false prophet:
- Maimonides died outside of Jerusalem in Egypt
- He wrote the Guide for the Perplexed in Arabic
- He was a donmeh physician (Islamic convert) to the court of Sultan
In other words, what many believe is generally referred to as a cult. Rambam was rejected for heresy his entire life. Only after his death did he become famous through his son’s edification through tractate commentary. His concepts then temporarily, to this day, changed Judaism. Those of us who actually study gemara, actually read Talmud, the Guide for the Perplexed, Mishne, Kabbalah, and the Laws of Idolatry know that Maimonides philosophy is a 100% final solution or genocide on cultures of people and do not represent Torah but personal belief.
We can choose to believe or reject fiction.
We were told to get on the train before, they tried that already.
There is no need to pretend basement lurkers dont exist. But for those of us who study these cult beliefs we are appalled that any sane person, who can logically think, would embrace this herem or hate ideology for economic and political control.
Get it together out there by reinforcing positive influence towards Christians and the flock, not negative brutal medieval belief.
In the 1540’s Henry VIII enjoyed murdering folk if they simply did not swear an oath by him, all the while claiming he was the new head of the church. This King lived to the ripe old age of 56 and terrorized an entire generation/culture of people. keep this in mind. No one can predict when a raving lunatic takes over.
Educate yourself on these important issues, especially etymology to have a singular voice, not a collective communist voice that merits a quasimodo interlink with modern Judaism.
We reject aggadah, European tradition, which is anti-Torah, and corporate merger with communism.
Moreover, Judaism has traditionally policed practices more than faith. “The one who profanes the Sabbath in public” was excluded from the community, but not the one who held controversial beliefs.
Are you serious? What about Jacob Joseph Frank? Your statement is an apology for terrorist activity quite honestly. There are too many movements to cite, namely Kahane, that prove your statement inept.
The earlier examples of Kabbalah and Hasidism are cases in point. Shouldn’t we differentiate, then, between anti-Zionist beliefs and anti-Zionist “practices”? (The difference, for example, between the Hasidic Satmar community, which maintains a mostly ideological anti-Zionism, and Neturei Karta, which actively campaigns against the Jewish state.) And should the limits we set affect the individual or only ideas, as in the case of the Karaim?
Your hyper modeling what you can’t possibly do for lack of Beis HaMikdash.
Halachically, a Jew remains a Jew even if she sins, so can we actually “exclude” people at all? Last but not least, “Zionism” is not one ideology but many, and if Zionism is to be a key parameter of belonging, we need to define what the term actually means.
Your argument is the very speech that defeats modern Judaistic thought. This new idea formed in Europe and America that states, “Since we no longer have the Temple, anyone can be labeled the British term “Jew” whether they are atheist or believe in God, and this determines your salvation – the mere British word Jew has become your salvation.”
Thus, “a Jew remains a Jew even if she sins,” or has a gay marriage, or produces pornography and filth for chatat, or agenda 2030.
YHWH spare us from the fantasies of apostates destroying your people!
Face it – our forefathers invented a new religion due to the fact korbanot is gone.
It’s gone, and there is nothing you or anyone can do about it.
The prophecy of YHWH and the doomed diaspora seed. Cognitive dissonance created a new religion and you are living that tale. As slightly examined earlier the etymology of Jewish Zionist is British academic slang defining our culture of people on paper in 1917. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Time stamps determine your reality.
All these issues are real and complicated, so much so that they may make this debate a mere thought experiment.
But I believe our community needs a conversation about limits, boundaries, and normative positions. We need it because in our century, belonging has become fluid and uneasy. There’s a deep malaise around defining collective entities, like peoples, countries, and communities. The paradigm of “without borders,” cherished by many, won’t help us.
That my friend is where you hit the nail on the head for the third time in your article.
Eventually, the rabbinic authorities of the time understood that Christianity, with its belief in Jesus as a resurrected messiah, put them “beyond the pale”;
Hassidism posed many dilemmas; the most serious was likely the role attributed to the “rebbe” as a sort of intermediary between man and God.
All these issues are real and complicated…
This is due to prophecy,
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
And He answered:
“Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12 The Lord has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.”
True, the attempt to set boundaries is sometimes clumsy, intolerant, and ignorant. Bad actors appoint themselves as ultimate judges of right and wrong. But two wrongs don’t make a right: The fact that limits are not always set in the right way doesn’t mean that limits shouldn’t exist. The fact that the wrong people act as “enforcers” doesn’t mean that “enforcement” is, in itself, negative.
Who are the wrong enforcers? Certainly the wrong enforcers will never admit they are the wrong enforcers now will they? Certainly one will justify “force” to get what they want; communities, ideology, vaccination results, and anti-Torah politicians are the result of those who play the game of survival.
The setting of boundaries should be organic, informed, responsible, and respectful. It should, above all, represent the views and ideas of the majority of Jews.
You mean the majority of “your” group that identifies with the way YOU believe. It can be argued Hitler did the same.
The acrimony of the communal debate around Israel and the general polarization of society make these conversations incredibly difficult, but paradoxically, more necessary. Historically, “anything goes” has never been the Jewish answer.
One can argue your last statement about “anything goes” as the paradigm of Wallstreet shareholders suggest your statement to be false among a slew of other realities the average academic never approach. One is the fact that medical tyranny over populations is a long standing subject Tel Aviv University would like to avoid when discussing the Opioid epidemic under Sackler.
However, I would like to point out that with all of Sackler’s wealth and gentile wives, his dear friend reminded him of the simple truth we must always remember,
“they will still tell us to get on the train.”
Regardless of the ideology you pander or the amount of wealth we pile up.
The truth is, Zionism has become key to the Judaism of a very large number of Jews.
Yes, that is why Israel is over 50% secular, and remember you can’t be a Jew if you don’t believe in God. Your ideology tells us we can, as well as the rabbinate who run the place. As Spock would say, “I question your logic.”
On the one hand, close to 50 percent of the world’s Jews live in Israel itself, and the Zionist enterprise is inextricably linked to their lives. Denying Zionism implies disregarding and denying a critical piece of their lived experiences.
Absolutely. So why deny the reality that Zionism is not Torah or Talmud, but a separate political/banker branch required in the formation of a nation, albeit currently a gentile one. This is denied for nationalism as in the formation of any nation there must exist cohesive unity among the population or identity, what you’re selling, to promote that nationalism.
On the other hand, most diaspora Jews (surveys place the percentage in the high 80s) recognize the connection with Israel as a central part of their Jewish identities. Supporting the Zionist enterprise has become normative for most and a matter of life and death for millions.
Anyone can argue their ideology of government determines “life and death for millions.” The real value received is by steering population to what we wish them to believe. Only then can our atrocities, failures, and cancers be hidden through assimilation and rejection of YHWH that caused diaspora in the first place. That was sarcasm of course.
In that context, claiming that support for anti-Zionism puts one, in some important way, outside of the Jewish people is less a point of debate than a literal description of reality. The difficulties that any boundary-setting exercise entails shouldn’t make us lose sight of this obvious fact.
This is literally the exact phrase the editor of the Babylonian Talmud uses, “an attack on Talmud is an attack on every Jew,” and simply means that if you do not accept what is written then you are not Jewish, although academia believe much is fiction written in the 12th century, so who are you convincing?
Recognize the fact that Zionism was used to establish God’s nation and my God, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob rewards those to whom He rewards and judges those who He deems worthy of judgment. The Greeks, Persians, and Romans were used to preserve YHWH covenant, both it’s judgment and preservation as witnessed by historians able to stomach human travail.
We who do so warn the world of history lessons. Lessons learned by both Zawada and Spokoiny under Hitler Nazi’s.
I warn all Jews against the thinking of the Laws of Idolatry which call for the destruction of religions who do not think the way Egyptian and French apostates believed. This is the same as Hitler – no different! And we will not be silent about this for the sake of Israel and the antisemitic fires you light all over the world through warped Rambam ideology.
This may be another one of those historical moments that call for a redefinition of the boundaries of belonging. Because this is an important conversation, we need to wrestle it away from the extremists and the merchants of hate.
We need to educate the community to have these conversations intelligently and respectfully, grounded in the sources and historical experiences of Judaism.
One that is not filled with genocidal ideology and the worship of “sages” as little gods.
We need a broad community dialogue that is as empathetic as it is learned. Ultimately, limits are going to be drawn. They always are; but how that happens is largely our choice.
No it’s not a choice. The community, yourself included can start educating themselves at once by first understanding the etymology of the words you use to propagate opinion and theory.
The choice is YHWH and He has already determined that the gentiles will have a foothold in Jerusalem until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled. The vine will be gleaned as promised as surely as Israel was announced a nation in 1948.
That finishes the article.
To sum up the article, and in all light heartedness, it’s an etymology abomination, besides the fiction. I would clean it up quite a bit. Know the “medieval words” you’re throwing around as it’s too easy to catch and literally destroys your argument.
In my opinion, until you master the prose, I would stick to audio engagement or blue edit anything you write.
Honestly, before summarizing 2,000 years of history at least know the history of the words you throw around so loosely.
It would also help to understand Judaic origin form a neutral position as all the indoctrination shoveled into the brain naturally must face the zawada or stumbling block of philology.
Until one understand the origins of the words you use, the tools of forensics cannot be employed. This is where the rubber meets the road in academia. You either have the education, training, thousands of hours put in, or you simply have a piece of paper that can be used as toilet paper to those of us skilled in forensics.
As we know forensically, your eloqui, sentence structure displays whether your romantic, perhaps a bit cliché?
Our vast language is all summed up under etymological forensics and this determine everything you write. It determines your cogito process. Your personal stamp which tells us a story of your education, your philosophy, your ignorance, motives, and honesty. In essence, your written work defines you and what you believe and it is your time stamp which we can examine forensically.
All I read was regurgitated ideology… clone speak, trying to convince me that Zawada should be assimilated like the Steins and Berg’s of 1830 Prussia. Uh uh.
If we’re going to examine history and the results of ideology, then lets examine our current state of affairs. Pretend you’re not Jewish for just a second.
- A Hollywood nightmare of entertainment where Stein’s are pedophiles and predators advertising filth for economic gain and chatat. A corporate hegemony intent or dominating resource for Moshiach distribution under a depopulation agreement. Transgender and same sex marriage pushed by organizations such as the ADL who claim their Jewish fighting for civil rights?
What about the rights of the Jews who have to live and work with their neighbors and answer for all the antisemitic hate you generate through unethical practice of which YHWH condemn!
We, as Jews whose family survived the Holocaust, reject your idolatry, your same sex marriage, your new tractate, your fictional histories, and Egyptian ideology which is similar to the final solution Hitler tried to kill us with already.
Ethics are reaching a tipping point but it’s not too late. For those who are Christian pray for mercy from YHWH and that HaMashiach would be patient with His flock.
For those who are Jewish, pray for the blessing of your neighbor for peace, harmony, and commit to chatat in your heart for unethical behavior. Be that bright beacon through righteous deeds so that all may mimick your good will as we are commanded to do through mitzvot.
The Zawada survived Hitler to aliyah and may YHWH grant us survival of assimilation and destruction of the Yom YHWH sure to come.