Noahide News

 

Part 226

July 5, 2005  

updated July 4, 2005

 

 The FINISH 

of Iniquity unto desolation for them who Deny the Christ, Jesus the Lord.

mason seal

Extra Extra

http://www.shmais.com/picofdayall.cfm

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050705/D8B578DG0.html

 

Russian Astrologer Sues NASA Over Comet

Jul 5, 7:51 AM (ET)

MOSCOW (AP) - NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust - it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer.

Marina Bai has sued the U.S. space agency, claiming the Deep Impact probe that punched a crater into the comet Tempel 1 late Sunday "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe," the newspaper Izvestia reported Tuesday. A Moscow court has postponed hearings on the case until late July, the paper said.

The probe's comet crash sent up a cloud of debris that scientists hope to examine to learn how the solar system was formed.

Bai is seeking damages totaling 8.7 billion rubles ($300 million) - the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost - for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."

NASA representatives in Russia could not immediately be reached for comment.

Scientists say the crash did not significantly alter the comet's orbit around the sun and said the experiment does not pose any danger to Earth.

______

and....but of course

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1120468321991

Jul. 4, 2005 21:07  | Updated Jul. 5, 2005 17:01
Israel supplies key comet crash data

Israeli astronomers at the Wise Observatory in Mitzpe Ramon supplied the US Monday with useful data on Deep Impact, the first-ever man-made comet collision.

Deep Impact was carried out on July 4 to mark American Independence Day, and very few places on Earth were positioned to view the collision - which created a huge crater - at night, the only time it was visible.

Observatory director Dr. Noah Brosch and an expert at Tel Aviv University's department of astronomy and astrophysics told the Jerusalem Post that Israel's was the only observatory from Australia to Western Europe to supply the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration with quality data. "We are at the right longitude to provide data," Brosch explained. "China was a partner, but there was rain and they couldn't see anything. We, of course, have clear skies over Mitzpe Ramon at this time of year."

Brosch was "very excited" by the American success in hitting the comet with a perfectly navigated washing machine-sized copper-fortified projectile and photographing it from a flyby spacecraft. Israel was not involved in the mission itself, which took 171 days to send the spacecraft a distance of 431 million kilometers.

NASA planned the collision over the course of six years and with a staff of more than 250 scientists, engineers, managers, and educators.

The 14-kilometer-long comet, when hit by the scientific "smart bomb" at 11 times the speed of a rifle bullet, released a blast of ice or other particles from its nucleus, causing the cloud of dust and gas that surrounds it to temporarily expand in size and reflectivity. The purpose of hitting the comet was to discover whether it was composed of rock, sand, or other materials. Dust released from a comet's nucleus reflects sunlight as it travels through space. Certain gases in the surrounding cloud give off a fluorescent-like light when exposed to sunlight.

NASA experts believe the data will reveal secrets about the origin of the universe, the formation of the solar system, and the origins of life on Earth. Tempel 1 originated in the Kuiper Belt, a broad, flat disk of icy debris extending from the orbit of Neptune to far beyond Pluto. The comet was discovered in 1867 by Ernst Tempel and has passed through the inner solar system many times, revolving around the Sun every five and a half years.

Resulting illumination from impact showed circular craters, plain-like areas, a long ridge and terrain similar to regions on the moon, structures certain to keep scientists busy for a long time. Although it was not the project's main goal, the mission will give scientists and engineers valuable insights into what might be needed someday to divert or destroy a comet on a collision course with Earth.

 

_______

 

The Super Global double cross of the Hassidic Chabad Lubavitch Sofiet controlers of the Bushkevik admenstruation, to bring in the son of perdition, Moshiach ben Dragon, NO Disengagement, but obedient Palestinian Shabbos goyim, Noahides

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85211

Bostoner Rebbe Leads Solidarity Mission to Gush Katif

Daniel 11:

14: And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.
15: So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.
16: But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.


16:49 Jul 05, '05 / 28 Sivan 5765
By Yechiel Spira

The Bostoner Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Horowitz [pictured] arrived in the Gush Katif town N'vei Dekalim on Monday afternoon accompanied by three busloads of congregants and supporters.

As the Rebbe's bulletproof van arrived in front of the town's central synagogue, dozens of local residents began making their way to greet the Rebbe, a member of the Council of Torah Sages of Israel and the United States.

The visit, at this time, by a prominent member of the hareidi Torah (Talmud Bavli) community sends a unique message to Gush Katif leaders, residents and the government, that support for a continued Jewish presence in Gush Katif and Gaza communities is far-reaching, extending outside the National Religious community to other sectors of Torah Jewry as well.

The Rebbe addressed the crowd inside the synagogue, speaking of the Jewish People's acquisition of the Land of Israel. The Rebbe expressed a prayer that together, the Jewish People will remain in Gush Katif area communities in the future, continuing to build and grow for many years.

Following the Rebbe's remarks, Rabbi Label Groner spoke.

Rabbi Groner served for decades as the secretary of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

 Following the teachings of Rabbi Schneerson, Rabbi Groner spoke of the need to continue efforts to reverse the decree of the disengagement, citing numerous examples from modern history when the Jewish People witnessed G-d's intervention, saving the residents of Israel from tragedy.

Rabbi Groner called for increased diligence in the observance of Torah and mitzvoth, explaining that with our actions and mesirut nefesh -- self sacrifice, the Jewish People can reverse the decree of the government's expulsion plan.

The Bostoner Rebbe and his followers proceeded to the Maoz Yam Hotel which was evacuated last week by the army and currently serves as an army base. From there, the group visited Kfar Darom, meeting with leaders and residents before returning to Jerusalem.

Just ain't gonna happen. They will 'REVEAL" the son oof perdition before it does,............AV 9?

_______

If you worship the Babylon gods, who are not GOD, of the Sanhedrin's Sumerian Doctrines, and bow to their Universal Noahide Laws unto the beast the Dragon, who has given them their seat and their authority.........then you will become an equal slave, of their yoke of the Assyrian. In Jesus the Christ, the WORD, the TRUTH you will be made FREE from these Hassidic Pharisee Vipers and their Dragon,. Who will drink the living water freely? 

You had better understand, these men are alive now, and their dragon who seated them is their god of this world.

 

Gentiles in Halacha

http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_gentiles1.html



The Jews Are Called 'Man'

 

Tzfi'a 3

The Editorial Board

President of the Editorial Board and Founder: Rabbi Moshe Segal OBM

Rabbi Yisrael Ariel
Moshe Asher
Joel Rakovsky
Amishar Segal

Articles are the authors' responsibility

5749

The Distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Torah

Rabbi David Bar Chaim

Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

Introduction

Over the past few years, there has been a recognizable trend amongst different circles in the religious community -- a
humanistic/universal inclination. There are many who have written in praise of love, "for all men who were created in the image
of G-d." We have even been "graced" with a pamphlet of this name, Chaviv Adam Sh'nivra B'tzelem, composed and edited by Mr.
Yochanan Ben Ya'acov, the Director General of the Bnei Akiva Youth Movement. The explicit goal of those who share this outlook
is to prove that all men are equal, that it is forbidden to discriminate against any man on the basis of his race, and that
anyone who claims the opposite is nothing but a racist, distorting the words of the Torah in order to fit them to his "dreadful"
opinions.

Here are two examples:
1. A statement by Ms. R. Huberman:
"...I never imagined that the Torah discriminates between one man and the next on the basis of faith, nationality, or race...on
the contrary, it is our Torah which teaches that the blood of man is holy simply because he is man: 'Whoever sheds man's blood
by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of G-d made He man' (Genesis 9)...in the Ten Commandments it is written: 'You
shall not murder'! There is no hint of a restriction, no hint that the prohibition applies to a Jew and not to a Gentile..."
("Between Blood and Blood," Amudim, a monthly magazine of the Religious Kibbutz Movement, Tamuz 5745, pg.352).
2. [Former] Member of Knesset (National Religious Party) Professor Avner Shaki:
"The Jews of the State of Israel who received the Torah of Moses on Mount Sinai, where it was established that man was created
in the image of G-d, have no need for any...law to teach us this fundamental basic of the Torah, that all men are born equal
according to Judaism...man's equality, man's status before G-d and before his fellow man, is a primary and fundamental principle
in the Jewish Torah...(Talmud Bavli of their Dragon) of course, we will not assist any type of racism which discriminates against man because of his color,
religion, or nationality..."
(an excerpt from his speech during a discussion in the Knesset on an amendment to the Basic Law of the Knesset and the Penal
Law)

We have something very clear before us: all human beings, Jew and Gentile, are equal. As will be further clarified, this outlook
completely contradicts the Torah of Moses, and stems from an absolute lack of knowledge, permeated with foreign Western
"values." There would not be any need to respond were it not for the many who are mistaken and lead astray by it.
This outlook has even been expressed by some rabbis whose goal is to show how great and important the stature of the Gentile is
in our Torah, and who thereby violate the truth by taking things out of context and inaccurately interpreting the words of
Chazal and the Rishonim. A large part of their efforts are centered (due to the "Underground" affair, of course) on an attempt
to prove that the prohibition "You shall not murder" also applies to the killing of a Gentile. Here is an excerpt from Rabbi
Yehuda Amital, shlita:
"See the Ra'aban on the Gemara Tractate Bava Kama 113a, that the prohibition of 'You shall not murder' also applies to a
Gentile, as is explicitly stated by Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 1, halacha 1. See Yere'im, paragraph 175, that
the killing of a Gentile is a subsidiary to the prohibition against murder."
(From a letter published in Alon Shvut (Yeshiva Har Etzion), issue number 100. His words are cited in the pamphlet previously
mentioned, Chaviv Adam Sh'nivra B'tzelem, in an experimental edition, pg.64)
Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein shlita writes:
"From Maimonides's words (Mishna Torah, The Laws of a Murderer, chapter 2, halacha 11) it is clear that the prohibition 'You
shall not murder' applies to a Gentile who fulfills the seven Noahide commandments, and the murderer is punished by death from
the Heavens. So on one hand there is no difference in the prohibition of murder between a Jew and a Gentile..."
(From a synopsis of a lecture published in Keshet B'Anan number 32, Gesher, and cited in the above mentioned pamphlet, pg.72.)

These Hassidic Vipers are fighting their war against Dan Hassidim in the West who already control Sanhedrin and the White House who are attempting to establish their vision to take the Great harlot City jerusalem, and they too admit that their Talmud and mammon-eyes of the Dragon is their authority. beware for they too want all mankind to bow to their Sumerian gods who are no GOD



The followers of these rabbis continue their path:
"...'You shall not kill'! This is an absolute prohibition, an unambiguous command that does not distinguish between Jew and
Gentile..."
(Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya'acov's words in his introduction to the above mentioned pamphlet, pg.1)
Later on it will become clear how misleading and deceptive these matters are.

Not only about this halacha are things written which are liable to mislead the public. For example, Rabbi Lichtenstein writes:
"The field of the Torah...is also relevant to the world of the Noahide, but there is no doubt that as far as the extent is
concerned...the study of Torah (Talmudic perversion anti-Christ) is much less in the world of the Gentile than in our world.
Rabbi Meir's words in Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and the beraitha in Torat Cohanim are well known: even a Gentile who sits and
learns Torah receives reward...an additional emphasis on the great and exalted study of Torah being relevant to the world of the
Gentile." (From his essay, Bnei Adam, in the monthly publication Emda, Number 3, pg.16, and in the previously mentioned
pamphlet, pg.74.)
It is amazing that he forgot to point out everything said there on this matter, particularly the conclusion. How could he not
mention that Rabbi Meir's words were brought in order to disagree with Rabbi Yochanan who said: "A Gentile who studies Torah is
punishable by death,
1 as it is said: 'Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance,' for us it is an inheritance, and not for
them"? 

Why they had to REMOVE the Commandments of God, for they do not obey the Commandments of God the Father, for their laws they make unto all mankind their snare and yoke of their Assyrian Sumerian gods of Sumerian Doctrine of devils

 

The conclusion is most important -- in order to settle the conflicting statements the Talmud answers, "In this case, he
is engaged in the seven Noahide commandments"
(He is engaged in the halachas of those seven commandments to be skilled in
them -- Rashi). He is permitted to study those specific seven Noahide commandments -- and if he learned more than this, he is
punishable by death

IF he says that Jesus the Christ is GOD...Jesus the Christ is GOD and you are all damned to eternal damnation

So the Tosaphot wrote in Tractate Avodah Zara 3a, s.v. sh'afilu, and Maimonides in The Laws of Kings,
chapter 10, halacha 9, writes: "A Gentile who engaged in Torah is punishable by death.2 He should not engage in anything other
than their seven commandments alone.
" The distance between what was said in the Talmud and Rabbi Lichtenstein's words is great.
In the previously mentioned essay Rabbi Lichtenstein writes further:
"The field of prayer also exists as a universal value...this has been said in connection to the Holy Temple at its inception (I
Kings 8:41-43); this is part of the prophecy of the end of days: 'For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the
nations.' There is also room for the Gentile to come and pray in the Holy Temple!"

The Temple of Doom and the Talmudic Proselytes of the children of hell, Noahides. Is not the Temple these Vipers though to tear down, and HE GOD raised on the Third Day, who is the ONLY TEMPLE of SION God's Holy Mountain in Heaven, of the saints who Stand Firm in the Testimony and witness of Jesus the Christ and the Commandments of God


How is it possible to say such things? Indeed, we have learned a complete Mishna (Kalim, chapter 1, mishna 8): "...Inside the
walls of the Temple Mount is holier, and therefore Gentiles and one who has been defiled by the dead cannot enter there..."thus
Maimonides ruled in The Laws of the Holy Temple, chapter 7, halacha 16. There is no way for a Gentile "to come and pray in the
Holy Temple"! The matter is clear: a Gentile can pray, even on the Temple Mount, but not in the Holy Temple.

for they alone are as gods.......the holders of the exclusive word of their gods who is no GOD, but is the Dragon who has given them their seat and their authority

An additional proof of the Gentile's stature, according to Rabbi Lichtenstein:
"Animal sacrifices are conceived by us as being of authentic Jewish character, but they definitely belong, in the pure sense of
the halacha, also to the world of the Gentile: a Gentile offers animal sacrifices not just on any altar...but in the Holy
Temple" (from the above mentioned essay).

Jesus the Christ is the ONLY LAMB of GOD ever needed the Final atonement for all mankind who believe...Beware


Aside from what has been previously clarified, that there is absolutely no possibility of a Gentile entering the Holy Temple,
much less of offering sacrifices there, this statement, like the one beit, does not reflect the position of "pure halacha" on
this topic. There is a discrepancy between Rabbi Akiva (Van Impe's favorite)  and Rabbi Yosi the Galilean in the Sifra on the portion of Emor, parsha
7, halacha 1, and in the Tosephta, Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7 (Zukermandel and Leiberman editions, in the Vilna printing,
halacha 3), and brought in Tractate Menachot 73b, concerning which sacrifices can be accepted from a Gentile. Maimonides ruled
based on Rabbi Akiva3 (The Laws of Sacrifices, chapter 3, halacha 2): "Men or women or slaves can bring sacrifices.

or slaves

or slaves

or slaves

 

 But from the
Gentiles we only accept burnt offerings as it is said: 'From the hand of a Gentile do not offer the bread of your Lord'...but we
do not accept from them peace-offerings, nor meal-offerings, nor sin-offerings or guilt-offerings..." In connection to this we
must add that even if a Gentile volunteered to donate money in order to have a part in the public sacrifices, we do not accept
it from him, as it is cited in the Sifra, chapter 7, halacha 12, and in Shekalim, chapter 1, mishna 5, and Maimonides wrote in
The Laws of Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7: "Everyone is obliged to give half a shekel...but from the Gentiles who gave a half
shekel, we do not accept it." 

They simply take it when needed

Generally speaking -- there is no equality of rights for a Gentile, not in their entrance to the
Holy Temple nor in their offering of sacrifices there.


It seems that these examples are sufficient to clarify the reason for writing this essay. Now let us consider a long list of
sources that clearly contradict the previously mentioned opinions. First we will focus on halachic matters, and afterwards on
the spiritual realm. It must be noted that I plan to deal only with halachot (law)  that illustrate the vast distinction the Torah
makes between Jews and Gentiles. I do not intend to examine the topic of the status of Gentiles in the Torah in its entirety.
For example, how and to what extent can the Gentile serve G-d according to the Torah, and what is his reward for this? What is
possibilities are open for Gentiles residing in the land of Israel? What is the law for Gentiles who are at war with us or
hostile towards us? I will not deal with these and similar matters -- for this is not my purpose. (These matters are connected
to specific situations and details, whereas the purpose of this essay is the overall, consistent distinction between Jew and
Gentile.) The same is true concerning the second part of the essay, which will deal with the spiritual realm.




1. Between Jews and Gentiles -- In Halacha

A. Killing a Gentile

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 24:17): "He who kills any man shall surely be put to death," and it is also stated in the
portion of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:14): "But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent, to slay him with guile, you shall take
him from my altar that he may die." On the latter verse it is stated in Mechilta (Masechta D'Nezikin parasha 4): "'But if a man
comes with intent' -- Why was this stated? Since it is stated 'And he that kills any man...,' perhaps this also speaks of one
who kills on purpose, in error, and others: a healer who killed [his patient], one who inflicts [deadly] blows with permission
of Beit Din, (Sanhedrin)  a father who tyrannizes his son or student [to death] -- is this what it implies? It is taught: 'But if a man comes
with intent' -- to exclude [one who kills in] error, 'man' to exclude the minor, 'man' -- to include the others, 'his
neighbor' -- to include the minor, 'his neighbor' -- to exclude the others." Isi the son of Akiva says: "Before the giving of
the Torah we were warned concerning the spilling of blood. After the giving of the Torah, instead of being more severe, they
were more lenient. In truth they said he is exempt from the rule of man, and his judgement is the hands of Heaven."

We learn from the Mechilta that a Jew who killed a Gentile with intent is not put to death by the Beit Din, as he would be had
he killed a Jew. The halacha is the same concerning a ger toshav, as is explicitly stated in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar
Yochai on the above mentioned verse: "'Upon his neighbor' -- with the exception of others, 'his neighbor' -- with the exception
of the ger toshav. 

Shabbos goyim: gentile under satan yoke Noahide Law of the Dragon of talmud Bavli of Sanhedrin of the beast who gave them their seat and authority

Perhaps I ought to exclude the others, for they do not have commandments similar to the Jews, yet I ought not
exclude the ger toshav who has commandments similar to the Jews. It is taught: 'his neighbor' -- with the exception of the ger
toshav." Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of Masaei, paragraph 160, see there, and in Sifri Zuta on the portion of
Masaei, 23: "Upon his neighbor -- with the exception of the ger toshav."4

Similarly we learn in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 9, mishnah 2: "One who intended to kill an animal [and instead] killed a
man, [intended] to kill a Gentile [and instead] killed a Jew
, [intended to kill] a fetus [and instead] killed a child who is
able to exist outside the womb, [he is] exempt." These, too, are the words of Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer and Saving
Life, chapter 2, halachas 10 and 11 (in manuscripts it appears as a single halacha): "One who kills a Jew or kills a Cannanite
slave is put to death for this. And if he killed unintentionally, [he is] exiled. A Jew who kills a ger toshav is not put to
death for this by a Beit Din, as it is said: 'But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent.' And it need not be said that he
is not put to death for [the killing of] a Gentile. The same for one who kills the slave of another, or kills his own slave -- 
he is put to death for this, for the slave has already accepted upon himself commandments (accepted the Mark of the beast) and is [therefore] included in the
inheritance of G-d," and so the Tosaphot has written in the Talmud, Tractate Makkot 9a, s.v. k'savur.

In contrast, a ger toshav (and all the more so a Gentile) who killed a Jew, even unintentionally, is put to death, as we learned
in chapter 2 of Tractate Makkot, mishnah 3, and in the Gemara there (9a), and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 5 of The Laws of a
Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4: "A ger toshav who killed a Jew without intent -- even though he did it unintentionally,
he is put to death."

for in their laws they say they are gods....the 'Chosen" who have chosen the "Robber" the dragon

However, it must be emphasized that one cannot take this as permission to kill a Gentile. In the aforementioned Mechilta it
clearly states the opposite -- "his [one who kills a Gentile] judgement is in the hands of Heaven" -- so it is forbidden. See
further in Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (Zukermandel edition, in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):

If it were not for the sake of Jesus the Christ, not one of these Talmudic Vipers of the Dragon would remain alive this day


"On the spilling of blood, how? ...a Jew [who killed a] Gentile is exempt," for one who kills is exempt [from punishment by Beit
Din], (sanhedrin) however [this action is] prohibited, and in Sanhendrin 57a on this beraitha it is stated: "There, how should we learn the
bereitha, prohibited [for a Gentile to kill a Gentile or a Jew] and permitted [for a Jew to kill a Gentile]? Yet we have learned
in a beraitha that Gentiles and shepherds of small cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it]?" -- so there is a
prohibition against the killing of a Gentile. However, we have not found in the words of Chazal a definition of the prohibition,
and the Rishonim are in dispute on this matter.

for their father is the murderer since the beginning and the lust of their father they do

The opinion of HaRa'aban is that one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You shall not murder" and
these are his words in the commentary on Bava Kama paragraph 22 (page 74d)5: "...'You shall not steal' is similar to 'You shall
not murder' and 'You shall not commit adultery'6 in that it refers both to Jew and Gentile."

This is not the opinion of Maimonides in the beginning of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life: "One who kills a Jew
transgresses a negative commandment as it is stated: ' You shall not murder'."7 Maimonides also wrote something similar in Sefer
HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289, and Rabbi David HaKochavi restated it in his Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289.
Likewise, it is written in Yere'im paragraph175 (Schiff edition, in other editions paragraph 248): "

for their house is the house of confusion and that house of their father will very soon fall, Give Glory to Jesus the Christ

...and it is called murder
only concerning a Jew, as it is written: 'who murders his neighbor' -- the murder of one's neighbor is called murder, but the
murder of a Gentile it is not called murder." And in the continuation of his statement: "Subsidiary [prohibition] of murder: not
to kill a Gentile, as we learned in the beraitha in Avodah Zarah chapter 2 (page 26a): The Gentiles and shepherds of small
cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it]."8 According to Maimonides, the Yere'im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi,
one who kills a Gentile does not transgress the negative commandment 'you shall not murder.'9

Summary

1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, (sanhedrin of the Dragon) even if he kills him with
intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.
2. In the opinion of HaRa'aban, one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You shall not murder," and in
the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare'im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative
commandment.

and all precedence is in the Talmudic Mammon-eyes of hell and death their covenant they have made unto themselves

However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.
So the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a man.

and Jesus the Christ differentiates between anti-Christ and Salvation by faith

B. Saving of Life

Regarding the subject of saving a life, too, the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile. We learn in chapter 8 of
Tractate Kippurim (Yoma) mishnah 45 (in the Vilna edition mishnah 47): "One upon whom the ruins of a building collapsed and
there is doubt whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Jew or a Gentile, we clear off [the
rubble]. If they found him alive, they clear off [the rubble], if dead, they leave him there." The Talmud explains on page 85a:
"It is needless to say 'there is doubt whether he is alive or dead' if he is a Jew, but even if we are uncertain whether he is a
Gentile or a Jew we clear off [the rubble]," and thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 2 of The Laws of the Sabbath, halacha 21 (in
the Vilna edition, halacha 20): "If there was a courtyard with both Gentiles and Jews, even one Jew and a thousand Gentiles, and
the ruins of a building collapsed upon them, we clear off the rubble from everyone for the sake of the Jew. If one of them moved
to another courtyard and it collapsed upon him, we clear [the rubble] off him, for perhaps the one who moved [to the other
courtyard] is the Jew and the ones who remained are the Gentiles." Likewise in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim,
paragraph 329, section 3.10

Behold Judeo-Churchinsanity, your "Chosen" and their vision unto the Dragon you too serve

It must be pointed out that a Jew who wanted to engage himself in the saving of the life of a Gentile which involved a
transgression of the Sabbath, and did so in front of witnesses and after being warned, is put to death by the Beit Din -- this
is self evident.

let them have the pit of the abyss for their murders and sorceries and Blasphemies, Lord, for it is written

C. Death by a Beit Din

Small Freemason Sanhedrin in any city USA

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any guilt,
in any sin that he may commit: at the word of two witnesses, or at the word of three witnesses, shall the matter be
established." And in the Sifri (Shoftim, paragraph 188) it is written: "Thus far we [learn] it with regards to the capital laws;
from where do we learn it concerning monetary laws? It is written, 'for any iniquity.' From where do we learn it concerning
[transgression for which one must bring] sacrificial offerings? It is written, 'or for any guilt.' Where do we learn it
concerning [transgressions punishable by] lashes [by a Beit Din]? It is written, 'in any sin that he may commit'..." Maimonides
wrote similarly in the beginning of chapter 5 of The Laws of Testimony: "No verdict of judgement may be made based on the
testimony of one individual, neither in monetary laws nor in capital laws, as is written: 'One witness shall not rise up against
a man for an iniquity, or for any guilt'..."

Likewise, one is not put to death by a Beit Din, even if there were several witnesses to his transgression, without forewarning,
as we learn in the beginning of chapter 5 of Tractate Sanhedrin: "They [a Beit Din] would investigate them [the witnesses] with
seven interrogations: Which week? Which year?...Do you recognize him? Did you warn him?..." and there in the Talmud (Sanhedrin
40b): "Ula said: From where [do we learn] forewarning from the Torah? As it is said: 'And if a man shall take his sister, his
father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness.' Is this matter contingent on 'seeing?' Rather, until it is
made perfectly clear to him [that sexual relations with her are forbidden to him -- Rashi]...In the school of Hizkiya they learn
it thus: 'But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent to slay him with guile' -- [this speaks of a case] when he was
forewarned, yet he still came with intent. In the school of Rabbi Ishmael they learn it thus: '...those who find him gathering
sticks,' [it is mentioned in the present tense to teach us that] they forewarned him, yet he continued to gather sticks" (see
there; in the Jerusalem Talmud there are other ways of learning the requirement of forewarning). 

They were all warned in 1991 by the 102nd Congress of Blasphemy and Treason, via HJR 104, PL 102-14 "restoring this nation to the Universal Noahide laws.............and they accepted it for they accepted their Treasonous representatives and Congressmen/women of Blasphemy

 

Thus Maimonides wrote in the
beginning of chapter 12 of The Laws of Sanhedrin: "How are capital cases judged? When witnesses come to the Beit Din...the
judges say to them: 'Do you recognize him? Did you forewarn him?' If they say11 'We do not recognize him,' or 'We are not sure,'
or they did not forewarn him, behold, [he] is exempt."

and of course they have their Kol Nidre oath to their Dragon of Lies and deception with which to give false witness as they did the Lord Jesus the Christ, whom they hate

This is the way concerning a Jew. With regards to a Gentile, however, it is taught in Sanhedrin 57b: "Rabbi Jacob bar Acha found
it written in an Aggadic book from the school of Rav: a Gentile is put to death by one judge and by one witness, even if he was
not forewarned, by testimony of a man and not of a woman, and even of a family member.
In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said:
Even for [the killing of] a fetus." Thus Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of The Laws of Kings and Wars12 halachas 4 and 14 -- 
these laws were stated concerning a Gentile, in contrast to the laws concerning a Jew. (A Jew is not put to death for killing a
fetus
as it is stated in chapter 5 of Tractate Niddah, mishnah 3: "A one-day old baby becomes impure by discharge...and one who
kills him is liable..." and see the reason for this in Rashi on Sanhedrin there, s.v. af al ha'ubarin, and in the Gemara,
Tractate Niddah there. Similarly, verdicts on capital cases where a Jew is accused may be made only by a Beit Din of twenty
three members, as we have learned in Sanhedrin chapter 1, mishnah 4. Likewise regarding the laws of testimony: the testimony of
a family member is invalid for a Jew, as it says in Sifri, paragraph 280, on the verse: "Fathers shall not be put to death for
children": "...fathers shall not be put to death by the testimony of children, and children shall not be put to death by
fathers. When it says 'and children,' it includes family members...").
We clearly see that the Torah is much stricter about the procedures of judgement when dealing with the life of a Jew than it is
when dealing with that of a Gentile.

D. Damage by a Gentile

It is written in the Torah: (Exodus 21:35): "If a man's ox injures his neighbor's ox and it dies, they shall sell the live ox
and divide the money received for it; they shall also divide the dead animal." In the Mechilta (Tractate Nezikin section 12) it
is said: "'A man's ox' -- to exclude the ox of a minor, 'a man's ox' -- to include the ox of others.' His neighbor's ox,' to
include [the ox of] a minor, 'his neighbor's' to exclude [the ox] of a Gentile, the ox of a Samaritan, the ox of a ger toshav."
And in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai it is stated: "'His neighbor's,' -- to exclude others, to exclude the ger toshav.
Is it possible no payment will be made to a Gentile or that a Gentile will not pay him? It is taught: 'He shall surely pay,' to
include [the payment of] a Gentile and of a ger toshav. Is it possible that they pay for an innocent [ox] half the damage, and
for a notorious [ox] full damage? It is taught: 'His neighbors' ox,' the ox of his neighbor is dealt with in such a manner, and
not [the ox] of others, concerning whom it is stated: 'He appeared from Mount Paran' (Deuteronomy 33:2), -- [G-d] appeared
disfavoring all the inhabitants of the world [in contrast to the Jews]."

you read the rest....then go hug your Judeo-Churchinsanity preacher for his lies and mammonizing doctrines of devils

Furthermore, there is an explicit mishnah in Tractate Baba Kama 4:3: "An ox of a Jew who injured an ox which was dedicated [to
the Temple] or a dedicated ox which injured an ox of a Jew is exempt, as it is written: 'his neighbor's ox' -- and not a
dedicated ox. An ox of a Jew who hurt an ox of a Gentile13 is exempt. An ox of a Gentile who hurt the ox of a Jew -- whether it
is an ox who was harmless before or an ox which has been proven dangerous, [the owner] must pay the full damage." A Jew who
causes damage to a Gentile is always exempt, however a Gentile who causes damage to a Jew must pay the full damage in every
case. And thus it is in Maimonides, chapter 8 of The Laws of Property Damage, halacha 5, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch
Choshen Mishpat, beginning of paragraph 406. The distinction between a Jew and a Gentile is clear.14

It is appropriate to cite the words of Maimonides in his explanation of the mishnah in Bava Kama there: "If there was a legal
case between a Jew and a Gentile, then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we [i.e., a Jew] will win
under their laws, we judge them according to their laws and say to them: this is your law! If it is better that we judge
according to our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law!15 And do not find it difficult, and
don't be surprised by it, just as one is not surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done no harm, for
one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a man, and his end purpose is only for 'man' [that is to say,
the entire raison d'etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man -- comment by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his
edition of Maimonides's Commentary on the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book."



E. Robbery and Theft of a Gentile

With regards to robbery and theft from a Gentile, the Tanna'im disagreed, and subsequently so did the Rishonim, whether the
prohibition is from the Torah or only Rabbinic.

It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 4 of Bava Kama, halacha 3: "It happened that the [Roman] kingdom sent two
officials to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halacha, and Aggadah. In the end
they said: your entire Torah is fine and praiseworthy, except for these two matters which you say -- a Jewish woman should not
be a midwife for a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can be a mid-wife for a Jewish woman, and a Jewish woman cannot breastfeed
the son of a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can breastfeed [the child of] a Jewish woman with her permission; robbery of a
Jew is forbidden, but robbery of a Gentile is permitted. At that moment Rabban Gamliel issued an edict that what is stolen from
a Gentile is forbidden because of the desecration of G-d's name." According to the Jerusalem Talmud, that which is stolen from a
Gentile is forbidden because of Rabban Gamliel's edict and it is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Likewise it is written in Sifri on
the portion of V'zot HaBracha, section 344, except that the edict of Rabban Gamliel is not mentioned there.

This is also what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna
edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4): "...Regarding theft -- a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive] beautiful woman, and
the like -- these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile [to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is
permissible for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile."

Thus Rashi wrote on the aforementioned beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael b'goy mutar: "For 'You shall not
exploit your neighbor' is written, and it is not written 'a Gentile,' but there is a Rabbinic prohibition, according to the one
who says that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden because of desecration of G-d's name in the last chapter 'HaGozel' [chapter 10
of Bava Batra]." Thus it also appears in Bava Metzia 111b: "And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his
brother,' what does he do with the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in
the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not a Gentile. But isn't it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase
'his brother'? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds
that robbery of a Gentile is permitted."16 And so it is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin
57a. Thus, too, ruled the Rama in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, section 1, and also the Maharshal in Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Kama,
paragraph 20.17

In contrast, it is explained in Torat Cohanim on the portion of Behar Sinai, beginning of chapter 9 (and it appears in Bava Kama
113a with differences): "Rabbi Shimon says: from where do we learn that stealing from a Gentile is forbidden? It is written:
'after he [a Jew] is sold [to Gentiles].' Perhaps one can take him by force and leave? [Take the Jew by force from the Gentile's
house without paying, to steal him from the Gentile -- commentary attributed to Rabbi Simon Sens]. It is taught: 'He shall be
redeemed.' Perhaps one can deceive him? [Fool the Gentile and treat him like an imbecile in order to buy his slave cheaply -- 
ibid..] It is taught: 'He shall reckon with the one who bought him' -- to be precise with him... If the Torah is so strict in
[forbidding] robbery of a Gentile, how much more so concerning robbery of a Jew." It is explained that robbery of Gentiles is
prohibited, and the plain meaning of the beraitha is that this prohibition is from the Torah, as the GRA wrote in his commentary
on Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 8, and as the Radbaz wrote in his Responsa, part 2 paragraph 1276.18

Thus it also appears in Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 266: "'When you come into your neighbor's vineyard' -- 'your
neighbor's,' to exclude others, 'your neighbor's,' to exclude a vineyard dedicated to the Temple..." ('To exclude others' -- 
that is to say, the vineyard of Gentiles, for concerning 'your neighbor's' it is written: 'But you shall not put any in your
vessel' -- so in the vineyard of a Gentile it is permitted, and it is derived according to the one who says that view which
states that generally robbery of a Gentile is forbidden... -- commentary of Rabbeinu Hillel.) Thus it also appears in Tractate
Bava Metzia 87b: "...in your neighbor's vineyard and not in the vineyard of a Gentile. It is understandable according to the one
who says robbery of a Gentile is forbidden, that is to say, we need this verse to permit a robbery to a worker..." According to
these Tanna'im, robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah. Likewise it is stated in Seder Eliyahu Rabba (Tanna d'vey
Eliyahu) chapter 16 (in the Ish Shalom edition, in other editions it is chapter 15), see there. See further the Tosephta on Bava
Kama, chapter 10 halacha 15 (in the Vilna edition, halacha 8).

Maimonides wrote at the beginning of The Laws of Theft: "Anyone who steals property worth the value of a prutah and above
transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not steal'... no matter if he steals money from a Jew or the money
of a Gentile idolater..." In The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items, chapter 1 halachas 1 and 2, he wrote: "Anyone who steals from a
his fellow something worth a prutah transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not steal'...and it is forbidden
to steal anything according to the ruling of the Torah. It is forbidden to rob or exploit even a Gentile idolater, and if one
robs or exploits him, he must recompense him."19 This is also the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat,
paragraph 348, section 2, and in the beginning of paragraph 359. Thus also ruled the Gaon of Vilna there, paragraph 348,
subsection 8, and in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, subsection 5, and the Ridbaz in the aforementioned responsum. (It is appropriate
to note what the Ridbaz wrote: even though stealing from a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah, one does not transgress a negative
commandment by doing it; it is also explained so in Likutei HaGRA on Maimonides, and according to this, once again there is no
equality between a Jew and a Gentile). See Chidushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger, paragraph 359, where he proved that according to the
view which holds that stealing from a Gentile is prohibited, the prohibition stems from the Torah.

However, even according to Maimonides's opinion that stealing from a Gentile is forbidden from the Torah and that consequently
one transgresses a negative commandment by doing it, we find nevertheless found in his words a distinction between a Jew and a
Gentile, for thus he wrote in The Laws of Robbery, chapter 6, halacha 7: "The Sages prohibited many things on account of
robbery, and one who transgresses these matters is a robber according to their words -- for example, pigeon racers and dice
rollers," and there in halacha 11: "one who plays dice with a Gentile does not transgress the prohibition of robbery, but he
transgresses the prohibition of engaging in idleness, for it is not worthy of man to engage himself all the days of his life in
matters other than words of wisdom and cultivation of the world." That is, in this issue also a Gentile is not completely equal
with a Jew. See in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 370 who brought the words of Maimonides and did not
dispute him on this matter, and the SM'A in subsection 4 and in the Prisha in subsection 7. The GRA, in subsection 7, agreed
with him.

F. The Lost Item of a Gentile

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:2): "You shall not see your brother's ox or sheep going astray and hide yourself from
them. You shall surely bring them back to your brother." It is also stated (Exodus 23:4): "If you meet your enemy's ox or his
ass going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him." In the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the latter verse it is
written: "'Your brother's ox' -- I only have [learned about] my brother, from where [do I learn about] my enemy? It is written:
'your enemy's ox' anyway. Perhaps this is also the case concerning others? It is written: 'your brother,' as your brother is
your partner, so too, any man who is your partner." And in Tractate Bava Kama 113b: "Rabbi Bibi bar Gozla said in the name of
Rabbi Shimon Chasida: robbery of a Gentile is forbidden... his lost item is permitted, similar to what Rav Chama bar Guryeh said
in the name of Rav: from where do we know that the lost item of a Gentile is permitted? As it says: 'In like manner shall you do
with his ass; and so shall you do with his garment; and with every lost thing of your brother's' -- every lost thing of your
brother's and not every lost thing of a Gentile. It was taught in a beraitha: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said, in any instance where
there is a desecration of G-d's name, even his [a Gentile's] lost item is forbidden..."20
We learn in Tractate Machshirin, chapter 2 mishnah 8: "One who finds a lost item -- if the majority [in the surrounding area]
are Gentiles, he does not have to publicly announce his finding; if the majority are Jews, he must publicly announce it; if half
are Gentiles and half are Jews, he must publicly announce." Thus wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 11 of The Laws of
Robbery and Lost Items: "One who returns a lost item to a Jew fulfills a positive commandment, as it says: 'You shall surely
bring them back to your brother.' One who sees a lost item of a Jew and ignores it and leaves it there transgresses a negative
commandment, as it says: 'You shall not see your brother's ox and hide yourself from them,' and he also abandons a positive
commandment. And if he returns it, he fulfills a positive command." But in halacha 3 he wrote: "A lost item of a Gentile is
permitted, as it says: 'Every lost thing of your brother's'." Thus it is explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen
Mishpat, paragraph 266, section 1.

In addition, it is explained in Sanhedrin 76b: "Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: one who marries his daughter to an elderly
man, and one who marries his son of minor age to a woman, and one who returns a lost item to a Gentile, concerning him the verse
says, 'To add drunkenness to thirst: the Lord will not spare him'." These are the words of Maimonides there, halacha 3: "If one
returns a lost item [to a Gentile] to sanctify G-d's name, in order that the Gentiles glorify the Jews, and know that they [the
Jews] are a faithful people -- this is praiseworthy. In a case where there is a desecration of G-d's name, his [a Gentile's]
lost item is forbidden, and he [the Jew] is obligated to return it...". The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote similarly there.
(In regards to what Maimonides wrote "If he returned the lost item to sanctify...," this is according to the Jerusalem Talmud,
chapter 2 of Tractate Bava Metzia, halacha 5 -- but it is important to emphasize that one cannot learn general permission from
this, as the Maharshal wrote in Yam shel Sholomo, chapter 10 of Bava Kama, section 20: "G-d desires a man's heart [aspiration to
worship Him], therefore [one may do it] if this is his intention [to sanctify G-d's name], however if his intention is that he,
and not the faith of Israel, should be praised, or because he loves the Gentile and has mercy on him, it is forbidden [to return
the Gentile's lost item].")

G. The Error of a Gentile

The error of a Gentile [i.e., property of which he deprived himself due to an error] is permitted, similar to the case of his
lost item.21 Thus it is explained in Bava Kama 113b: "Shmuel said: and his error is permitted." However, the Rishonim disagree
about whether it speaks of a case where a Gentile erred in his calculation on his own or if it is permitted to deceive him. In
the opinion of Rashi, there (s.v. v'ivla lei zuza) it is permitted to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi's opinion which was
clarified above, that stealing from a Gentile is permitted. The Tosaphot also wrote there, s.v. ya'chol, that it is permitted to
deceive a Gentile, however only if he cannot discover it and it won't cause a desecration of G-d's name. This is also the
opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 3: "However, his error -- that is, to deceive him in calculations
or to raise his loan -- is permitted, but only if it will not become evident to him -- for in such a situation there is no
desecration of
G-d's name."22

But this is not the opinion of Maimonides, who wrote in chapter 11 of The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items, halacha 4: "The error
of a Gentile is similar to his lost item and is permitted -- that is, if he erred on his own, but to deceive him is forbidden."
Likewise he wrote in the beginning of chapter 18 of The Laws of Transactions. This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel
(brought in Shita Mikubetzet; in Aruch, entry plez, it is brought without attribution) of the Rif, of HaRaviyah (brought in the
Mordechai, paragraph 158, and in Or Zarua there on Bava Kama), of the Mordechai, and of the Nimukei Yosef.

The Rama in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 2, brought both opinions and did not determine in this matter; however, the
Maharshal ruled in Yam shel Shlomo (chapter 11 of Bava Kama, paragraph 20) that it is forbidden to deceive a Gentile, and this
is the intent of the Gaon of Vilna there, subsection 13.

In any case, the entire essence of this dispute is specifically concerning a Gentile, for with regards to the error of a Jew,
everything must be recompensed, as it appears in a number of places, including Kiddushin 42b: "Rava said: anything concerning
[faulty] measurements, weights or calculations, even if they are of minimal value, is also recompensed," and so wrote Maimonides
in the beginning of chapter 15 of The Laws of Transactions, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph
232.

H. Abduction

It is written in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13): "You shall not steal," and also there (21:16): "Whoever steals a man and
sells him -- if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to death." In Mechilta, Yitro section 8 it is explained: "'You shall
not steal' -- why is this stated? Since it says 'And he that steals a man, and sells him' -- his punishment is stated, from
where do we learn a warning? It is written: 'You shall not steal,' this is a warning with concerning abduction." In Deuteronomy
24:7 it says: "If a man is found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel and maltreating or selling him, that
thief will die: and you shall eliminate evil from within you" -- so it is clearly stated in the Torah that only for abduction of
a Jew is one punished by death.

In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, paragraph 273: "Stealing any of his brethren -- and not others" (that is, Gentiles -- 
commentary of Rabbeinu Hillel). Thus we also learn in the beginning of chapter 11 of Sanhedrin: "These are the ones who are [put
to death by] strangulation: one who hits his father and mother, and one who abducts a Jew..." And this is the wording of
Maimonides in The Laws of Theft, chapter 9, halacha 1: "Anyone who steals a Jewish person transgresses a negative commandment,
as it says: 'You shall not steal.' And there in halacha 6: "No matter whether he abducted [one born] a Jew or a convert or a
manumitted slave, as it says: 'Any of his brethren,' and these are considered our brothers in Torah and commandments. However,
one who steals a slave or a man who is half-slave/half-free is exempt" -- in any case, we learn that one who abducts a Gentile
is exempt.

I. One Who Injures His Fellow

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): "And it shall be, if the wicked man is worthy to be beaten, the judge shall
make him lie down, and he shall be beaten before him, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty lashes he shall give
him and not exceed, lest, if he exceeds and beats him with more lashes than these, your brother shall be made vile before you."

In the Mechilta, Mishpatim section 5 on the verse "And he that smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death," it
is explained: "We have heard the punishment, but a warning we have not heard. It is as written, 'Forty lashes he shall give him,
and not exceed,' and the matter is an a fortiori inference: if one who is commanded to beat is warned not to [over]beat, one who
is commanded not to beat is obviously warned not to beat."

All this is regarding a Jew, as Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 300 (in Rav Kapach's edition): "And
from this negative commandment stems the warning not to beat any Jew: if concerning this sinner we are warned not to beat him,
all the more so regarding any other man." Likewise, he wrote in The Laws of Monetary Damages in the beginning of chapter 5: "It
is forbidden for one to injure himself or his fellow. And not only the one who causes injury, but anyone who strikes a kosher
Jewish person, whether a minor or an adult, whether a man or a woman, in any manner like fighting, transgresses a negative
commandment, as it is written: 'He shall not exceed to beat him'." See further in The Laws of the Rebellious, chapter 5, halacha
8, and in chapter 16 of The Laws of Sanhedrin, halacha 12. Thus it is also written in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 600 (in other
editions, commandment 595).

Furthermore, one who injures his fellow is obligated to recompense him, as we learn in the beginning of chapter 8 of Bava Kama:
"One who injures his fellow is obligated in five categories: damage, pain, healing, rest, and embarrassment." However, the
obligation of compensation applies specifically to one who hit a Jew, as Maimonides wrote there, halacha 3: "One who hits his
fellow a blow which does not have the value of a prutah is given lashes, for there are no payments appropriate to enable the
paying off of this negative commandment. Even if he hits a slave of his fellow, giving him a blow which does not have the value
of a prutah, he is given lashes, for he [the slave] is obligated in some commandments" -- but one who hits a Gentile is not
liable for any punishment.

In contrast, it says in Sanhedrin 58b: "Rabbi Chanina said: a Gentile who hits a Jew is punishable by death, as it says: 'And he
looked this way and that, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian" (because [the Egyptian] had hit a Jewish
man -- Rashi, s.v. v'yach). Thus wrote Maimonides at the end of halacha 3: "And a Gentile who hit a Jew is punished by death, as
it says, 'And he looked this way and that...he slew the Egyptian'." (However, in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 6 he
wrote: "And a Gentile who hits a Jew, even if he injured him slightly -- even though he is punishable by death, he is not
killed." See there, in the Kesef Mishneh and the Ridbaz, for an explanation of why he is not put to death).

J. Fraud

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 25:14): "And if you sell anything to your neighbor, or buy anything from your neighbor's
hands, you shall not defraud one another." In Sifra on the portion of Behar Sinai, section 3, halacha 4 it is written: "'You
shall not defraud one another' -- this is monetary fraud." Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Transactions, in the beginning of
chapter 12: "It is forbidden for either the seller or purchaser to defraud his fellow, as it says: 'And if you sell anything to
your neighbor, you shall not defraud one another.' Even though one [who does that] transgresses a negative commandment, he is
not given lashes, for it can be recompensed. Whether he defrauded with intent or he did not know that the transaction was
fraudulent, he is obligated to recompense."

However, regarding a Gentile the law is different. In Tractate Bechorot 13b it is explained: "They said: to your partner you
return [something gained by] fraud, and you don't return it to a Gentile." Maimonides wrote in chapter 13, halacha 7: "A Gentile
has not [been included in the transgression of] fraud as it says: 'one another' [literally, 'each his brother']. But a Gentile
who defrauded a Jew must recompense him according to our laws -- it should not be more severe than it is with a Jew." Thus also
wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 227 (in the Tur, section 30 and in the Shulchan Aruch section
26). In this matter also the inequality of a Gentile is obvious.

K. Appointing a King and Other Authorities

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:15): "Then you shall appoint a king over you, whom the Lord your G-d will choose: one
from among your brethren shall you set as king over you, but you shall not set over you a stranger who is not your brother." In
Sifri, Shoftim, paragraph 157 it says: "Your brother, and not from others" (that is to say, Gentiles, for a Gentile king may not
be appointed over Jews -- Rabbeinu Hillel). And not just a Gentile, but also a righteous convert, considered a Jew in every
matter, is disqualified for kingship, as is explained in Midrash HaGadol: "'You shall not set over you a stranger ' -- to
exclude the convert... from here they said it is forbidden to appoint a king from the converts, even after a number of
generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish."

This is also the law concerning any position of authority, as explained in Kiddushin 76b: "We have learned: 'Then you shall23
appoint a king over you from among your brethren,' all appointments of authority that you make should not be [made]24 except
from among your brethren." Thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 1 of The Laws of Kings, halacha 4: "We do not appoint a king from
amongst the converts, even after several generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish, as it is written, 'You will not set
over you a stranger who is not your brother.' Not only for kingship, but also for any position of authority in Israel, neither a
general nor chief over fifty people, nor chief over ten people, nor even a person appointed to verify that the water is
distributed to the fields. It is superfluous to talk about a judge or a nasi, who may not be other than [one born] a Jew, as is
written, 'one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you'--all the people whom you give positions of authority
shall not be from other than your brethren."

However, regarding the possibility of appointing a convert to judge over Jews, the Rishonim are in disagreement. In the opinion
of Rashi on Tractate Yevamot 102a, s.v. ger dan et chaveiro, a convert is allowed to judge a Jew on property matters, but not
concerning capital laws (see also on Kiddushin 76b, s.v. kol mesimot.) However, in the opinion of the Rif at the end of chapter
4 of Sanhedrin, the Tosaphot on Yevamot 45b s.v. keivan and in Sanhedrin 36b s.v. chada, the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of
chapter 12 of Yevamot, the Ran on the Rif, end of chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, and the Meiri on Kiddushin there, a convert cannot
judge a Jew, even on property matters, until his mother is [one born] Jewish. Thus Maimonides also ruled in The Laws of
Sanhedrin, chapter 2 halacha 9: "A Beit Din of three [judges], one of them being a convert, is disqualified until his mother is
[one born] Jewish." Nevertheless, a convert may judge his fellow convert, as it is explained in Yevamot 102 and as Maimonides
wrote in chapter 11, halacha 11. Also the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 7, wrote similarly.

It is appropriate to mention the words of the Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 509 (in other editions 498) on this subject: "The
root of this commandment is well known... one appointed to authority... must be, at the very least, from the seed of Israel, for
they are merciful [people] the sons of merciful [people], in order that they have mercy on the nation and not oppress them in
any matter. He must love truth, righteousness, and integrity; as is known, anyone from the family of Abraham possess all these
good qualities..."

It must be emphasized that this is an example of the distinction between one who comes from the seed of Israel and a righteous
Gentile who converts to Judaism. Even though there may not be many such examples, this is not an exceptional case, as will be
further clarified.

L. Defamation

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:19-21) regarding defamation of one's wife: "And they shall fine him a hundred shekels
of silver, and give them to the father of the girl, because he has defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he
may not divorce her all his life." In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 238 it is written: "'And give them to the father
of the girl' -- with the exception of a female convert25 whose mother became pregnant before she converted, but gave birth after
she converted; for [defaming] her daughter one does not pay a hundred shekels of silver."

Thus we learn in Ketubot, chapter 4, mishnah 3: "A woman who converted with her daughter and [the daughter, while engaged] had
illicit sexual relations -- she is put to death by strangulation [and not by stoning, for stoning is only in the case of a woman
born Jewish]. She need not be taken out of her father's door [as is the law for an engaged woman born Jewish] and [her husband
does not have to pay a fine] of one hundred shekels [if he defamed her, for this is only the law concerning a woman born
Jewish]. If the mother became pregnant before she converted and gave birth after her conversion, she [the engaged daughter who
had illicit sexual relations] is put to death by stoning, but [the law concerning] her father's door does not apply to her, nor
[the law concerning] one hundred shekels. If the mother both became pregnant and gave birth after her conversion, her daughter
is considered a born Jew in all matters." Thus Maimonides also wrote in The Laws of a Virgin Girl, chapter 3, halacha 8: "For
any woman whose rape or seduction does not carry a fine, one who defames her is exempt from lashes and payments. So it is
regarding a Gentile woman who converted and a maidservant who was manumitted under the age of three years; even if she was
conceived before her mother converted and was born after she converted, one who defames her is exempt from lashes, as it says:
'Because he has defamed a virgin of Israel' -- [this does not apply] until her conception and birth are in holiness."

M. You Shall Not Hate

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:17): "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall certainly rebuke your
neighbor, and not suffer sin on his account" -- so it is clearly stated in the Torah that this prohibition specifically regards
Jews. And so Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 6, halacha 6 (in the printed edition, halacha 5): "Anyone
who hates a Jew in his heart transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not hate your brother in your heart'."
Thus he also wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 302, and likewise it appears in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 245 (in
other editions 238).

N. You Shall not Avenge or Bear a Grudge -- And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people,
but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord" -- here also the verse yells out "the children of your people." In
Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim, chapter 4, halacha 12: "You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the children of
your people -- but you can avenge and bear a grudge against others" (that is, against Gentiles -- explanation of the Ra'avad).
In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 7, halacha 10 (in the printed edition, halacha 7): "One who
avenges against his fellow transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not avenge'." And there in halacha 11 (in
the printed edition, the continuation of halacha 7): "What is considered vengeance? If one's fellow said to him 'lend me your
ax' and he answered 'I will not lend it to you.' The next day he needed to borrow an ax from his friend. He said to him 'lend me
your ax' and the other answered, 'I will not lend it to you, as you did not lend it to me when I requested.' This is vengeance."
And there, halacha 12 (in the printed edition, halacha 8): "Also, anyone who bears a grudge against a Jew transgresses a
negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people.' How is this? Reuven said to
Shimon 'rent me this house' or 'lend me this ox' and Shimon refused. Later, Shimon needed to borrow or to rent and Reuven said:
'See? I will lend it to you, for I am not like you and I will not pay you back for your actions.' One who does so transgresses
the commandment 'You shall not bear a grudge'..."

With regards to the second half of the verse, Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot positive commandment 206 (according to Rav
Kapach's edition): "We were commanded to love one another...and my compassion and love to my brother in faith and religion shall
be as my love and compassion to myself..." In chapter 6 of The Laws of Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha
3): "It is a commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself, as it says: 'You shall love your
neighbor as yourself'."

O. One Who Sees Jewish Houses/Jewish Graveyards -- Gentile Houses/Gentile Graveyards

In Berachot 58b this beraitha appears: "The rabbis learned: one who sees inhabited Jewish houses says: 'Blessed is He who
establishes the border of the widow,' [if he sees them] in their destruction he says: 'Blessed is the true judge.' On Gentile
inhabited houses he says 'The Lord will pluck up the house of the proud, but He will establish the border of the widow,' in
their destruction --he says, 'O Lord G-d of vengeance; O G-d of vengeance, appear!'" Furthermore there: "The rabbis taught: one
who sees Jewish cemeteries says: 'Blessed be He who created you in judgement, and maintained you in judgement, and gathered you
in judgement and in the future will raise you up in judgement.' The son of Ravina concluded in the name of Rav Nachman the son
of Isaac: 'and knows all of your numbers, and in the future He will give you life and establish you in judgement; blessed is the
reviver of the dead.' On cemeteries of the Gentiles he says: 'Your mother shall be greatly ashamed; she that bore you shall be
disgraced: behold the end of the nations is a wilderness, dry land, and desert'."26 The exact words of the Talmud appear in
Maimonides, chapter 10 of The Laws of Blessings, halacha 11 (in printed editions, halacha 10) and in halacha 22 (in printed
editions, halacha 19), and also in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, end of paragraph 224.27

P. 'You [Jews] Are Called Man' -- The Comparison of Gentiles to Animals

In Ezekiel 23:20 it says: "There she lusted upon her paramours, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like
that of horses" ('whose members were like those of asses' -- their sexual organs, 'and whose issue was like that of horses' -- 
means excessive sexual relations, for horses engage in copulation more that any other male animals, 'whose issue' -- spouting of
semen like a stream of passing water -- Rashi). This verse is a parable to the Gentiles, as is explained there, and the verse
compares them to animals. This comparison is not by chance, as we will see further on, and it represents the foundation for a
number of Halachic laws.

Q. An Ox who Damages a Maidservant

It is written in the Torah (Exodus 21:22): "If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that her fetus departs from her, and yet
no further harm ensue, he shall surely be punished, as the woman's husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges
determine." In Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and in the Midrash HaGadol it is stated: "'If men fight -- from here I only
have [learned concerning] men, from where do I know that this includes two women or a woman and a man? It is stated: '...shall
surely be punished' -- whether a man or a woman. What is taught by 'men'? -- men and not oxen. From here they said: if one's ox
injures a woman, [the owner] is exempt from payments for her offspring." And in the Mishnah (Bava Kama, chapter 5, mishnah 5):
"An ox which attempted to injure his fellow [ox] and [instead] hit a [pregnant] woman and she aborted her child -- [the owner of
the ox is] exempt from payment for her offspring." And there in the Talmud (49a): "Rav Papa said: an ox who injured a pregnant
maidservant and she had a miscarriage -- [the owner of the ox] must pay her for her offspring. What is the reason? For he [the
ox] has merely injured a pregnant she-ass, as the Scripture says: 'Stay here with the ass,' -- the people who are like asses."
And in the words of Maimonides in chapter 1 of The Laws of Monetary Damage, halacha 4: "[Ones' ox] that injured a pregnant
maidservant and she miscarried -- [the owner of the ox] must pay for her offspring charges, for this is similar to injuring a
pregnant she-ass." Likewise it appears in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 405, section 3. (This exegesis,
"A people who are like asses," appears in a number of places in the Talmud; only this example has been presented in order not to
prolong the discussion).

R. The Impurity of a Gentile

Concerning the matter of impurity caused by a dead person, it is written (Numbers19:14): "This is the law: when a man dies in a
tent, all that comes into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days." In Yevamot 61a, and also in
Tractate Bava Metzia 114b, this beraitha appears: "Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Gentile cemeteries do not defile as it says,
'But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men.' You are called men, but the nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called
men" ('do not defile' -- that which overshadows them -- Rashi in Yevamot). This is the wording of Maimonides, chapter 1 of The
Laws of The Impurity of the Dead, halacha 13: "And a Gentile does not defile [objects within] a tent. This law is received from
tradition. Behold, it says concerning the wars with Midian: 'And whoever has touched any slain' -- and it does not mention there
a tent. Also, a Gentile cannot become impurified by the dead. If a Gentile touched, carried, or overshadowed a dead body, he is
considered as one who had not come in contact with it. Behold, to what is this similar? -- To an animal who touched or
overshadowed a dead body. Not only the impurity of the dead alone, but all impurities -- Gentiles and animals are not defiled by
them." (The source for this law, that a Gentile does not become impurified, is in Tractate Nazir 61b and in Tosephta on Ohalot,
chapter 1, halacha 4 [in the Vilna edition, halacha 2]: "A Gentile, an animal, a child born after eight months of gestation,
clay vessels, food and liquids which came in contact with a dead body -- utensils that touched them are pure.") So agreed
Nachmanides and the Rashba in their novellae on Yevamot, as did the Yere'im in paragraph 322, and the Raviyah in Hilchot Azharot
HaCohanim M'tum'atan page 249 (explained also in Haga'ot Mimoniot Hilchot Evel, chapter 3 halacha 3 section 2, see there, where
he states that this is also the opinion of Ritzba), and the Eshkol, end of Hilchot Tumat Cohaim. This is also the opinion of the
Gaon of Vilna in Aderet Eliyahu on Chukat 19:18, and also of the Meiri in Yevamot and Bava Metzia there. However, Rabbeinu Tam
determined that the Halacha does not follow Rabbi Shimon's opinion regarding the impurity of the tent as the Tosaphot has
written on Yevamot there, s.v. m'maga, and in Bava Metzia there (page a), s.v. mahoo, and so the Rosh wrote in Bava Metzia, and
the SM"G in negative commandment 235 -- but for our purposes this does not matter, for even according to the opinion of those
who disagree, this foundation is a general one and determines the Halacha in other cases, as will be clarified further on.

S. Gentiles and the Anointing Oil

It is written in the Torah (Exodus 30:22) with regards to the prohibition of pouring the anointing oil: "Upon man's flesh shall
it not be poured, neither shall you make any other like it...or he who puts any of it upon a stranger shall be cut off from his
people." In the Midrash HaGadol it is stated: "One who pours it on himself or on others is guilty. Is it possible that even if
he poured it on an animal and utensils, and upon Gentiles who are like animals, or poured it on the dead, he is guilty? It is
written: 'upon man's flesh it shall not be poured,' this excludes those whom I cannot call men." In Kritot 6b it is written:
"The rabbis taught: one who pours the anointing oil on an animal or utensils is exempt, on Gentiles and the dead, exempt. It is
all right about animals and utensils, as it is written: 'Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured'; animals and utensils are not
men. [One who pours on the] dead is also exempt, for once one has died, he is called 'dead' and not 'man.' However, [one who
pours on] Gentiles, why is he exempt? Aren't they men? It is true, as it is written: 'But you My flock, the flock of My pasture,
are men' -- you are called 'men' and the nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called 'men'."28 In the words of Maimonides in
The Laws of Holy Temple Utensils and Their Users chapter 1 halacha 6: "One who pours on utensils or on animals and Gentiles who
are similar to them, or pours it on the dead, is exempt, as it says: 'upon man's flesh shall it not be poured'." We have not
found anyone who disputes this halacha.

T. Animal Slaughter by a Gentile

Another example: we learn in the beginning of Mishnah Chulin: "An animal slaughtered animal by a Gentile is considered a carcass
and defiles one who carries it." (Even if it was slaughtered according to the Halacha and others observe him, Rashi, Chulin 13a,
s.v. shchitat nocri.) In the Tosephta there: "All are acceptable to slaughter, even a Samaritan, even an uncircumcised person,
and even a man forcefully converted from Judaism. An animal slaughtered by a heretic is like an idol, an animal slaughtered by a
Gentile is unfit, and an animal slaughtered by a monkey is unfit, as it says: 'And you shall slaughter and eat' -- not the
slaughter of a Gentile, not the slaughter of a monkey, and not an animal that was slaughtered by accident." So the slaughter of
a Gentile is not kosher because the Halacha considers him similar to an animal, and so it is explained in the words of Tosaphot,
Chulin 3b s.v. k'savar: "...and their slaughter is disqualified as is that of the Gentiles from 'And you shall slaughter' -- 
what you slaughter you may eat. And it is you who is permitted to slaughter -- to exclude a Gentile..." Likewise wrote the Rosh
in the beginning of Chulin.

However, in chapter 2 of The Laws of Other Principal Categories of Impurity, halacha 10, Maimonides brought a different reason
for this law: "A Gentile's slaughter is considered a carcass... it seems to me that even this is29 from the words of the Sages,
for the impurity of idol worship and the impurity of its offerings is Rabbinic, as will be explained. And because of idol
worship, the Gentiles were distanced and their slaughter was forbidden." But the Ra'avad criticized him and wrote: "Abraham
says: this is one of his opinions, and there is none inferior to it, for the Gentiles are like animals, they don't become impure
and cannot defile, 'a people who are like asses,' 'behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket,'30 and the wind will blow them
all away, and one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist."31 (See further the words of
Maimonides in chapter 4 of The Laws of Slaughtering halachot 11-12).32

The matters are, therefore, very clear: in the Tosephta it is plainly stated that an animal slaughtered by a Gentile is unfit
for there is no difference between what he has slaughtered and what a monkey has slaughtered, and thus wrote the Rosh and the
Ra'avad. Even though Maimonides wrote a different reason for this halacha, we have already clarified similar matters from the
words of Maimonides in other halachot, like his reasoning concerning the abovementioned case of pouring oil of anointing. From
here we see there is no discrepancy regarding the status of a Gentile in Halacha, just a difference in reasoning for this
specific law.

U. Whose Members Are Like Those of Asses

Similarly, we have found in Berachot 25b: "Rav Yehuda said: it is forbidden to recite the Shema in front of a naked Gentile. But
why mention a Gentile? Even in front of a naked Jew it is forbidden. [And it answers]: it is necessary to speak of 'a naked
Gentile,' for one might have thought that since it is written 'Whose members are like those of asses' a Gentile is like an ass.
So this statement comes to tell us that 'nakedness' is mentioned in relation to the Gentiles: "'And they saw not their father's
nakedness'."33 And these are the words of Maimonides in chapter 3 of The Laws of Reciting the Shema, halacha 16: "As it is
forbidden to read in front of feces and urine until one distances himself from them, so is it forbidden to read in front of
nakedness until he turns aside. Even a Gentile or a minor -- it is forbidden to read in front of them while they are naked." So
wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim, paragraph 74, section 4. These words speak for themselves.

And in Berachot 58a it is stated: "Rav Shila saw a Jew who had sexual relations with a Gentile woman,34 and he gave him lashes.
The Jew went to inform to the king. He said to them: 'There is one Jew who judges without the permission of the king.' The king
sent for him and they said: 'Why did you act in such a manner?' Rav Shila answered: 'He had relations with a she-ass.' They
asked: 'Do you have a witness?' He answered: 'Yes!' Elijah appeared as a human being and testified. They said: 'If so, his
punishment is death.' Rav Shila said: 'From the day we [Jews] were expelled from our land we don't have permission to enact the
death penalty. You, however, whatever you wish to do with him, do.' As they were consulting on the matter, Rav Shila said:
'Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty.' They asked him: 'What did you
say?' He answered: 'This is what I said: blessed is the Merciful One who places kingdoms on earth similar to the kingdom of
heaven, and has given you governing powers and mercy in your rulings [that you love justice -- Rashi]. They said to him: 'Since
you think so highly of us, we will allow you the permission to judge.' [They gave him a stick to give lashes -- Rashi.] When he
was about to leave, that Jew asked him: 'Does G-d perform miracles for liars?' Rav Shila answered: "Wicked one! Didn't I tell
the truth? Aren't they called asses? As it is written: 'whose members are like those of asses'."

And the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot chapter 3 halacha 4, states: "It happened once that a man attempted to have sexual relations
with the maid-servant of Rabbi [a Gentile maidservant -- Toldot Yitzhak]. She said to him: "if my mistress does not immerse [in
the mikveh], I do not immerse" [for I go together with my mistress to immerse, and she has not yet gone and therefore I am a
niddah -- ibid.]. He said to her: aren't you similar to an animal? ['a nation who are like asses' -- why must you immerse -- 
ibid.] She said to him: haven't you heard that one who has relations with an animal is stoned to death? As it says: 'Anyone who
lies with an animal shall surely be put to death'."

Summary

What arises from all the aforementioned is that in the words of the Prophets, and also in the words of our Sages OBM, the
Gentiles are thought of as animals. Even so, it clearly does not mean that they are actually treated as animals, and there are
distinctions between Gentiles and animals, for we have already seen that the Halacha deems stealing from a Gentile to be
forbidden by the Torah's law, while it is clear that stealing from a beast is not considered stealing. Likewise the Mechilta
says that judgement of one who intentionally kills a Gentile is given to Heaven and, of course, this is not the case regarding
an animal. Also, the Gentiles were commanded to fulfill the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah -- in contrast, of course, to
animals. Nevertheless, we have seen that the status of the Gentiles in Halacha is similar to that of animals in many respects,
and generally speaking, there is no real distinctions made between them (further on we will expand slightly this on deep
concept).

2. Between the Jews and the Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

Until now we have dealt with differing Halachic sources, scattered throughout the Written and Oral Torah, which ridicule the
aforementioned words of Professor Shaki: "For all human beings are born equal according to the viewpoint of Judaism...the
equality of man... is primary and one of the foremost foundations of the Torah of Israel..."(!) (It must be emphasized that in
the aforementioned list, not all of the halachot that make clear distinctions between the Jews and Gentiles were mentioned.
There are dozens, if not more, of Halachic laws of this kind.) We will now deal with the spiritual aspect of the subject -- but
first, a brief introduction.

It is well known to all that the essence of the Torah is its inner aspect. This inner aspect is found in all parts of the Torah
that are not Halachic: in the Aggadah, in Jewish thought, and in the Kabbalah. The Halacha represents the practical expression
of this inner aspect, bringing it to action, but behind these Halachic laws stands a spiritual world whose result are these laws
themselves. There is not one commandment from the Torah that stands on its own, without foundation or background in the
spiritual level. In this section of the essay we will attempt to point out the inner/essential background of the Halachic laws
we have previously dealt with.

Below is an anthology of writings by great Jewish scholars, Rishonim, and Achronim which deal with and expand upon the
difference between the Jews and the rest of the nations. Here too, we will concentrate only on the distinction the Torah makes
between a Jew and a Gentile, and we will not deal with everything mentioned on this matter in these parts of the Torah.

'You Are Called Men' -- The Image of G-d in Man

A. The Ra'avad

We have already mentioned the words of the Ra'avad with regards to an animal slaughtered by a Gentile: "for the Gentiles are
like animals...and one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist." It is clear that this is
not a simple Halachic argument merely explaining why he disagrees with Maimonides on matters of Halacha, but rather the expresof
an entire outlook concerning the Gentiles. As far as an explanation is concerned, his words speak for themselves.

B. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi

In the first part of his book The Kuzari, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi explains at length the nation of Israel's exceptional nature and
the difference between them and the other nations. To the Kuzari king's question (paragraph 102): "Why was the Torah not given
to all mankind? Would it not have been better or more commensurate with Divine wisdom?" the Rabbi answers (paragraph 103):
"Would it not have been best if all the animals could speak? You have apparently forgotten what I said earlier concerning the
genealogy of Adam's progeny: that at first the spirit of Divine prophecy rested on one person, who was chosen from his brethren,
and inherited the merit of his father. It was he in whom the Divine light was concentrated. He was the kernel, while the others
were as shells which had no share in that light. Thus it was until the sons of Jacob came, who all were the meritorious kernel,
distinguished from all the other people by G-dly qualities, which made them, so to speak, an different genus -- an angelic one.
Each of them, Divine endeavored to attain the degree of prophecy, most of them succeeded in so doing; even those who were not
successful were close to that degree in their pious acts, sanctity, purity, and interaction with the prophets."

So we see that the Jews, because of their special spiritual level, are considered to be a genus different from all the other
people.

C. The Maharal

The Maharal of Prague OBM, explains the saying of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "You are called men" in a number of places. In the
book Gevurot HaShem chapter 44 (page 167) he wrote: "...for even if all human beings have a common shape, there still is a
distinction...there are nations who have more of a tendency towards the physical and their actions testify to this, for they are
inclined towards lust and abominable things. This is evidence of their materialistic nature...and as we find animals, which are
like an intermediary between man and the rest of the animal world, such as the monkey...likewise there exist men -- who are not
completely men. Therefore he [Rashbi] spoke of, the complete man who doesn't gravitate towards materialism too much -- these are
the Jews, for they possess the complete form without a tendency towards materialism. However, as for the other nations, their
form is nullified by their material aspect, until they, so to speak, cease to be 'men,' because their material aspect is primary
and their form is secondary -- and in everything which has both a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondaryaspect is always
nullified by the primary aspect. With the Jews, however, the opposite is true, for their form is primary and their material
aspect is secondary, and is therefore nullified."

In chapter 67 (ibid., page 311-312) he wrote: "For even thought all human beings were created in the image of G-d, said it is
written: 'You are called men and the nations of the world are not called men,' for the G-dly form that was placed in man should
not be nullified. In the Gentiles, who are extremely materialistic, this form is nullified by the materialistic aspect until the
form itself becomes materialistic. Concerning the Jews, however, the material aspect is nullified compared to the form, and
since the material aspect is nullified by the form, they are considered men."

Regarding what is written in Avot, chapter 3, mishnah 17 (in the Vilna edition, mishnah 14), "He used to say, 'beloved is man
for he is created in [G-d's] image,' a greater love spreads upon him because he was created in [G-d's] image, as it is written:
'For with G-d's image He made man;' beloved are Israel, for they are called G-d's children. A greater love spreads upon them,
for they are called G-d's children, as is written, 'You are the children of the Lord, your G-d'." The Maharal wrote in his
commentary on Avot, "Derech Chaim," (Hanig edition, page 146; in R' Chaim Pardes's edition, page 354): "Even though it says
'Beloved is man,' this does not include all human beings, for Chazal said: 'You are called men and the nations are not called
men' -- as though the completeness of the Creation, which is given to man in particular, is given to the Jews and not to the
other nations...And even though this advantage is only possessed by Israel, he said on this matter 'beloved is man' and not
'beloved are Israel,' because there is a great difference [between the two]. Even though this advantage is also possessed by
Israel in particular, nevertheless, there does exist the form of man in the nations also. However, the principal form of man
does not appear in the nations. In any case, this image does exist amongst the rest of the nations, but it is worthless, and
therefore he did not say 'beloved are Israel who were created in G-d's image.' Additionally, when man was created, this
advantage was only possessed by Adam and Noah, even though they are not called 'Israel.' Though after G-d chose Israel this
Image was lessened amongst the nations, nevertheless His image belongs to man in essence, and this matter is clear" (see also
"Netzach Yisrael," page 73).

In "Netzach Yisrael" chapter 14 (page 83) it is written: "...Israel is special and separate from all the Gentiles, for the
Gentiles are on a materialistic level, whereas Israel is on the 'form' level...as Chazal said: 'You are called men and the
nations are not called men,' as though it were an ordinary thing for them, that the comparison between Israel and the Gentiles
is similar to the comparison between man and animals who cannot speak, and this is because man is distinct from animals in that
he is not materialistic and physical like the rest of the animal world; man is intelligent. This is the level of Israel, for
they are distinguished from the material and are not immersed in it. Likewise with regards to Israel, the material is nullified
compared to the soul; the material aspect is merely a transporter with the soul riding upon it, and the material is nullified,
just like an ass is nullified and secondary with regards to one who rides on it. So is the matter with Israel, when they fulfil
the will of G-d they alone are considered a transcendent form. However, in regards to the nations it is the exact opposite, as
though their soul is nullified compared to the body, and as though they are only body and material."

In "Tif'eret Yisrael," at the end of the first chapter, the Maharal wrote: "...what Chazal said: 'You are called men and the
nations are not called men'...for the special difference between man and the animals is that man possess a Heavenly soul.
Behold, those who possess this Heavenly soul are prepared for Heavenly matters such as prophecy and the Divine spirit, and this
matter can only be found in the nation that G-d has chosen. Therefore they in particular are called 'man,' in completeness, in
that they possess everything worthy of being called 'man'... Therefore, 'you are called men.' Subsequently, the commandments as
Heavenly actions, are particularly related to Israel in their entirety..."

Also in "Gur Aryeh" on the portion of Matot (page 164 s.v. v'ein ha'goyim) it is written: "...and this is what they said 'You
are called men and the nations are not called men,' for the difference that exists between the animal world and man exists
within you exceedingly, but the nations are not 'men,' for their souls are immersed in the material, associated with the
materialistic animal world, and this matter is clear."

D. The Ramchal

In the book "Derech Hashem," part 2, section 4, the Ramchal explained at length the difference between Israel and the nations of
the world:

One of the deepest concepts of G-d's providence involves Israel and the other nations. With regards to their basic human
characteristics, the two appear exactly alike. From the Torah's viewpoint, however, the two are completely different, and are
treated as ones belonging to completely different genera...
Before Adam sinned, he was on a level much higher than contemporary man... In that state, man was on a very lofty level, fit for
a high degreeof eternal excellence...He would have then sired future generations while still in that state of excellence. Their
number would be accurately determined by G-d's wisdom, depending on how those enjoying His good should best be perfected...
G-d had also determined and decreed that all these generations that would have been born of Adam should exist on various
pre-determined levels. Some generations would thus be primary, while others would be secondary, like roots and branches. Later
generations would stem from the earlier ones [and share their characteristics], like branches stemming from a tree...
However, when Adam sinned, he fell from his original high level, and brought upon himself a great degree of darkness and
insensitivity....Mankind in general also fell from its original height, and remained on a degraded level...He was thus only
prepared and receptive to a much lower level, and it was in this state that his children were born...they were all born into
this degraded state...
Nevertheless, even in the time of his downfall, the elevated aspect that existed in man as a result of his true root was not
completely extinguished. Adam was therefore not cast aside completely, and could still return to the higher level. But he was
actually on a lower plane with only the potential for the higher level.
Behold, G-d gave Adam's descendants the choice, at that time, to strengthen themselves and strive to elevate themselves from
this lower state and regain the higher level. The Highest Wisdom, however, determined the length of time best suited for such an
effort...
The Highest Wisdom deemed it fitting that this effort be divided into a period for the roots and another for the branches. The
original effort would thus be that of the founding generations, while what would come later would involve the following
generations. The whole human race still needed its state to be properly determined and the spiritual damage that had been done
to be rectified gradually. The proper procedure...the roots and chiefs of Adam's descendants would first elevate themselves to
the rectified level -- once this had been accomplished, both the roots and their branches would remain in this state forever,
since the branches always follow the roots.
The time provided for generations to function as roots, however, was limited, so one...who prepared himself properly would
permanently become a good and worthy root. He would then be prepared for a high degree of excellence, appropriate for man in his
original state... He would also attain the opportunity to produce offspring...on the level and state already attained by him as
their root.
The period during which this was possible extended from the time of Adam until the generation of the Tower of Babel. During this
period there never ceased to be some righteous people who preached the truth to the multitudes, such as Enoch, Methuselah, Shem
and Eber...Man's measure was filled, however, in the generation of the Tower of Babel. G-d's attribute of justice then decreed
that the time when men could be considered roots should come to a close. Until this time, things could become a permanent part
of these roots, depending on...until this period came to a close.
G-d then scrutinized all mankind, perceiving the levels that should be made permanent in that generation's people according to
their deeds. These things then became a permanent part of their nature in their aspect as roots...It was thus determined that
they should bear future generations, all possessing the qualities that were deemed appropriate for their root [ancestor]. So all
human beings were thus divided into permanent genera, each with its own characteristics and limitations, just as all other
genera in Creation...
According to the Highest Judgment, it turned out that none of them deserved to rise above the degraded level...not even a little
bit. But Abraham, being the only exception, succeeded in elevating himself through his deeds, which led to him being chosen by
G-d. Abraham was therefore permanently made into a superior and excellent tree, conforming to man's highest level. It was
further provided that he would be able to produce branches [and father a nation] based on his characteristics. The world was
then divided into seventy nations, each on its own particular level in the general scheme. All of them, however, remained on the
level of man in his fallen state, while only Israel became men in the elevated state.
After this, the gate was closed on the era of roots. Things would then be directed and brought about on the level of branches,
each one according to his nature.... When this period ended, things were judged and made permanent, and a new era began. This is
the era of branches, which is still ongoing...
The verdict, however, was not that the other nations should be destroyed. It only meant that they would have to remain on the
lower level that we have discussed. This lower state of man should never have existed, had Adam not sinned... These nations
still have the human aspect, blemished though it may be, so G-d desired that they should at least have a part of what was
actually appropriate for the true mankind. He therefore granted them a divine soul somewhat like that of the Jew, even though it
is not on the same level as Jewish souls are, but on a much lower level. They were likewise given commandments through which
they could attain both material and spiritual advantages appropriate to their nature -- the Seven Commandments given to the
children of Noah.
In the World to Come, however, there will be no nation other than Israel. The souls of righteous Gentiles will be allowed to
exist in the Future World, but only as an addition and attachment to Israel. They will therefore be secondary to the Jews, just
as a garment is secondary to the one who wears it. All that they attain of the ultimate good will have to be attained in this
manner, since by virtue of their nature they can receive no more.

Jews, therefore, are the "true humanity," whereas the Gentiles are only "on a low level of humanity"; Jews "are true humanity
from its authentic roots," whereas the other nations are "all on the level of Man in his fallen state" -- and therefore "are
treated as ones belonging to completely different genera."

One who reads the words of the Ramchal will notice how precisely he chose them and how accurately they represent the words of
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "You are called men."

E. Rabbi Abraham Issac HaCohen Kook

In the book "Orot," Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page 156), Rabbi Kook wrote: "The difference between the Jewish soul, in
all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels,
is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter
case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality."

F. Rabbi Charlap

In the book "Mei Marom" on Tractate Avot, Rabbi Charlap wrote on the aforementioned mishnah (page 174): "And it is well known
that the argument of the nations is that they will say, 'Come, let us go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the G-d of
Jacob; He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths' (Isaiah 2)...from this aspect they also possess the level of
'man' -- however, this aspect is not theirs. It is only latent and concealed within them through by virtue of the Jews, and this
virtue is called 'man.' This is what is meant by 'beloved is man who was created in [G-d's] image.' However, a greater love
spreads upon Israel, for upon them appears the light of G-d's image in all its holy shining...Therefore only Israel cling to the
Living G-d, 'And you who cling to the Lord your G-d are all living today' -- you, the Jews, and not the nations of the world..."

G. Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen of Lublin

In the book "Poked Akarim" page 19, column 3, he wrote: "Concerning what is explained in Yevamot, 'You are called men,' and not
the other nations, [the meaning is] that the Gentiles were deprived of the title 'men' only where Israel were called 'men,'
because in comparison to I, who are the primary form of man in the Divine Chariot, it is irrelevant to call any of the Gentiles
'men'; at most, they are like animals in the form of men. Taken as themselves, however, all the children of Noah are considered
men...and when the Messiah comes...they too will recognize and admit that there are none called 'man' except Israel...anyway, in
comparison to Israel even now they are in the category of animals..."

In "Pri Tzadik" part 1, page 30, column 3, he wrote: "...before the Giving of the Torah, the souls of the nations and of Israel
were all at one level, for good and evil and the filth of the snake were all combined. When Israel received the Torah and were
chosen to be a special nation, the filth ceased to exist in them and consequently, the roots of their souls were separated [from
those of the Gentiles]...And all the good was rooted and set aside for the souls of Israel, and all the evil found root in the
souls of the other nations, for they all are part of the evil and Satan's camp..."

He wrote similarly in "Pri Tzadik," part 5, page 76, column 2: "...for the nations, whose inner essence lacks any root of
holiness, can easily be caused to falter...which is not the case concerning the holiness of Israel, who in their inner roots are
clinging to G-d..."

In "Takanat HaShavin," page 31, column 1 he wrote: "...for the source of the souls of Israel is from a different chamber than
the souls of the other nations...and this soul has no connection whatsoever with the soul of the nations. Therefore, even if one
converted to idolatry he is still considered a Jew with regards to the laws of marriage and divorce..."

H. The Arizal and Rabbi Chaim Vital

On the difference between souls of the Jews and Gentiles it is written in the book "Etz Chaim" (Heichal Abi'a, Sha'ar HaKlipot,
chapter 2):

"So we find that Israel possesses the three levels of soul (nefesh, ruach, neshama) from holiness... The Gentiles, however,
possess only the level of nefesh from the feminine side of the klipot...for the souls of the nations, which come from the
klipot, are called 'evil' and not 'good,' are created without the da'at [knowledge], and therefore they also lack the ruach and
neshama."35

In Sha'ar Klipat Noga, chapter 3, it is written: "Now you will understand what the animalistic soul of man is; it is the good
and evil inclination in man. The soul of the Gentiles comes from the three klipot: wind, cloud, and fire, all of them evil. So
is the case with impure animals, beasts, and birds. However, the animalistic soul of Israel and the animalistic soul of pure
animals, beasts, and birds all come from [klipat] noga."

In "Midrash Shmuel" on Tractate Avot (written by Rabbi Shmuel Di Osida OBM -- one of the Kabbalists from Safad, who learned
Kabbalah from the Arizal) on the aforementioned mishnah it is explained as follows:

Afterwards, I asked the magnificent and G-dly sage Rabbi Chaim of Vital to explain...if the sons of Noah are included in
'beloved is man who was created in [G-d's] image' or not. He answered that definitely the wicked [perhaps this is a distortion
of the censor and it should state 'the Gentiles'] are not included in this statement, and the reason the term 'man' was used is
because it is a more important title than 'Israel'...additionally, the quarry from which the soul of Adam was taken is higher
than that of Jacob our forefather...and since Adam was created in G-d's image so all men follow him, that is to say, the holy
and pure amongst them and the entire Jewish nation. Regarding the reason why the mishnah brings an argument from the verse 'For
in G-d's image He made man,' which seemingly alludes to the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah, he answered that it would
have been sufficient for the verse to have said, 'Whoever sheds a man's blood, his own blood shall be shed,' so why is it
written 'man's'?... It comes to tell us the reason why G-d decreed that one Gentile who kills another is punishable by death,
for in reality who cares if a Gentile is killed, and punishment by payment would have been sufficient. Perhaps, however, a
righteous man is destined to come out of his lineage...therefore G-d was stringent concerning the killing of a Gentile for, in
effect, one who kills a Gentile is actually killing that potential righteous man, and therefore it is written 'Whoever sheds a
man's blood by man shall his blood be shed,' he spills the blood of that potential righteous person...and because of this aspect
of holiness within a Gentile he is called 'man,' for if not, behold it is stated 'you are called men,' etc...
I further asked him whether from every Gentile righteous people are destined to emanate. If only there were one righteous
Gentile from a city and two from a family!...yet 'his blood shall be shed' is part of a general verdict...He answered that a
Gentile who murders is put to death only if there are witnesses, as the Targum Onkelos there translated the word b'sahadia
[according to the witnesses], and if there aren't witnesses, he is exempt. Therefore G-d, Who knows the future, arranges that
there would be no witnesses to the killing of a Gentile who does not have the potential of producing a righteous person from his
lineage...

I. The Tanya

In the Tanya chapter 1 (page 5b) it is written: "The explanation of this matter is according to what the Rabbi Chaim Vital OBM
wrote...that every Jew, whether he is righteous or wicked, has two souls, as it says, 'And the souls I have made' -- that is,
two souls: one soul from the side of the klipa and Satan's camp... also naturally good character traits that are found in every
Jew, such as mercifulness and charitable deeds, stem from it, for in the Jew, the soul of this klipa comes from klipat noga
which also contains good...But it is not the case concerning Gentile souls, for they stem from other impure klipot which contain
no good...and the second soul of the Jew is surely part of G-d on high..."

In the end of chapter 6 it is written: "The klipot are divided into two levels...the lower level consists of three impure and
completely evil klipot which contain no good whatsoever...from there the souls of the Gentiles are influenced and drawn, as are
the bodies and the souls of all impure animals which are forbidden to eat...However, the vital animalistic soul in the Jews,
which stems from the klipa...and the souls of pure animals, beasts, birds, and fish which are permitted to eat...are influenced
and drawn from the second level of the klipot...which is called klipat noga...and the majority of it is evil, combined with a
slight amount of good..."

It is evident that what Ra'avad, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi, the Maharal, the Ramchal, Rav Kook, Rav Charlap, and Rav Tzadok wrote in
the language of the Revealed Teaching, each in his own style, has been said by the Ari, Rabbi Chaim Vital, the "Midrash Shmuel,"
and the Tanya in the language of the Secret Teaching -- and the intention is the same.

J. The "Tosephot Yom Tov"

We have found, however, slight differences in the "Tosephot Yom Tov" commentary on the aforementioned mishnah: "'Beloved is man
for he is created in [G-d's] image'... Rabbi Akiva spoke of all men...and Rabbi Akiva's intention was all men including the
Gentiles. Maimonides stated explicitly in chapter 8 of The Laws of Kings (halacha 10): 'Moses our teacher was commanded by the
Mighty One to force the Gentiles to accept the commandments of the sons of Noah...Anyone who accepts the Seven Commandments and
is careful to fulfill them is considered a righteous Gentile and receives a portion in the World to Come. This depends upon him
accepting and fulfilling them because G-d had so commanded in the Torah...' And for Rabbi Akiva came to communicate to the
entire world what we have been commanded by Moses our teacher as Maimonides stated...And it is appropriate to say that they were
created 'in an Image' -- however, [the mishnah] did not mention whose image it is -- namely "G-d's" -- as it is mentioned in the
verse. These are also is words of rebuke, to reprove and inform them that they are created in an image -- but in what type of
image? In the image of G-d...however, since they do not fulfill His commandments, and even if they do, it is not out of
knowledge that G-d commanded them -- behold, they are lacking the designation of G-d's image..."

K. The "Tif'eret Yisrael"

On the aforementioned mishnah he wrote: "...since the mishnah ends with the words 'Beloved are Israel,' we understand that the
beginning is speaking about all mankind, that is to say, even Gentiles. Another consideration is that the Tanna derives his
statement from the verse '[G-d] made man' which includes Gentiles, too, for this was said to the sons of Noah...from this we
understand that the Gentiles also possess G-d's image of G-d..."

And in his commentary on this mishnah in "Boaz," he interpreted the saying "You are called men" in a very surprising fashion:

...therefore, Israel and the other nations each have their own unique levels. The advantage the nations have over Israel is that
they have actually made themselves through their own free will and their own might, and this is certainly an advantage over
Israel who were completed only through Heavenly intervention...that G-d did wonders to complete them...Nevertheless, Israel also
possess a unique level, for the Gentiles have reached their levels only through their own human intellect. Therefore, there are
many commandments in the Torah which are above and beyond the human intellect, as are all the decrees [chukim, that is, laws
which have no rationale behind them] of the Torah. The Gentiles do nor observe these commandments, since they do not understand
them.... Therefore, any of them who is ignorant...is still wallowing in the abominable filth of the earlier generations, as the
majority of the inhabitants of Africa do...
Correspondingly, the completion of the level of Israel is similar to that of Adam, for all people are created without knowledge
at birth, and with time and learning the intellect develops...but this was not true in the case of Adam, who was created at his
full height and stature...with knowledge and intellect, and the realization of all his responsibilities. Therefore he was judged
similarly to Israel in that he too was the handiwork of G-d, as Israel were...
Therefore, every place in the Torah where it says 'man,' the sole intention is Israel...for the term 'man' is not fit for them
[the nations], for they gained their status only through difficult efforts and do not resemble Adam at all. However, every place
where it is written 'the sons of man' includes the Gentiles also.... In conclusion, therefore, the fact that only Jews are
called 'man' is not particularly praise for them, it only testifies that not they themselves peeled the thick layer from over
their closed hearts, but rather it was the result of their being G-d's handiwork.

The approach presented here is, undoubtedly, entirely different from what we have previously seen. (Attention should be paid to
the large differences between the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and "Tosephot Yom Tov").

L. Rabbi Tzvi Chiut

Rabbi Tzvi Chiut has an opinion similar to that of the "Tif'eret Yisrael." Thus he wrote in his novellae on Yevamot 61a (printed
at the end of the Vilna edition of that tractate): "Incidentally, the intention of Chazal here is not to exclude the other
nations from the term 'man,' but rather to explain that wherever the word 'man' is used on its own in the Torah or Holy Writ,
the intention is only the Jews, as in the religious literature and customs of any particular nation wherever it is stated 'All
men are warned or obligated to do such and such,' the intention is only to those to whom it pertains. Similarly in the Torah and
in the Prophets, wherever the term 'man' is used on its own, it pertains only to the Jews, for it is only they who are
addressed, with the obvious exception of prophecies explicitly directed to the other nations; and the matter is simple."

M. The Zohar

The opinion of the Zohar on this subject is crystal-clear, unlike the words of the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut. In
"Raya Mehemna" on the portion of Pinchas, page 238b it is written: "'And G-d said: let us make man'...that is, 'let us make
mankind in our image, after our likeness,' and the rabbis established that there is no 'man' except for the Jews, as it states:
'But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men' -- You are men and not the other nations, and because of this 'let
Israel rejoice in Him who made them'."36
On the portion of Yitro (page 86a) it is written: "Rabbi Shimon taught: Israel merited that G-d called them 'men,' as it is
written 'But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men,' 'If any man of you brings an offering.' Why are they called
'men'? For it is written 'And you who cling to the Lord your G-d' -- you and not the other nations, and because of this 'you are
men' -- you are called men..." And the Ramak OBM wrote on this in his commentary "Or Yakar" (volume 8, page 214): "...G-d
testified for the Jews that they cling to the secret of nobility and the supreme form which is called 'man,' as it is said, "If
any man of you bring an offering," which shows that you [the Jews] are 'men' and the nations are not 'men,' and this explanation
is necessarily derived from the verse, 'But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men,' the explanation of which
apparently is: you are called 'men' and not the nations of the world. From there we learn what 'if any man of you bring an
offering' means -- and this is what these two verses teach us. So he testified that this level cannot be achieved by any human
being except the Jews alone..."

On the portion of Breishit (page 20b) the Zohar says:

These lights sketch the lower figure to fix the figure of all those who are included in the term "man," an inner figure -- 
[which is called the "face of man" -- the Sulam commentary]. For all figures are called "men," and all figures which are
included in this expansion are called "men," as the verse says "you are men," you are called "men." You and all the spirits are
called "men." [For all inner figures are thus called -- "the face of man"... for all figures included in this expansion...are
called by the name 'men"...and this is what is written "You are 'men"...the souls are also called by the name "men," as they
interpret the verse, "You are called men"... and all the spirits are also called by the name "men," that is to say, only an
aspect of the light of the spirit, whose dress is the body, is called by this name, "men" -- the Sulam.] The spirit of the holy
side, his body is only a dress of the 'man,' and this is what is written, "You dressed me in skin and flesh, and covered me with
bones and sinews"...The flesh is only the dress of "man," as is written, "flesh of man" -- the "man" is inside, and the flesh is
only the dressing of the "man" -- his body. The lower aspects, which were blended from this spirit [the "face of man" -- the
Sulam], became an essence from which figures were sketched -- figures which were covered by different dresses [and not by the
dress of "man" -- the Sulam], that is, the figures of pure animals: "The bovine, the sheep and the goat; The gazelle, the deer
and the fallow deer; and the ibex and the addax; and the wild ox and the wild sheep" -- and these could be covered by the dress
of the "man" [the "face of man" -- the Sulam], that is, by the body of the "man."

The Ramak wrote in his commentary "Or Yakar," (volume 2, page 31): "'His body is only a dress of the "man," etc.' -- this means
that although one may find that the bodily features of the Gentiles and the Jews are the same, the meaning of the word 'man' is
not the body. For were it so, their saying "'You are called man' would not be just. But rather the body is only a dress of what
is within him -- namely the spirit, and the body is only a dress for the spirit, that is the 'flesh of man': 'man' -- the
spirit, 'flesh of man' -- the garment of man. And for this reason the Jews, who are holy, are called 'men.' 'The lower aspects,
which were blended, etc.', they are holy and not impure, but not at the level of man; however they are blended from the holy
spirit, which expands increasingly, and reaches the final levels of holiness..."

In continuation of the Zohar there it is written:

...in a similar fashion [as it is with the holy spirit of "man" apure animals -- the Sulam] it is concerning Satan's camp, which
is impure. The spirit which spreads to the other nations stems from the impure side, and is not the aspect of "man" -- and
therefore it is not called by this name and does not have a share in it. [As was mentioned previously, "You are called men, etc.
" -- the Sulam]... Its body is the dress of "impure" [the spirit whose name is "impure," and it is not called by the name "man"
and has no share in it -- the Sulam], the impure flesh in which the impure spirit is dressed... The lower aspects, which were
blended from this spirit, became an essence from which figures were sketched -- figures, which were covered by different
dresses, that is, the figures of impure animals, and the Torah started describing them with the words, "And these are impure for
you" -- such as the pig, birds, and animals of Satan's camp. The spirit which permeates them is called impure, and their bodies
are the dress of that spirit, therefore it says, "flesh of pig" -- pig is it inside, and the flesh is only the dressing of the
"pig."
Therefore these two sides separated one from another: one is included in the secret of "man" ["the face of man," -- the Sulam],
and the other is included in the secret of "impure." And every genus takes the side of the genera similar to it, and clings to
them. [That is, the spirit of "man" represents the general aspect of the side of holiness, and the spirits of pure animals,
beasts, and birds represent its particular aspects, derived from the general one. On the other hand, the spirit of a "wicked
man" represents the general aspect of the impure (side), and the spirits of the impure animals, beasts, and birds represent
particular aspects derived from it. These are two opposite orders. Animals of every species are attracted to their specific
species, without mixing with the opposite side; even if they did mix at one point, finally they will return to their species -- 
the 'Sulam'.]

These are the the Zohar's words.

Behold, before us lies the inner, deep explanation of the words of Rashbi, "You are called men," and also an exalted and
faithful source for the aforementioned words of Rabbi Chaim Vital and the Tanya.

Furthermore, in the portion of Bereishit (page 47a) on the verse "Let the waters teem with swarms of creatures that have a
living soul" the Zohar writes: "Rabbi Aba said: the verse 'creatures that have a living soul,' pertains to the Jews, for they
are the sons of G-d, and from Him come their holy souls... And the souls of the other nations, where do they come from? Rabbi
Elazar said: they have souls from the impure left side, and therefore they are all impure, defiling anyone who comes near them."

In the continuation there it is written: Rabbi Elazar said: it supports what we said above, 'that have a living soul' -- these
are the Jews, for they have the high and holy living soul. And the verse, 'Animals, creeping things, and beasts of the earth,
each to its kind,' refers to the Gentiles, for they have no living soul, but only the prepuce, as we said above [that they stem
from powers of the left side which defile them -- the Sulam]."

In the end of the portion of Vayikra (page 25b) the Zohar says: "Come and see the difference between Israel and the rest of the
nations. Even though a man from Israel merited only a nefesh, he remains on his level; [and the higher levels are also open
before him -- the Sulam] if he wants to merit ruach or if he wants to merit a neshamah...[in the printed editions it is added:
'he can obtain and merit it' and thus also explains the Sulam]. The Gentiles, however, can never obtain more [than their impure
nefesh, -- the Sulam] except if one of them is circumcised, for then he merits 'nefesh for nefesh' -- a nefesh from a different
source [from the holy side-- the Sulam]. In 'Or Yakar' (volume 12, page 100) it is explained: "Can never obtain more; even the
righteous Gentiles do not merit holiness, except only from superficial levels..."

The Zohar's words are very clear, and most definitely cannot conform to the words of the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi
Chiut.

Summary

We have seen two opinions concerning the question of whether or not the Gentiles possess G-d's image and the interpretation of
the saying "You are called men.":

1. The Ra'avad and the Kuzari, the Maharal and the Ramchal, Rav Kook and Rav Charlap, the Ari and the Ramak, Rav Chaim Vital,
the Tanya, Rav Tzadok HaCohen and the Midrash Shmuel all stated in the same manner -- the Gentiles are considered similar to
beasts, lacking the complete G-dly image, and [the grounds for] their words are explicated in countless places in the Zohar.
(The quotes from the Zohar previously brought are just a few examples of statements which appear throughout the Zohar and
Tikunim).

2. In contrast, we have seen the opinions of the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut (who apparently never saw the words of
the Zohar and the aforementioned great Torah scholars) that the Gentiles are also considered "men" and also possess G-d's
image.37

If we had to choose between the two opinions, undoubtedly the weight of the Zohar and the giants of Kabbalistic wisdom and
Jewish thought is beyond any comparison greater than of the 'Tiferet Yisrael' and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut. Moreover, even the Halachic
sources presented in this essay, express a view totally different from that of these two Torah scholars. How, for example, would
they consider the words of Midrash HaGadol concerning pouring of the anointing oil: "...if it was poured on an animal or
utensils, or on Gentiles who are like animals...?" Or the words of the Tosephta in the beginning of Chulin: "...an animal
slaughtered by a Gentile is unfit, and an animal slaughtered by a monkey is unfit...?" Or the words of the Talmud in Bava Kama
49a, that a pregnant maidservant is like a "pregnant ass"? Or the statement of Rav Shila in Berachot 58a: "Are they not called
asses"? Furthermore, in the words of the prophet Ezekiel the son of Buzi the Gentiles are also likened to animals.

Additionally, all those Halachic laws that we mentioned, like the ones concerning murder of a Gentile or saving of his life,
causing damage to his property and returning his lost item, seem unjust and incomprehensible according to approach of these two
scholars. If a Gentile also possess G-d's image, why isn't a Jew who murders him for no just reason put to death, as it is
written (Genesis 9:6), "Whoever sheds a man's blood, through man shall his blood be shed, for in G-d's image he made the man"?
According to the words of the prophet, the sayings of Chazal and almost all of the great Torah scholars, that the Gentiles in
truth are not called "men" it is understood; only one who murders a "man" in the full sense of the word is put to death by a
Beit Din. However, according to the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut, if Gentiles are also "men," what is there to say?38
(In an attempt to rationalize and understand how they could have written words so far removed from the words of Chazal, it can
be said that the "Tif'eret Yisrael" and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut wrote what they wrote words in the atmosphere of blood libels and
pogroms against the Jews. They saw fit, therefore, to explain the matters in a way that would put the minds of the slanderers
and censurers at rest. The truth, in any case, remains the same.)

Another example -- how can one explain the fact that there were Tanna'im who held that it is permitted to steal from and rob a
Gentile according to the Torah's law? What place is there for such an opinion if indeed G-d's image is present in Gentiles? How
can stealing from another person be permitted? However, according to the view that G-d's image is present in Gentiles only in an
insignificant measure, and that their souls come from an impure source similar to that of unclean animals, the difficulty
disappears -- just as there is no prohibition against stealing from an animal, so too is it permitted to steal from a Gentile,
for the difference is merely quantitative and not qualitative, as is explained in the aforementioned words of Rav Kook. While
the view which maintains that stealing from a Gentiis prohibited by the Torah -- the view which Halacha follows -- is based on
the consideration that the difference existing between Gentiles and the beasts is sufficient to prohibit stealing from
Gentiles.39

Conclusion

From all that mentioned above it is clear that views presented by certain personalities, including [former] Knesset member
Professor A. Shaki, Rabbi Lichtenstein and Rabbi Amital, and Mr. Yochanan Ben-Ya'akov, do not represent the truth of the Torah.
Simple and clear Halachic laws, whose foundations are in the words of the Living G-d, clearly state the difference "between the
two bloods" (in the words of Ms. Huberman) -- between Jew and Gentile.

There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as "man," and a
Gentile. This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws, be they monetary laws, the laws of the Temple, capital
laws or others. Even one who is not an erudite Torah scholar is obligated to recognize this simple fact; it cannot be erased or
obscured.

It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d's word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is
impossible to introduce "compromises" or "renovations" into it. Any attempt to bypass or ignore certain things will not succeed.
Perhaps one may view the aforementioned Halachic laws as an expression of racism; another may see in them baseless hate towards
any Gentile. However, for the Jew who is devoted to the Torah as it is, this is the reality and the living path which has been
set for the Jewish nation by the word of G-d.

One who carefully studies the sources cited previously will realize the abysmal difference between the concepts "Jew" and
"Gentile" -- and consequently, he will understand why Halacha differentiates between them.

The Torah of Israel is a set of instructions for life, and about those who cling to it as it is, the verse says: "And you who
cling to the Lord your G-d, you are all living today."

In conclusion, there is nothing more appropriate and fitting than the words of Rav Kook in "Orot" (Orot Yisrael 8, paragraph 5,
page 169): "The expansiveness of heart which occasionally attempts to consume the entire world, all humanity, into the special
love which spreads over Israel, calls for examination. When the recognition of the special, holy excellence of Israel endures in
its distinction, and through this clarification, love and affection spreads with good cheer to every nation and person as one,
this is the character trait of Abraham our forefather, the father of many nations, [of whom it is said,] 'And in you shall all
of the families of the earth be blessed -- and in your seed.' Sometimes, though, the foundation of this expansion of affection
stems from a dullness of emotions and a dimming of the holy light of recognition of the supreme Jewish uniqueness, and then it
is poisonous, and the content of its activation is full of awesome destruction, from which one must distance himself as he would
from an ox which has been proven dangerous, [as it is said,] 'And the gate is battered to ruins,' 'I myself have seen it gore as
an ox'."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1In general, Chazal used two terms when they spoke of a non-Jew: goy [Gentile] and nochri [foreigner]. (Occasionally the term
acharim [others] also describes Gentiles, primarily in the halachic Midrash. Concerning halachas or specific circumstances, the
terms ger toshav and Noahide also appear - see novellae of Nachmanides on Tractate Makkot 9a, and in the novellae of the Ritba
there, but the matters have been distorted in the Ritba.) Thus it appears in all the ancient manuscripts and old printings. All
of the variants on the term "worshippers of stars and the zodiac" that appear in the majority of the printings are distortions,
meant to deceive the Christian censor into thinking that specifically idolatrous Gentiles were meant. In certain printings they
went even further, and in many places changed the terms goy and nochri: occasionally they used Samaritan, other times Cannanite
and even Amalekite! Of course, in this essay I use the exact and original version of the matters. How sad it is that even though
it is now possible to ascertain the accurate version, many Torah scholars continue to cite the distortions of the censor.back to
text
2There, in the end of the halacha: "He is given blows and punished and told that he may be punished by death for this, but he is
not killed," see ibid. in the Kesef Mishna and in the Ridbaz for why he is not killed.back to text
3Thus according to the Babylonian version and the Tosephta, but in the version of the Sifra the opinions are switched, and
Maimonides rules similar to Rabbi Yosi the Galilean. In some manuscripts of the Tosephta the version is as in the Sifra.back to
text

4See Birkat HaNatziv on Mechilta on the aforementioned section, who proves from the Mechilta Mishpatim parasha 12 that a ger
toshav is never included in the term "his neighbor."back to text
5Thus it is in the edition of Rabbi S. Albek OBM. In the edition of Rabbi S.Z. Eirenreich HYD it is in 194d.back to text
6See ibid. in the commentary "Even Shlomo" by Rabbi S.Z. Eirenreich (page 195 section 93), for a discussion of his question that
"you shall not commit adultery" is inconceivable concerning the wife of a Gentile.back to text
7Thus is the text in the Rome edition of 5240, and in the edition of Rabbi Shabtai Frankel. See ibid. in Yalkut Shinuei
Nuschaot, that it is the wording of all manuscripts and printed editions except for the Vilna-Warsaw edition which was distorted
by the Christian censor: "One who kills the soul of a man transgresses a negative commandment as it is stated 'You shall not
murder'." This is the source of Rabbi Lichtenstein and Rabbi Amital's mistake when they wrote that according to the so-called
opinion of Maimonides one who kills a Gentile transgresses a negative commandment. How surprising it is that well known rabbis
rely on sources known for their inaccuracies, and make Halachic decisions according to distortions of a censor.back to text
8It must be noted here that the Halachic arbiters disagree on the meaning of the beriatha in Avodah Zarah which the Yere'im
brought here. In the opinion of the Beit Yosef, there is no commandment to lower Gentiles who do not fulfill the seven Noachide
commandments into a pit, but if he wants to, he may lower them. This view was restated by the Darkei Moshe and the Shach -- see
Yoreh Deah, beginning of paragraph 158. However the Bach and the Taz there, and the Maharshal in his commentary on the SM'G
(negative commandment 48), wrote that the phrase "nor lower them" means that it is forbidden to do so, and this view is upheld
by the Yere'im here, who brought the beriatha as a proof that it is forbidden to kill a Gentile. This view was also expressed by
Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 10 of The Laws of Idolatry: "We do not make a covenant with idol worshippers...and it is
forbidden to have mercy on them, as it is stated 'nor show mercy to them.' Therefore, if one sees an idol worshipper perishing
or drowning in the river, he should not raise him up. If he sees him being taken to die, he should not save him. However, to
actually kill him or to push him into a pit, or some such, is forbidden, for he is not at war with us." Similarly he wrote in
The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life, chapter 4, halacha 11. This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Yona in his novellae on
Sanhedrin 57a, and in the Meiri there, 57b. (See there in Rabbeinu Yona, that the prohibition of lowering a Gentile who does not
fulfill the seven Noachide commandments into a pit is Rabbinic. The Taz wrote similarly in Yorah Deah 158). However, it is
possible that the Beit Yosef and the Rama changed their opinions, for in the Shulchan Aruch none of this is mentioned.back to
text
9From what the Yere'im we can imply that he learned from the language of the verse he mentioned. In regard to Maimonides, it is
possible that he learned from the Mechilta on the verse "You shall not murder": "'You shall not murder' -- why is this stated?
Because it says 'One who spills the blood of his fellow man,' -- there it speaks of the punishment; where does it speak of a
warning? It is written, 'You shall not murder'." It follows that only by committing a murder punishable by death does one
transgress the commandment "you shall not murder."back to text
10In the wording of the Shulchan Aruch printed in the Mishnah Berurah, this section concerning the Gentile is omitted, however
in the regular editions of the Shulchan Aruch the section remains, but in an erroneous fashion.back to text
11Thus it appears in the Rome edition. In the Vilna edition: "If he says."back to text
12Thus this section is called in the manuscripts and in the Rome edition, and not "and Their Wars," as it appears in the Vilna
edition.back to text
13As an example of what was written in the first footnote, I will point out that in the Vilna edition of the Talmud this mishnah
is corrupted -- "Cannanite" is written instead of "Gentile," and in the Vilna edition of the Mishnah the wording is
"idolater."back to text
14It must be pointed out that the Meiri there (page 37b of the Gemara) wrote on that issue: "And according to what is said in
the Talmud, this law applies only to nations which are not bound by religious ways and ethics, as is said about them in the
Talmud 'He [G-d] saw that the Seven Commandments the sons of Noah [Gentiles] accepted upon themselves were not being fulfilled,
[therefore] He permitted [not compensating the damage to] their property' wherever the Law would obligate it. As long as they
[the Gentiles] fulfill the Seven Commandments they are judged by us as we are judged by them, and we don't show favor to
ourselves in legal matters. Consequently, it is needless to say that such is the case regarding nations that are bound by
religious ways and ethics." And somewhat similarly, the Maharal wrote in the seventh be'er of the book "Be'er HaGolah" (page
145) that as long as a Gentile is not an idol worshipper the law stated in the mishnah does not apply to him. Likewise it is
written in Mirkevet Hamishneh. Rabbi Kook OBM wrote in Iggrot Ra'ayah part one, page 99, that the Halacha in essence follows the
Meiri. However, these matters are very bewildering, for in the aforementioned Mechilta it is stated explicitly: "'His
neighbor's,' to exclude the ox of... ger toshav," and there is no Gentile who refrains more from idol worship and more strictly
fulfills the seven Noahide commandments than a ger toshav. And these are the words of aforementioned halachic arbiters who
learned from the Talmud there (page 38a): "They said: 'which ever way you turn -- if 'his neighbor' [is meant] specifically
[i.e. a Jew], then a Gentile whose ox injures a Jew's ox is also exempt. And if 'his neighbor' is not [meant] specifically, even
a Jew whose ox injures an ox of a Gentile is punishable. Rabbi Abahu answered: "the Scripture says: 'He stood and measured the
earth: He beheld, and made the nations tremble' -- He [G-d] saw that the sons of Noah [Gentiles] did not fulfill the seven
commandments they accepted upon themselves, so He permitted their property to the Jews. Rabbi Yochanan said from here [this law
is learned]: 'He appeared from Mount Paran,' -- from Paran [the giving of the Torah] was the property of the Gentiles permitted
to Israel." However, in the Mechilta and in the aforementioned Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai this law is described as a
Scriptural decree, and therefore the verses of "and made the nations tremble" and "He appeared" are only parables which are
brought to explain why the Torah fined the Gentiles even though they are not included in 'his neighbor,' so that the law could
have been that a Gentile does not pay, just as he is not paid, similar to the case of the dedicated ox. Thus the Ran wrote on
this matter (page 19 of the pages of the Rif, s.v. V'shel nochri sh'nagach): "According to the Law, the Gentile should also be
exempt, however it is a fine that G-d fined them, as it says in the Talmud." Thus we should also understand the above mentioned
words of Maimonides. (See the explanation of Rabbi Yonatan of Lunel on the Rif, who at the start of his comment on this issue
wrote, "And this is a fine applied by the Sages" -- that is to say, it is a Rabbinic law -- while at the end of his comment he
wrote "And G-d knows the hidden matters and the hearts of man, and he punished the Gentiles according to their cruelty and
exempted the Jews according to their innocence," signifying that this is the Torah's law. It seems to me it is a copyist's
error, that is, at first it had been written v'knas hoo d'kansam hach [hey-kaf which is an abbreviation for hakatoov, or the
Scripture] and a copyist erred and wrote chach [chet-kaf, which is an abbreviation for chachamim -- the Sages] and subsequently
changed kansam [it -- the Scripture -- fined] to kansu [they -- the Sages -- fined]. Thus it is proven from his comment on the
explanation of this issue in the Talmud [not by the Rif] which appears in Shitah Mekubetzet there, s.v. amad v'hetir, and these
are his words: "...therefore, the Scripture fines them in order to make them guard their property [so that it causes no
damage] -- Rabbi Jonathan OBM." So in his opinion this is the Torah's law.) It is not as some Achronim understood, that this law
is Rabbinic, and that according to the Torah the law concerning the Gentiles is the same as the law concerning dedicated
objects. Similarly, we find it written in the Meiri on a different matter (on Sanhedrin 57b)... "concerning the spilling of
blood... if a Jew kills a Gentile, if the Gentile did not fulfill the Seven Commandments the Jew is exempt...but if they keep
the Seven Commandments, they are considered religious people," meaning that if a Jew kills a Gentile who strictly kept the Seven
Commandments, he is put to death. This is the opposite of the explanation in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and in the
aforementioned Sifri Zuta in regards to the killing of a Gentile, that even if a Jew killed a ger toshav he is not put to death.
Therefore we learn that the view of the Meiri and who agree with him is puzzling.back to text
15The source of this is in Bava Kama 113a.back to text

 16Here, too, it is appropriate to point out the printed version: "That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as
stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not an Amalekite. But isn't it appropriate to learn that an Amalekite is excluded
from the phrase 'his brother'? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and another comes to permit robbing
him"!! That is to say, they replaced "Gentile" with "Amalekite" and the words "and as he holds, that robbery of a Gentile is
permitted" were removed. No doubt average students, and even many Torah scholars, are not aware that the Talmud they have before
them has been corrupted and distorted by malicious hands. I have copied the wording from Dikdukei Sofrim, see there sections 40
and 50, and the quotations in the novellae of Nachmanides, the Ran, and Tosaphot HaRosh.back to text
17Concerning what is written there by the Maharshal to critique Rashi, that the reason for prohibition is not because of
desecration of G-d's name -- in the Jerusalem Talmud it is clearly as Rashi wrote.back to text
18However, from the aforementioned words of Rashi in Sanhedrin it is clear that he meant this prohibition to be Rabbinic
prohibition, and so the aforementioned Yam Shel Shlomo clearly states.back to text
19In the commentary attributed to the Ran on Sanhedrin 57a, it is specifically learned from what Maimonides wrote in the
beginning of The Laws of Robbery, "Anyone who steals from his fellow...," that in Maimonides's opinion, stealing from a Gentile
is permitted by the Torah. But this is very difficult to accept, for in a number of places Maimonides uses the term 'his fellow'
even though the same halacha applies to a Gentile. See, for example, the beginning of chapter 7 of The Laws of Theft: "One who
weighs for his fellow using weights which are less than those customarily used or those which have been agreed upon transgresses
a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall do no unrighteousness in judgement, in surveying, in weight, or in measure,'" and
there in halacha 8: "One who has dealings with a Jew or with a Gentile idolater -- if he measures or weighs falsely, he
transgresses a negative commandment and is obligated to recompense." The wording 'his fellow' includes Gentiles. The Kesef
Mishneh also wrote in the beginning of his comment on The Laws of Robbery that in Maimonides's opinion, the prohibition against
robbing a Gentile is not from the Torah, and the Shach, in the beginning of paragraph 359, had already critiqued him and wrote
that judging from the wording of Maimonides in the beginning of The Laws of Theft, this is not the case. And in the beginning of
paragraph 348 he wrote that it is seemingly so, judging from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch itself.back to text
20The wording of the Gemara is according to Dikdukei Sofrim 8, Rif, and The Rulings of the Rid. In other editions it appears
differently.back to text
21This is the wording of Maimonides's ruling which will follow, and see Tzafnat Pa'aneach on Bava Kama 113b, where it is
explained that if a Gentile erred on his own, it is similar to a lost item.back to text
22Thus appears in older editions, however in our editions the wording is: "However, the error of a Samaritan was permitted, but
only..." and it is difficult to know whether to laugh or to cry regarding such 'corrections' of the censor.back to text
23See the glosses of the Gaon of Vilna here and the glosses of the Bach on Yevamot 45b; however in The Rulings of the Rid it
appears as in the printed edition.back to text
24So does it appear in the Rid there, and in chapter 1 of The Laws of Kings halacha 4, thus it even appears in the printed
edition of Tractate Yevamot 45b; however here it mistakenly appears in the printed edition as "it will not be."back to text
25So it appears in the manuscripts and in Midrash HaGadol. In printed editions "and not to the father of the woman convert"
appears, having the same connotation.back to text
26Thus is the wording in the precise manuscripts, see Dikdukei Sofrim; in printed editions it appears with slight changes,
mostly abridgements of the verses.back to text
27In the common printed editions of the Tur, the matter of the houses of Gentiles appears with errors, while the matter of their
cemeteries is deleted. In the common printed editions of the Shulchan Aruch both laws appear, but 'the nations of the world' is
changed to 'worshippers of the stars and zodiac,' as usual. In the version of the Shulchan Aruch that appears in the Mishnah
Berurah these laws are deleted completely.back to text
28See the discussion in the Gemara where some questions are asked on this explanation, and after the questions are answered, the
Gemara adds: "It may also be learned according to the Tanna who learned it before Rabbi Elazar: anyone who is included in
'pour[ing]' is included in the prohibition of pouring, and anyone who is not included in 'pour[ing]' is not included in the
prohibition of pouring." It is clear that this additional answer is just that, an additional answer, and the first explanation
stands.back to text
29In the Rome edition: "...that this principal category is from the words of the Sages..."back to text
30Isaiah 40:15. See there in the commentaries.back to text
31One who searches for these words in the Vilna edition will search in vain, for they were completely deleted by the censor;
however a 'remembrance of the destruction' of the Ra'avad's glosses are to be found in the Kesef Mishneh, see there. I have the
glosses which appear in the Alumot edition of Mishneh Torah, which recently was re-printed by Eshkol Publications.back to text
32Different explanations were written to clarify Maimonides opinion, but this is not the place to discuss them.back to text
33This is the wording in The Rulings of the Rid, in the precise manuscripts and in other versions. See Dikdukei Sofrim; in the
printed versions it appears with slight differences.back to text
34In the printed version 'an Egyptian woman' -- and in this entire section many changes were made.back to text

35And in the continuation there: "This is also the secret of what Chazal said: 'It is forbidden to have mercy on one who lacks
da'at,'' for one who lacks da'at comes from the klipot lacking da'at, and therefore one who has mercy on him causes the
spreading of the supreme mercy to the klipot as well." According to this it is possible to understand the Gemara which I
mentioned above regarding the lost item of a Gentile (Sanhedrin 76b): ".one who returns a lost item to a Gentile, of him the
verse says: 'To add drunkenness to thirst; the Lord will not spare him'."back to text
36All citations from the Zohar are according to the version in which the commentary "Or Yakar" by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero appears,
printed according to a manuscript 400 years old (excluding parts that have yet to be published in this edition). Rabbi Eliyahu
Di Vidas OBM, a student of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, wrote in the end of his introduction to the well known book of the Ramak,
"Reshit Chochma": "In most passages of the Zohar one may find many differences between the printed edition and ours. However,
our version was proofread according to the hand-written manuscripts here in Safad, which are highly accurate."back to text
37It must be pointed out that in the aforementioned booklet, "Chaviv Adam Shenivra B'tzelem" by Yochanan Ben-Ya'akov,
Director-General of B'nei Akiva, the author, dealing with the aforementioned mishnah in Avot (beginning on page 5 in the
booklet), quotes only the commentary of the "Tif'eret Yisrael." He similarly treated the statement of Rashbi , "you are called
men" (page 13 in the booklet). Mr. Ben-Yaakov knew well to quote Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz on this subject, and even went as far as
to quote the heretical words of Dr. Yehezkel Cohen, which one is forbidden to bring into the beit midrash. But the words of the
majority of Torah scholars, both quantitatively and qualitatively, he apparently never heard. These two points exemplify how
little effort the author made to deeply understand the subjects he dealt with; instead he merely wrote things that fitted his
own outlook.back to text
38And indeed, the holders of this outlook recognize this difficulty and therefore they had to appeal to strange dialectics.
Rabbi A.A. Kaplan found himself in a difficult position concerning this subject and presented the answer that while the
prohibition of killing a Gentile has the same severity as that of killing a Jew, the Beit Din may pass a death sentence only in
a case where the soul of the one being put to death is equal to the soul of the murdered, and since the soul of a Jew is higher
then that of a Gentile, he is not put to death. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein also adopted this idea (a synopsis of his lecture is
brought in the aforementioned booklet, page 72). However, they forgot an explicit mishnah in Bava Kama, 4:6, and an explicit
Gemara, ibid. 41a, that an ox which kills a man is punished by death, yet if he kills a Gentile, he is acquitted. According to
their explanation, why isn't the ox killed? back to text
39Here, too, Rabbi Lichtenstein is mistaken. In the synopsis of his lecture, which was mentioned in the previous footnote, he
wrote (page 73 of the booklet): "If we are speaking of injury, robbery, fraud, or the like, things which can be reproached
according to any universal standard we might use -- behold, they must be prohibited also in regards to the Gentile." According
to what we have clarified above regarding robbery of a Gentile, the approach of the Jerusalem Talmud, the Tosephta in Avodah
Zarah and the Sifri on the portion of V'zot HaBracha is that robbery of a Gentile is permitted by the Torah. This is also the
opinion of some Rishonim and Achronim, and there seems to be no reason as compelling as Rabbi Lichtenstein thinks. True, Halacha
states that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah, but a clear-cut and simple view of the kind of 'there is no need to
say.' does not exist here.

______________

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2005/040705endofamerica.htm

July 4th and the end of America, land of the free

Mike Adams | July 4 2005

Happy July 4th. On this, the 229th birthday of our nation, we find the very foundation of our nation in grave danger as our (elected?) leaders continue to destroy many of the rights and freedoms our forefathers worked so hard to put in place. It is no coincidence that, this very week, our President has created a domestic spy service called the National Security Service. That's the NSS, not to be confused with the SS of Nazi Germany, which had much the same function in pre-war Germany.

The SOS head Nasi of Dan Bushkevik of sanhedrin unto their dragon

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not to be outdone in the race to a police state, the Supreme Court lobotomized the 4th Amendment last week. There is no longer anything resembling "private property" in this country. There is only the illusion of ownership, as long as it is allowed by your government. At the stroke of a pen, any government (city, state, federal) can seize your land and your home, for any reason.

In other words, the State is now the true owner of all land and all property. The very term "owner" refers to the person or organization that controls the use of that land. If you don't control its use, you are not the owner. The State is. You just pay rent. And if you don't cooperate with government takeover of your land, they can always declare you a terrorist and seize your land under The Patriot Act.

I have a mansion prepared for me in Sion God's holy Mountain in Heaven of that beautiful city New jerusalem. Let the hassidim Chabad Lubavitch Sofiet reds and dan Bushkevik eat their flesh

Speaking of The Patriot Act, this misguided act allows the U.S. government to secretly tap your phone lines without a court order. It also allows the feds to rifle through library records in order to spot "terrorist readers" who apparently frequent these institutions of knowledge. Libraries are terrorist training camps, didn't you know?

No, for they all allowed it in complete cowardice

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Think the Bill of Rights still applies in this country? The 6th Amendment has been nullified by the practices taking place at Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. government simply kidnaps anyone they want, ships them off to Gitmo, then leaves them there to rot, without being charged, without a trial, and without legal representation. By calling them "enemy combatants," the Bush Administration seemingly avoids having to abide by the Geneva Convention as well, which requires certain standards of treatment for prisoners of war

Amendment XIV: ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As the Bush Administration runs rampant over the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, do you feel any safer from terrorists? Do you feel like this administration is protecting your life, liberty and property? Are you any freer or safer today than you were five years ago?

Of course not. We're all in far more danger, and we're all less free. Our Constitution and its Bill of Rights lie in shambles. The very fact that this is happening reckons back to the purpose of the Bill of Rights in the first place: to ensure that no government tramples on its people.

You see, our nation's forefathers understood that the greatest threat to freedom was not an enemy nation, but rather a nation's own government. The Bill of Rights was created for the sole purpose of limiting the power of government over the people. Our forefathers knew that all governments eventually get out of control and become oppressive regimes. So they purposefully created the Bill of Rights in an effort to guarantee that no government could deprive its citizens of free speech, freedom to bear arms, the right to own land, and other rights necessary for the prosperity of a free nation.

That our own government is systematically destroying the Bill of Rights is proof that our forefathers were correct.

I wonder: when will all the Bush-supporting people in this country realize they're driving us head-first into a police state?

They will not for they all worship the beast, and refused to stand firm in the IAMHE Christ Jesus whom they have watered down into gods worshipping, triune gods of Talmud Bavli Sumerian Doctrine.

 No administration in the history of this country has done more to take away our personal freedoms than this one. And yet half the country is rallying behind this President.

Dan Bushkevik and his Chabad Lubavitch ad-menstruation of bloodiness and blasphemy and High Treason, and all you who follow, will follow him into the abyss of death and hell the pit where you will be cast into outer darkness forever.

The people have no idea what they've done. They've sent this country spiraling down the dark path of a police state. They've looked the other way while our rights and freedoms were stolen. They've supported an unjustified attack on a foreign state that will only serve to breed more terrorists who understandably hate this country and its people. The Bush Administration has created a terrorist breeding ground that will haunt this nation for a hundred years or more.

So happy 4th of July. It's a national holiday that celebrates the founding of a great nation. But this 4th of July, that great nation no longer exists. Instead, we have a police state, operated under the illusion of freedom. The illusion of Democracy. The illusion that your vote counts. The illusion that by giving up your freedoms, you'll gain security.

thus the shembolism of tempel 1, and ushering in Moshiach ben dragon

This July 4th, I'm not watching any fireworks displays. Why? Because I know what they stand for, and I can't stand to witness such blatant hypocrisy in the night sky. Don't people realize they're watching a fireworks display that symbolizes all the very freedoms and rights that are right now being taken away from them?

yes, last evening I was appalled, they are all oblivious, all apostate, all asleep in complete complacency

To watch a fireworks display and smile is to live in utter ignorance of what is happening to our nation. It's an apt distraction, however. What better time to pull the rug of freedom out from under peoples' feet than to catch them staring blankly into the sky?
If you truly watch a July 4th fireworks display this year, friends, watch it and weep. Weep for the memory of a once-great nation that used to cherish the freedoms of its citizens. Weep for the damned souls of those leaders who have misled us. Weep for our children who will never know a free America.

Weep for the lost dreams of our forefathers who tried an experiment called Democracy, where governments were run for the benefit of the people; where elected leaders represented the interests and needs of the common folk; where our rights and freedoms were guaranteed under rule of law.

This July 4th, that experiment has run its course, and it has failed. Goodbye, America, land of the free. Make way for Amerika, land of Homeland Security

Ze Homelandt "SAY" Kurity

______

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=c2426675d7736759&cat=f81a4d9d561822ee

Iran: U.S., Israel Waging Smear Campaign

 

POSTED: 12:30 am EDT July 4, 2005
UPDATED: 11:02 am EDT July 5, 2005

 

Iran accused the U.S. and Israel on Sunday of a smear campaign against its president-elect and warned Europe, which is in tricky nuclear negotiations with Tehran, not to join in the mudslinging.

The ultraconservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who won a landslide presidential election victory, has been accused of taking American hostages in 1979 when radical students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Iranian exiles and an Austrian politician are alleging he was involved in the 1989 slaying of a Kurdish leader and two associates in Vienna.

Iranian officials have denied both allegations.

"The charges are so evidently false that they don't deserve an answer. It's clear that it's mere lies," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday at a news conference in Tehran.

"Europeans should show their political maturity and not intertwine their interests with those of the Americans. They are advised to seriously avoid interference in this issue," Asefi warned. "We advise the Europeans not to fall into the trap of the Zionist media."

Talmudic zionist media

The Iranian warning came as France, Germany and Britain lead European Union efforts to persuade Tehran to permanently halt nuclear enrichment activities, which the United States claims are part of Iran's plan to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Bushkevik's wars of his shemborg collective of Eretz ISREALHELL

Iran rejects the U.S. claims and insists it is pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, such as generating power. Uranium enriched to low levels can be used for energy while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs.

President Bush has said the claims swirling around Ahmadinejad are not his primary concern and he instead wants the Europeans to make clear to the new leader that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated.

Yep, you better betcha, even more war

Israel's ambassador to Washington, Daniel Ayalon, said Monday that Ahmadinejad was more extreme than his rivals. He insisted Iran must be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, a task that he said should be assigned to the U.N. Security Council.

the five Talmudic Noahide Nations

The Europeans are offering economic incentives in hopes of persuading Iran to permanently freeze its enrichment program on its own to avoid U.N. intervention and possible sanctions.

_______

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=893b67428058e3d9&cat=f81a4d9d561822ee

Israeli president fears Sharon assassination

* Gaza settlers create anti-violence code

JERUSALEM: Israeli President Moshe Katsav said on Monday the vocal opposition of pro-settler rabbis to Israel’s Gaza pullout could incite ultranationalists (hassidim Pharsees, Chabad Lubavitchers)  to try to assassinate Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“In the struggle over the disengagement someone is likely to distort the rabbis’ messages,” Katsav told Army Radio.

The result, he said, could be “extremist actions” and “the distorted conclusion that to prevent Israel’s destruction, one must assassinate the prime minister”.

Katsav made the comments a day after the Shin Bet security service measured Sharon and members of his cabinet for bulletproof vests, (and a casket?)  a sign of mounting fears of violence against Israeli leaders ahead of the pullout due to begin in mid-August.

Of hiel Bushkevik's hassidic Chabad Road map to hell plan


In recent weeks, some pro-settler rabbis (Chabad)  have sharpened their rhetoric against the withdrawal from land they see as a biblical birthright, condemning it as a violation of Jewish law (Talmud of the Dragon)  and a danger to Israel’s existence.

Such talk has revived memories of the verbal attacks against Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin before he was assassinated in 1995 by an ultranationalist Jew (Chabadnik)  opposed to his peace moves with the Palestinians.

Daniel11;

6: And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south (Aholibah-Judah) shall come to the king of the north (Dan Hassidim, Aholah, USA)  to make an agreement: (OLSO)  but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, (Rabin Assassinated) nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.



Jewish settler leaders have called for passive resistance to the evacuation of all 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza and four of 120 in the West Bank.

Hoping to sharpen that message, right-wing legislator Effi Eitam said he planned to meet rabbis and settlers to draw up a charter of non-violence to avoid clashes with Israeli soldiers during the pullout.

“In this charter we will have a clause specifying there cannot be any (settler) weapons in the evacuation area,” Eitam told Israel Radio.

“We are trying to ensure that even if the atmosphere heats up there will be a good chance of preventing a disaster.”

Anti-violence code: Settler leaders drew up a code of conduct Monday in a bid to avoid further violence by opponents of the Gaza Strip pullout which has already led to a sharp drop in support for their cause.

Representatives of the main Yesha settlers council, rabbis and right-wing politicians drew up a series of guidelines at their meeting in the Gush Katif southern settlement bloc which called for all opponents to shun the use of violence against soldiers or police, settler sources said.

Among those in attendance were the rabbi of Gush Katif, Igal Kamenetsky, the local Yesha leader, Avner Shimoni, and right-wing MPs Effi Eitam and Zvi Hendel who quit Ariel Sharon’s government last year in protest at the pullout.

The settlers are worried that televised footage of violent protests last week, including images of a mob trying to lynch a Palestinian teenager, have done their cause lasting damage.

Police announced Monday that they had arrested one 18-year-old Israeli in connection with the lynching attempt last Wednesday at a Palestinian village which lies within Gush Katif, but they are still searching for two other suspects. agencies

_____

The war of the Worlds

Translation of the Sanhedrin's site

http://www.beith-din.com/

excerpts

Sanhedrin Front Page Translated

http://www.beith-din.com/

The subscribers on this treaty read to the reverential public d ' and Sumerian doctrine and good deeds to be numbered and to receive on themselves authority of the big court [big court authority] lcshikom, with the help of the '. Process a choice of friends of the big court will be done during consultation in the public that function, as costs according to Moshe quarreled the hbo you intelligent people onbnim and knowledges lshbticm and I will put them in your heads ( things, a, yg ), ocdrsht intelligent ' detained known you ' ( my book put, was brought brsh"i oa ' in Rambam hl ' sanhedrin in, z ). And also banned one Hundred fiftieth and three mrbotino the first blessed memory in the known brought boycott bsho"t mhr"m mrotnborg sheet ki"g, obsho"t signed counts ho"m sign c"a. 

In the first stage we bring information glmiot.

We request an information from all source about including/total business of details [details business] about the ownership:

; a Jews are Sumerian doctrine 

In. Jews are traditional, we were are converted to the appetite

 

Behold Mystery Babylon REVEALED. Jesus the IAM set their lying record straight, once and forever.

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/religion/sumrel1.htm

ADAPA'S TREATISE ON SUMERIAN RELIGION

 

 

By Adapa of the The Twin Rivers Rising

1. In primeval days...
2. Life, death and the meaning of the universe
3. The signs of Heaven and Earth

 

IN PRIMEVAL DAYS...

Creation mythology is generally divisible into two types: Cosmogony - relating to the creation of the 'Cosmos', and Anthropogony - relating to the creation of humanity. The distinction is important because while specific texts exist relating to Sumerian anthropogony, no direct texts exist relating to Cosmogony. Rather, what we do know of their beliefs on the matter must often be gleaned from wholly unrelated texts. Though the cosmogonies presented in these texts are subject to some variation, distinct patterns can be grasped which give important insight into the Sumerian beliefs regarding the creation of the cosmos. Two fairly dissimilar approaches can be seen in Sumerian texts. The first, called the Eridu Model, relates to the beliefs of those situated in the southern regions of the country. The realm of the primal divine here is neither heaven, nor earth, but water. This realm is defined by the term Engur. This term is synonymous with Abzu, the "sweet waters of the deep," and is defined as the subterranean source of the waters which emerge from beneath the ground. This water was believed to be the source of the fertile marshes which gave life to this region of the country. The sign used for Engur can also be used for Nammu, the Mother Goddess prevalent in early Mesopotamian theology. Texts describe Engur/Nammu as 'the mother, first one, who gave birth to the gods of the universe.' "She is a goddess without a spouse, the self-procreating womb, the primal matter, the inherently female and fertilizing waters of the abzu."{1} The Northern Model substitutes the primacy of water with the duality of earth and sky. "Heaven and Earth here are both regarded as prima materia and generators of life; this is made explicit by the fact that they are both equated with the symbol Engur"{2} Sometimes one or the other is considered to have existed first. In the god-list, for example, An is said to be born of Earth, i.e. Uras (the masculine earth), and Ninuras (the feminine earth). A genealogy of Enlil also describes the earth as having appeared first, but focuses solely on its feminine, agricultural aspect. The text concerning the origin of the "toothworm" (thought to be the source of toothaches) lists the sky as being first, "After Anu{3} had created heaven, heaven had created earth, Earth had created rivers, rivers created canals, canals created the marsh, the marsh created the worm."{4} The most widely-accepted cosmology, however, is to be found in the text "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld", wherein we are told:

In primeval days, in distant primeval days, In primeval nights, in far-off primeval nights, In primeval years, in distant primeval years - In ancient days when everything vital had been brought into existence, In ancient days when everything vital had been nurtured, When bread had been tasted in the shrines of the land, When bread had been baked in the ovens of the land - When heaven had been moved away from earth, When earth had been separated from heaven, When the name of man had been fixed - When An had carried off heaven, When Enlil had carried off earth {5}

Cosmic creation was thus born of the separation of the Primal Unformed mass of Heaven/Earth. This mass, it appears, was given birth to by Nammu/Engur. What we have no Sumerian source for, unfortunately, is an explanation of how Nammu/Engur was engendered, or whether on the contrary she was a preexistent force. It may well be here that the Babylonian Creation myth was seen as helpful by the semites, for there the 'Preexisting Primordial Waters' are said to have first engendered Mummu (Nammu). In a Tablet which lists the Sumerian Gods, Nammu is described as "the mother who gave birth to heaven and earth."{6} Thereafter, It was the Union of An with Ki, 'heaven' with 'earth', which produced the 'great gods', the Annunaki, as we are told in the "Myth of Cattle and Grain."{7} Enlil thus engendered, it was He who separated the two cosmic forces, "The Lord, that which is appropriate verily caused to appear, the lord whose decisions are unalterable, Enlil who brings up the seed of the land from the earth, took care to move away earth from heaven, took care to move away heaven from earth."{8} This Heaven/Earth mass must be viewed not as comprised of otherwise separable pieces, but as being an Essential Unity which encompasses this duad, "For the Mesopotamian, earth and the heavens above were not separate domains but were two parts of the one realm. Earth and heaven were complimentary, one depended upon the other and both were equally important."{9} In this way, the initial creative force, as viewed by the Sumerians, was very ³atomic² in nature: creation issued forth from a perceived whole which, nevertheless, was comprised of constituent forces; and it was the separation of these forces - "splitting the atom", so the speak - which fueled this creation. It is for this reason that such attention is paid to this act of separation itself in the creative scheme. This power, which the Ancient Sumerians saw as inherent in this seperation of united forces, would continue to be important in the religious context; where incantations were generally gounded in conjuration 'by Heaven and Earth'.

The creation and propagation of plant life thereafter was seen, in contrast, to have resulted from the union, rather than the seperation, of the primal Earth and Sky; the same union which had given birth to the Great Gods:

The Great Earth made herself glorious, her body flourished with greenery. Wide Earth put on silver metal and lapis lazuli ornaments, adorned herself with diorite, calcedony, carnelian, and diamonds. Sky covered the pastures with irresistible sexual attraction, presented himself in majesty, The pure young woman showed herself to the pure Sky, the vast Sky copulated with the wide Earth, the seed of the heroes Wood and Reed he ejaculated into her womb, the Earth, the good cow, received the good seed of Sky in her womb. The Earth, for the happy birth of the Plants of Life, presented herself{10}

Thus we see how the creative energies have been transformed from atomic (energy from seperation) to sexual (energy from union) as the process of universal conception proceeded. Movement to this form of sexual imagery would continue in Sumerian accounts of the creation of man. The Etana myth gives us some insight into the shape of this created universe. Therein, the hero Etana was carried up into the heavens by his companion, the Eagle. Etana was thereby able to describe the shape of the world from his lofty perspective. This shape would resemble an overturned boat adrift upon the sea.{11} The great mountain which constituted the Earth was thought to be hemispherical in shape. This hemisphere floated upon the earthly sea, resting above the Deep Waters of the Apsu which supported it all. At some distance above the Earth was stretched out the Heavens, which were in the shape of a hemisphere, as well. Further:

Above the dome of Heaven was another mass of water, a heavenly ocean, which the solid dome of Heaven supported and kept in its place, so that it might not break through and flood the Earth. On the under side of the dome the stars had their courses and the Moon god his path. In the dome, moreover, were two gates, one in the east and the other in the west, for the use of...the Sun god {12}

Utu would thus step out upon the earth from the mountains of sunset, located at the eastern edge of the Earthly hemisphere; and step back down to the Great Below from the mountains of sunset, located at the western edge. Located in this underworld was the realm of the dead, Arallu. We know from the myth of Inanna's Descent that this realm was girdled by 'seven walls pierced by seven gates', the first gate being known as Ganzir. At the center of these walls stood Egalkurzagin, the "lustrous mountain palace" which housed the denizens of the Underworld. Between the heavens and the Earth (though classified as a part of the "Earth") was a region in which earthly atmospheric activity took place.The foundation of the Heavens, though, rested upon the extremities of the Earth.{13} Above this foundation was the lower zone of Heaven, "Ul-gana", where the periodical motions of the planets was thought to occur. Above this region was the e-sara, where the fixed stars resided. The heavenly firmament, in turn, supported the ocean of the celestial waters, the Ziku.{14}

The source of a Sumerian Anthropogony is more direct than that which we have for Cosmogony. It is to be found in the text known as "The Birth of Man". The lesser gods, we are told, bore the lot of hard labor to support themselves and the 'great gods'.

When the gods acted like men, they did the work and labored. Their labor was enormous, the corvée too hard, the work too long because the great Anunaki made the Igiggi carry the workload sevenfold{15}

But this life of toil soon brought dissension, and the lesser gods threatened revolt. Namma (Nammu), mother of Enki, brings word of this threat to her son. Enki resolves to create a substitute for the gods' harsh labors. From Enki came forth the Foetus of future mankind:

Enki, at his mother Namma's word, rose from his bed, in Halankug, his room for pondering, he smote the thigh, the ingenious and wise one, skillful custodian of heaven and earth, creator and constructor of everything, had Imma-en and Imma-shar come out. Enki reached out his arm towards them, and a foetus was getting big there, and for Enki it was awakening to consciousness in the heart{16}

Enki then calls on Namma (Nammu) to 'drench the core of the Apsu clay' from whence the Gods were born. Therein Enki places the Foetus, and thus in Namma was the Embryo of mankind brought to fruition.{17} This legend is further elaborated on in the Atrahasis myth. Here again, man's creation is again necessitated by the toil's the gods are forced to endure. In response, Enki is called on to bring man forth man with the help of Nintu (Mami). Enki replies:

On the first, seventh and fifteenth of the month I shall make a purification by washing.{18} Then one God should be slaughtered. And the gods can be purified by immersion. Nintu shall mix the clay with his flesh and blood. Then a god and a man will be mixed together in clay. Let us hear the drumbeat forever after, let a ghost come into existence from the God's flesh, let her proclaim it as her living sign. Let her inform him while alive of his token. And so that there be no forgetting, the ghost shall remain{19}

This is one of the most amazing passages, in my mind, in Sumerian literature. To even begin to pierce its depths is a difficult task. I first make note of the "ghost" which is born of Enki's ritual here described. Modern scholars generally hold this term to be a play on words between etemmu, "ghost"; and temu, "intelligence". This ignores the fact that "etemmu" is also the term used to describe the disembodied spirit of a man which survives after death: the Soul. Thus, it is important to realize that from the body of the slain god a Soul itself was engendered, not just some earthly creature born of transformed apsu-clay. In addition, this Soul was to serve a greater purpose than that elaborated in "The Birth of Man". While man was still destined to fulfill the labors once required of the gods in toiling upon the Earth, the Soul which was created was to serve as the living sign of the slain god. So that this sacrifice was never forgotten, the Soul would ever remain, "let us hear the drumbeat forever after...". Thus man was created as both a physical creature, born of the fertile clay of the apsu; and a spiritual creature, endowed with the blood of the gods, and granted an imperishable soul that he might ever serve as the living sign of this sacrifice.

 


 


LIFE, DEATH AND THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

 

Thorkild Jacobsen, in his seminal work, Treasures of Darkness, characterizes Sumerian religion in terms of the concept of "immanence". The abstraction of deity in early Sumeria, in other words, was developed from primitive attempts at conceptualizing the forces which comprised the natural world and the phenomena therein. It is a naturally pantheistic mindset, subject to plurality limited only by the extent of intelligible divisions in nature itself. These early deities took forms which were intrinsically tied to the phenomena they represented; hence Ninurta, the ancient Sumerian thunder-god, was conceptualized as a great winged lion, whose roars thundered across the lands in times of storm. As the society developed, these deities gradually anthropomorphized; slowly taking human form, and attendant human personas, "The gods were detatched gradually from the phenomena of nature and of culture to which they had been tied and took a certain distance from them."{20} With these broadened personalities came broadened roles, as the germ of the numinal phenomena blossomed to cover a wide range of related abstractions. Thus, as the concept of the deity Ninurta progressed, for example, he came to be viewed as possessing a human form; and his role broadened from that of a primitive thunder god, to a God of war and of the spring storms which brought fertility to the land. While society's views of the divine and their roles in the cosmos were expanding, however, the strong ties of these gods to the related numina of the deity would remain a central feature of the Sumerian religion. The central role of mankind in this cosmic scheme was service to the gods.{21}

The theocentric liturgy, as we would call it, was entirely identified with the "support of the gods," in other words with the provision to these high personalities of all that was needed or useful to lead an opulent and agreeable life entirely devoted to the government of the universe, a life even better and more blessed than that of the kings of the earth{22}

This service generally took two forms : provision and worship. Mankind was charged with providing the daily necessities of the gods; food, water, beer. Mankind was also bound to the worship of the gods. This generally took the form of sacrificial offerings (both in the form of animal sacrifice, and offerings of incense and such), prayers and hymns, and prescribed cyclical rituals. Central to both forms of service was the cult statue:

Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certain specific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in the appropriate manner, both established and sanctified by the tradition of the sanctuary. The god moved with the image when the latter was carried off - expressing thus his anger against his city or an entire country. Only on the mythological level were the deities thought to reside in cosmic localities{23}

The creation of these 'divine receptacles', as it were, was painstaking. Careful attention was paid to the ritualistic metamorphosis which would transform the lifeless statue into the manifestation of the god it represented, "during these nocturnal ceremonies they were endowed with 'life', their eyes and mouths were 'opened' so that the images could see and eat, and they were subject to the 'washing of the mouth,' a ritual thought to impart special sanctity."{24} The latter ceremony, sacred to Enki, was related to the sacred immersion in the blood of a slain god which was said to purify the divine,"On the first, seventh and fifteenth of the month I shall make a purification by washing.Then one God should be slaughtered, and the gods can be purified by immersion."{25} Central to the mainanance of the divine figure were its daily meals. This generally consisted of a morning meal, brought in when the temple opened for the day; and an evening meal, served immediately before the closing of the sanctary doors. These meals appear to have been served in a very precise manner, likely mirroring the custom of such meals at the royal households:

First, a table was brought in and placed before the image, then water for washing was offered in a bowl. A number of liquid and semiliquid dishes in appropriate serving vessels were placed on the table in a prescribed arrangement, and containers with beverages were likewise set out. Next, specific cuts of meat were served as a main dish. Finally, fruit was brought in in what one of the texts takes the trouble to describe as a beautiful arrangement, thus adding an esthetic touch comparable to the egyptian use of flowers on such occasions. Musicians performed, and the cella was fumigated{26}...Eventually, the table was cleared and removed and water in a bowl again offered to the image for the cleansing of the fingers{27}

The food ritually partaken of by the deity was thereby thought to be blessed by such divine contact. As the food was considered capable of transferring this blessing to the person who was to eat it, the food was sent on to the king. Similarly, the water from the bowl which touched the images fingers was sprinkled upon the king and the priests to confer blessings.

That man was mortal, this the ancient Sumerians knew. They attempt to explain this mortal state in both the Atrahasis and Adapa myths. However, that man's Soul was immortal, of this they were equally certain.{28} The life led by these etemmu was, however, not an enviable one. The voyage upon this new life began at after the funerary rites, when the shade would begin its journey to the netherworld through an aperature which would open in the tomb allowing access to the Great Below.{29} If the proper funerary rites were not offered; or even worse, if the body was not buried; the Etemmu would remain upon the earth, wandering aimlessly, forced to eat only the gutter scraps and dirty water it might happen upon.{30} Those fortunate enough to be buried properly did not fare much better for food, as is attested by numerous myths, such as the Gilgamesh epic; "Earth is their food, their nourishment clay; ghosts like birds flutter their wings there, on the gate-posts the dust lies undisturbed."{31} As a result, food and water funerary offerings were of great importance, and as such were an important obligation of surviving friends and family. Countless grave sites uncovered in the region include ritual platforms and containers in which food and water offerings were made, apparently at prescribed times of the month or year. While such offerings could make life in the underworld more bearable, in the end the lot of those below was dreary and monotonous, and surely to be avoided.{32} "The Sumerians had a very hazy idea about any other life than this. For them there was no Hell, and no Paradise; the spirit of man lived after death but at best in a ghostly and a miserable world"{33} Such a view of the afterlife would appear to foreclose the possibility of reincarnnation as a possible tennant of Sumerian Religeon, and indee there is little or no explicit reference to this belief in existing texts. This would indeed be ironic, however, given what we knwo of the religeon:

The belief in resurrection was so well suited to the Mesopotamian view of life, that the wonder would be, not that they should have conceived of it, but rather that they should not. For to them, more than any other people of antiquity, this belief lay ready to hand. They saw the sun rise and set from day to day, and to them it was a mystery requiring explanation. They pondered over it and found its place in their mythology and religion. They saw the passage of the sun from the summer to the winter solstice and back again, year after year; the cycle of the moon's phases; and venus disappear as the evening star only to reappear as the morning star. All these changes represented to them the life and death of the gods, and their restoration to life. It would be strange indeed if the Mesopotamians, with such a lively conception of the return to life of the gods above them, and the animals and plants below, never asked themselves, "will not man too sometimes come forth from the underworld?{34}

The answer may simply be that they did believe in personal reincarnation, despite the lack of explicit reference to such belief. Indeed, in an obscure myth we are told, "After the Watcher and the Turnkey have greeted a man, the Annunaki, the Great Gods, assemble; Mammi, the one who fixes the fate, decides the fates with them. They determine death and life, but the days of death they do not fix."{35} Here, the gods determine not life and death , but death and life, i.e that these gods determine whether a man is to be restored to life after his days in the underworld are at an end, though the number of these days they do not determine.{36} Indeed, to speak of the 'days of death' would seem to imply that they are not without end. Additionally, we know from several myths of the existence of the Waters of Life in the Underworld. In the Gilgamesh epic, for example, we are told how Gilgamesh is brought to a source of water, and there allowed to wash - returning to him the life he had lost in his journey below:

Ur-Shanabi took him and brought him to a wash-bowl and he washed in water his filthy hair, as clean as possible. He threw away his skins, and the sea carried them off. His body was soaked until it was fresh. He put a new headband on his head. He wore a robe as a proud garment until he came to his city, until he reached his journey's end. The garment would not discolor, and stayed absolutely new{37}

But why were the waters of life located in the underworld if not that they bore a direct relationship to it's denizens: the dead? Accepting this, what other conclusion can be reached but that the reincarnation of the dead was an actual principal of Mesopotamian theology? Such an explanation sheds more light on the Adapa myth. Here, Enki creates his chief priest Adapa, "He (Ea) made broad understanding perfect in him, to disclose the design of the land. To him he gave wisdom, but did not give eternal life."{38} It is Adapa who tends the rites of Enki's temple; who bakes the daily bread and gathers the fish to feed the temple-priests. On one such journey upon the sea, seeking fish, Adapa's boat is overturned by the South Wind. In his anger, Adapa breaks the South Wind's wings. An, when he discovers this, sends for Adapa to face his wrath. Enki teaches Adapa how to avoid An's anger by enlisting the aid of Dumuzi and Ningiszida, but he instructs Adapa not to eat the food they offer for it is the bread of death, nor take the drink they offer for it is the water of death. This Adapa does, "They fetched him the bread of life, but he would not eat. They fetched him the water of life, but he would not drink.They fetched him a garment, and he put it on himself. They fetched him oil, and he anointed himself. Anu watched him and laughed at him. 'Come Adapa, why didn't you eat? Why didn't you drink? Didn't you want to be immortal?"{39} Adapa explains that his lord, Enki, has instructed him not to take the food or water, and then takes his leave, "O Anu, I salute thee! The privilege of godhead I must indeed forego, but never shall I forget the honor that thou wouldst have conferred upon me. Ever in my heart shall I keep the words though hast spoken, and the memory of thy kindness shall I ever retain. Blame me not exceedingly, I pray thee. My lord Ea awaiteth my return."{40} Scholars generally explain Enki's denial of immortality to Adapa as being a prank: Enki is known as the trickster, after all. This 'prank' is thus supposed to serve as some type of cursory explanation for mankind's mortality. But I find this explanation difficult to accept. This is Enki's most trusted priest, his wisest son. Playing a joke of this magnitude is out of character. It was Enki, after all, who saved mankind from the flood in the Atrahasis myth. Could he not have tricked Atrahasis (the Sumerian Noah), and thus allowed humanity to die? Even in the myth of Enki and Ninmah, when he creates a creature Ninmah cannot control, after tricking her into accepting a bet from him, he uses the opportunity to teach a lesson - that it takes Both their efforts to craete a 'whole' being. Further, in that myth, he takes due care to alleviate the destruction his prank has wrought. To accept that Enki would not only trick Adapa, but lie to him by claiming he would be offered the bread and water of death, when he was to be offered the bread and water of Life seems implausible. We must therefor take Enki at his word, and assume that to eat the bread of immortal life is to eat the bread of death; to drink the water of eternal life is to drink the water of death. Indeed, Anu offers the bread and water of life to Adapa only after he discovers the wisdom granted him (and thus, to mankind) by Enki, "Why did Ea disclose to wretched mankind the ways of heaven and earth, give them a heavy heart? It was He who did it! What can we do for him?"{41} Enki, besides being the trickster, is a god most cunning; and a god who has gone to much pain and effort to serve and protect mankind. It is hard to imagine that such an effort was made on behalf of mankind to preserve for him a sentence of eternal ennui. No, inherent in the Adapa myth is the belief that there is something which awaits mankind for which death is a necessary step; and that denying man 'immortality', the supposed god-likem state, he had preserved mankind's destiny. Death, then, is truly a beginning in the eyes of the Sumerians; a beginning which the gods themselves have preserved for us.

 


THE SIGNS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

 

The Sumerians, like the Greeks, commenced the counting of each day ("U-mu"), at sunset ("Kid-da-at u-mu"). Each day, then, was reckoned as the period from sunset to sunset. The months ("Itu") were begun in the period of the new moon ("Bu-ub-bu-lum", literally the 'time of the ravishment of the moon'), literally commencing at the time of the moons emergence in the heaven's following it's disappearance at the new moon ("U-na-am", literally the day of the moons renewal). At the end of each month, the astrologers of ancient Mesopotamia would man the parapets of their temples to watch for this 'first appearance', and in this way they would note the beginning of each new month.{42} These months were generally about 30 days long, with the first quarter occurring on the 7th, and the full moon on the 15th. These days, together with the period of the new moon, formed the sacred cycle of the month. The Sumerians celebrated these aspects of the moon's phases on the first, seventh, and fifteenth of each month. These three days formed the monthly "Essesu" Festival. The importance of these scared days is articulated in the Atrahasis myth, Tablet I, columns 204-207, as Enki sets about the creation of man, "Enki opened his mouth and addressed the great Gods, 'On the first, seventh, and fifteenth day of the month I will make a purifying bath"{43} The necessity for observation of these sacred days is reiterated in a number of collected Mesopotamian letters which refer to the necessity of 'passing the first, seventh, and fifteenth as you have been taught.' This observance, in the minimum, included a ritual bath: a sacred immersion in the symbolic 'Waters of Life'.

The first month of the year, Barag-Zag-Gar, began in the period of the first new moon following the barley harvest (our March-April). The months would then proceed apace at 30 days each, spanning 12 months. This wholly lunar cycle, however, invariably left a gap within the Solar year to be filled. To cure this problem, and be sure that the first month continued to follow the barley harvest, the Sumerians placed an intervening intercalary month known as Itu-diri BEFORE the twelfth month, Itu-Se-Gur-Kud, the 'month of the harvesting of the barley.' This intercalary month was used only when, upon examination of the length of time remaining in the barley season, it was determined that Barag-Zag-Gar would not fall directly after the barley harvest. Under the Meton Cycle, such intercalary months would be utilized at a frequency of roughly seven per nineteen years.

In the same way they were able to unify their year with the Circle of Life, so to did the Sumerians operate a system of time-keeping quite literally within the confines of a circle. Time was related to the degree of apparent motion of the sun, Samas, as it traveled across the heavens each day. Each degree of motion was calculated as 4 minutes, called one "Us." The entire circle was said to comprise 12 'temporal hours', or "Beru," which were literally double-hours of 30 Us each (see Fig. 3). The Sumerians had no concept of daylight savings, though they were well aware of the variances in the length of daylight and nighttime hours during the year. Thus, throughout the year the Day was held to be composed of 6 Beru of daytime and 6 Beru of nighttime, though the actual, or real hour, lengths varied. To correct for these differences, adjustments to the real hours, as opposed to temporal hours, were made. To this end, a series of associations was expounded. For example, a temporal hour of daylight plus a temporal hour of nighttime always equals 2 REAL hours. Thus, a measurement of the length in real hours of either daylight or nighttime will yield the solution to the length of the inverse. In addition, there were specific relations observed between and among the months of the year. Specifically, in the month of the Spring and Autumn Equinoxes, the length of daylight and nighttime real hours was assumed equal. Conversely, in the month of the Summer Solstice daylight was held to be twice the length of nighttime real hours, and in the month of the Winter Solstice, Nighttime was held to be twice the length of the daylight real hours. In addition, the months preceding the equinoxes were held to have the same ratio of daylight to nighttime real hours as the month following the Equinoxes, and the month preceding the solstices were similarly held to possess the same ratio of daylight to nighttime real hours' ratio as the month following the Solstices. With this complex system of relations, the calculation of the length of real daylight and nighttime hours was extremely simplified

 

 

FOOTNOTES

{1} Gwendolyn Leick, Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature, p. 13-14
{2} Id at 16
{3} the term "Anu" here should not be confused with the deity An (or Anu). The term, rather, refers generically to the heavens or 'sky', much the same way as Enki is used to denote the deity of the earth in the Enlil genealogy though this Enki is differentiated from the Deity "Enki".
{4} A. Heidel, A Babylonian Genesis, p. 51
{5} S.N. Kramer, From the Poetry of Sumer: Creation, Glorification, Adoration, p. 23
{6} S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, p. 39
{7} Ibid
{8} Id at 40
{9} Michael Baigent, From The Omens of Babylon: Astrology and Ancient Mesopotamia, p. 41
{10} J. Van Dijk, "The Birth of Wood and Reed", Acta Orientaliia 28 I, p.45
{11} L.W. King, Babylonian Religion and Mythology, p.28
{12} Id at 31
{13} François Lenerment, Chaldean Magic and Sorcery, p. 153
{14} Ibid.
{15} Jean Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Witing, Reasoning, and The Gods, p. 222
{16} T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once...Sumerian poetry in Translation, p. 155-156
{17} Id at p.156-157
{18} for an explanation of the significance of the 1st, 7th, and 15th of the month, see the section entitled 'The Signs of Heaven and Earth'
{19} Stephanie Dalley, Myths From Mesopotamia, p.15, note however that I have altered the last three lines, substituting the 1970 Moran translation , as I feel it protects the integrity of the meaning of this portion of the passage to a greater extent. {20} Jean Bottéro, Mesopotamia : Writing, Reasoning, and The Gods, p. 217
{21} see preceding section
{22} Bottéro, Supra note 12, at 225
{23} Leo Oppenheim, Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, p. 184
{24} Id at 186
{25} Supra note 16; see also previous and proceeding sections, generally
{26} this fumigation was not a religious act, but was done to control the odors of the foods.
{27} Oppenhiem, Supra note 19, at 188
{28} see previous section
{29} Bottéro, Supra note 12, at 230
{30} A. Jeremias, The Babylonian Conception of Heaven and Hell, p. 14-15
{31} Leonard Wooley, The Sumerians, p. 120
{32} Bottéro, Supra note 12, at 277
{33} Ibid.
{34} J. Morgenstern, "The Use of Water in The Asipu Ritual", Volume I of The Doctrine of Sin in The Babylonian Religion, p.32
{35} E. Schrader, "Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek", Vol. VI, I, 228
{36} Ibid
{37} Stephanie Dalley, Myths From Mesopotamia, p. 118
{38} Id at 184
{39} Id at 187
{40} Lewis Spence, Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 120
{41} Dalley, Supra note 37
{42} M. Baigent, Supra note 9. p. 50
{43} Dalley, Supra note 13

 

Isa:47:1: Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.

Jer:27:8: And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Jer:28:2: Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon.

Jer:28:14: For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him: and I have given him the beasts of the field also.

Zech:2:7: Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

 

Rv:14:8: And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Rv:16:19: And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

Rv:18:2: And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Rv:18:10: Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rv:18:21: And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

______________

http://www.jta.org/index.asp

Cutting the competition

Israel’s Health Ministry endorsed traditional circumcision methods.

In an advisory issued this week and quoted by Israel Radio, the ministry said mohelim are better trained to handle the surgery than urologists, to whom secular couples increasingly are turning as an alternative to the Orthodox ritual. Circumcision by a mohel takes just a few seconds, while a urologist can take up to 10 minutes, the ministry said. But Israeli authorities receive frequent complaints over malpractice by unlicensed mohelim.

 

There is not one thing these serpents do that is not Perversion. The Mohel sucks the blood from the penis with his mouth in this ritual of the dragon

But ISREALHELL, says ok.

Mohel sucking the blood from babies penis

The Mishnah
Translated by Herbert Danby
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1933. pp. 116-117.



Shabbat 133B
II.1.
A. Suck [out the wound]:
B. Said R. Pappa, "A Surgeon who didn't suck out the wound - that is a source of danger, and we throw him out."
C. So what else is new? Obviously, since we are prepared to desecrate the Sabbath on that account, it is certainly dangerous not to do it!
D. What might you have supposed? That this blood is stored up. So we are informed that it is the result of the wound, and in the status of a bandage and cumin: Just as when one doesn't put on a bandage and cumin, there is danger, so here, too, if one doesn't do it, there is danger.
The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation
Translated by Jacob Neusner
Number 275. Volume II.E: Shabbat Chapters 18-24.
Program in Judaic Studies Brown University
Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1993. p. 45.
[The brackets in the quotes below are in the texts quoted.]

"There are three stages required for the performance of a ritually correct circumcision in Jewish law: the removal of the foreskin; the tearing of the underlying membraene so as to expose the glans completely; and the sucking away of the blood, m'tsitsah." Roger V. Pavey. The Kindest Cut of All. Bognor Regis, W. Sussex: New Horizon. 1981. pp. 87-88.

"The method to be adopted is laid down thus: 'One excises the foreskin, [that is] the entire skin covering the glans, so that the corona is laid bare. Afterwards, one tears with the finger-nail the soft membrane underneath the skin, turning it to the sides until the flesh of the glans appears. Thereafter, one sucks the membrane until the blood is extracted from the [more] remote places, so that no danger [to the infant] may ensue; and any circumciser who does not carry out the sucking procedure is to be removed [from his office].' . . . The operation itself, then, consists of three distinct acts: the excision of the prepuce; the laceration of the mucous membrane covering the glans; and the sucking of the blood from the interior of the wound." Immanuel Jakobovits. Jewish Medical Ethics: A Comparative and Historical Study of the Jewish Religious Attitude to Medicine and Its Practice. New York: Bloch Publishing Company. 1959. pp. 193-194.

"The baby cried, blood flowed on to his penis and - as the rabbi had predicted - Graham [the godfather] did not faint. The rabbi then bent over the baby and sucked the wound. I know this sounds awful, but it is part of the Jewish tradition. It's supposed to help the healing." Jack Shamash. "My Son on the Cutting Edge." Independent (London), no. 3,797 (Thursday, December 17, 1998): p. R8.

"And what of the practice of sucking the bleeding penis? While condemning the procedure, some physicians contend that it was used to stop bleeding.47 Not only is there little evidence for this theory, but it was also a largely ineffective method. Furthermore, even in antiquity, surgeons had better methods to stop bleeding, such as pressure, instruments, and medication.48 According to Dr. H. Speert (1953), Maimonides 'staunchly supported this procedure [sucking the bleeding penis] as a prophylactic measure against inflammation.'"49 Edward Wallerstein. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. New York: Springer Publishing Company. 1980. p. 160.

"mezizah -- Hebrew term for the third step in the Jewish circumcision ritual, in which the mohel applies his mouth to the freshly circumcised infant's penis and sucks up the first drops of blood. In more recent times this procedure has been carried out via a tube, as infections, venereal disease, and tuberculosis, sometimes resulting in the death of the infant, have occurred due to contamination of the wound. Most Jewish circumcisors today have eliminated this step from the circumcision ritual. Critics have attributed sadistic and homosexual implications to this practice, while defenders claim that this was simply all that was known during ancient times to stop the bleeding." Rosemary Romberg. Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. South Hadley, Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey, Publishers, Inc. 1985. p. 395.

"The traditional practice of metzitzah b'peh, which has its roots in the earliest history of the Jewish people and has survived unchanged to the present time, should be viewed with great respect. It is spoken of very positively in the Jewish literature on circumcision both as an essential part of the ritual and as a health measure which prevents infection and promotes healing." Henry C. Romberg, M.D. Bris Milah: A book about the Jewish ritual of circumcision. Jerusalem/New York: Feldheim Publishers. 1982. pp. 57-58.

Pure sick Talmudic perversion unto the Dragon their god of the world

---------

Sanhedrin meets today July 5, 2005. Will we hear what they discussed?

____

Noahide News Part 227

 

 

The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

 Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II

"Questions"

"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

 ADDED Material 3-25-2004 Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

 Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

Chabad Satan Part 11

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5

One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

Nazi Part 2

Nazi Part 3

Nazi Part 4

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws

The Leaven of the Chabad Lubavitch Chassidim Pharisees

Exod-U.S the coming Geula 

anti-semitism?

Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of Judaic Talmudism

Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2

Noahide News Part 3

Noahide News Part 4

Noahide News Part 5

Noahide News Part 6

Noahide News Part 7

Noahide News Part 8

Noahide News Part 9

Noahide News Part 10

Noahide News Part 11

Noahide News Part 12

Noahide News Part 13

Noahide News Part 14

Noahide News Part 15

Noahide News Part 16

Noahide News Part 17

Noahide News Part 18

Noahide News Part 19

Noahide News Part 20

Noahide News Part 21

Noahide News part 22

Noahide News Part 23

Noahide News part 24

Noahide News Part 25

Noahide News Part 26

Noahide News part 27

Noahide News Part 28

Noahide News Part 29

Noahide News Part 30

Noahide News Part 31

Noahide News Part 32

Noahide News Part 33

Noahide News Part 34

Noahide News Part 35

Noahide News Part 36

Noahide News Part 37

Noahide News Part 38

Noahide News Part 39

Noahide News Part 40

Noahide News Part 41

Noahide News Part 42

Noahide News Part 43

Noahide News Part 44

Noahide News Part 45

Noahide News Part 46

Noahide News Part 47

Noahide News Part 48

Noahide News Part 49

Noahide News Part 50

Noahide News Part 51

Noahide News Part 52

Noahide News Part 53

Noahide News Part 54

Noahide News Part 55

Noahide NewsPart 56

Noahide News Part 57

Noahide News Part 58

Noahide News Part 59

Noahide News Part 60

Noahide News Part 61

Noahide News Part 62

Noahide News Part 63

Noahide News Part 64 

Noahide News Part 65

Noahide News Part 66

Noahide News Part 67

Noahide News Part 68

Noahide News Part 69

Letter to Bob Jones and President Bush and all televangelist

Noahide News Part 70

Noahide News Part 71

Noahide News Part 72

Noahide News Part 73

Noahide News Part 74

Noahide News Part 75

Noahide News Part 76

Noahide News Part 77

Noahide News Part 78

Noahide News Part 79

Noahide News Part 80

Noahide News Part 81

Noahide News Part 82

Noahide News Part 83 ALERT ALERT ALERT

Noahide News Part 84

Noahide News Part 85

Noahide News Part 86

Noahide News Part 87

Noahide News Part 88

Noahide News Part 89

Noahide News part 90

Noahide News Part 91

Noahide News Part 92

Noahide News Part 93

Noahide News Part 94

Noahide News Part 95

Noahide News Part 96

Noahide News Part 97

Noahide News Part 98

Noahide News Part 99

Noahide News Part 100

Noahide News Part 101

Noahide News Part 102

Noahide News Part 103

Noahide News Part 104

Noahide News Part 105

Noahide News Part 106

Noahide News Part 107

Noahide News Part 108

Noahide News Part 109

Noahide News Part 110

Noahide News Part 111

Noahide News Part 112

Noahide News Part 113

Noahide News Part 114

Noahide Naws Part 115

Noahide News Part 116

Noahide News Part 117

Noahide News Part 118

Noahide News Part 119

Noahide News Part 120

Noahide News Part 121

Noahide News Part 122

Noahide News Part 123

Noahide News Part 124

Noahide News part 125

Noahide News Part 126

Noahide News Part 127

Noahide News Part 128

Noahide News Part 129

The Revelation of Jesus the Christ the LORD God and His Father

Noahide News Part 130

Noahide news Part 131

Noahide News Part 132

Noahide News Part 133

Noahide News Part 134

Noahide News Part 135

Noahide news Part 136

Noahide News Part 137

Noahide News Part 138

Noahide News Part 139

Noahide News Part 140

Noahide News Part 141

Noahide News Part 142

Noahide News Part 143

Noahide News Part 144  

Noahide news Part 147

Noahide News Part 148

Noahide News Part 149

Noahide News Part 150

Noahide News Part 151

Noahide News Part 152

Noahide News Part 153

Noahide News Part 154

NoahideNews Part 155

Noahide News Part 156

Noahide News Part 157

Noahide News Part 158

Noahide News Part 159

Noahide News Part 160

Noahide News Part 161

Noahide News Part 162

Noahide News Part 163

Noahide News Part 164

Noahide News Part 165

Noahide News part 166

Noahide News Part 167

Noahide News Part 168

Noahide News Part 169

Noahide News Part 170

Noahide News Part 171

Noahide News Part 172

Noahide News Part 173

Noahide News Part 174

Noahide News Part 175

Noahide News Part 176

Noahide News Part 177

Noahide News Part 178

Noahide News Part 179

Noahide News Part 180

Noahide News Part 181

Noahide News Part 182

Noahide News Part 183

Noahide News Part 184

Noahide News Part 185

Noahide News part 186

Noahide News Part 187

Noahide News Part 188

Noahide News Part 189

Noahide News Part 190 Alert ! Alert! Alert!

Noahide News part 191

Noahide News part 192

Noahide News Part 193

Noahide News Part 194

Noahide News Part 195

Noahide News Part 196

Noahide News Part 197

Noahide News part 198

Noahide News Part 199

Noahide News Part 200

Noahide News Part 201

Noahide News Part 202

Noahide News Part 203Alert Alert Alert !

Noahide News Part 204 Alert ! Alert ! Alert!

Noahide News Part 205

Noahide news Part 206

Noahide News Part 207

Noahide News Part 208

Noahide News Part 209

Noahide News Part 210

Noahide News Part 211

Noahide News Part 212

Noahide News Part 213

Noahide News Part 214

Noahide News Part 215

Noahide News Part 216

Noahide News Part 217

Noahide News Part 218

Noahide News Part 219

Noahide News Part 220

Noahide News Part 221

Noahide News Part 222

Noahide News Part 223

Noahide News Part 224

Noahide News part 225

Noahide News Part 226

Noahide News Part 227