Judaism discovered

Judaism's "Family Values" — Abortion

"Rabbi Elliot Dorff, rector and professor of philosophy at the University of Judaism, says that in Jewish tradition, embryos less than 40 days old are considered as 'mere water /...To those who believe endeavors such as stem cell research cross the line into God's realm, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, a professor of Jewish law at Loyola Law School, disagrees. 'The idea that we have no right tinkering with God's work is fundamentally anti-Jewish,' said Adlerstein, an Orthodox rabbi.¹⁰⁸⁶ "(A) central concept in Judaism is a 'rodef' The idea is that it's okay to defend yourself if you are threatened. A rodef literally means 'pursuer.' For rabbis who feel it would be okay to terminate a pregnancy, it's seeing the fetus as a pursuer..."¹⁰⁸⁷

"...polls have shown that more Jews support abortion rights and Roe v. Wade than any other religious or ethnic community in the United States...Roni Berkowitz, president of the Chesapeake Jewish Reconstructionist Federation: 'It's not just a matter of choice. The Talmud teaches us there are times that it is incumbent on women to have an abortion..." ¹⁰⁸⁸

Rashi, the venerated twelfth century Judaic interpreter of the Bible and Talmud, says of the fetus: "lav nefesh hu—it is not a person." Rabbi Meir Abulafia decreed, "So long as the fetus is inside the womb, it is not a nefesh, and the Torah has no pity on it." The noted Judaic legal scholar Rabbi Isaac Schorr stated: "The sense of the Talmud is that a fetus is not a person" (Responsa Koah Schorr, no. 20). The Talmud contains the expression "ubar yerech imo" —the fetus is as the thigh of its mother, i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part of the pregnant woman's body. The Greek philosopher Aristotle regarded the unborn child in its first seven days as a "secretion" {ekrysis). In rabbinic law the status of "secretion" lasts for the first forty days of gestation. In Judaism the woman is not regarded as pregnant until the baby in her womb is more than forty days old.¹⁰⁸⁹

879

Contrary to these traditions of Judaism, God did not say in the Bible that He recognized the unborn baby only after forty days. He said He recognized it as a being before the child had even been formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5) As usual, the rabbis go God one better and establish a term of forty days before recognition can be conferred, and that rabbinic recognition is only of the pregnancy itself, not of the humanity of the unborn child.

The matter does not rest at the forty day limit, however. In the familiar pattern of rabbinic modification, supplementation and emendation, enough of these are generated to allow abortion at any time during the pregnancy for almost any reason, however fanciful or arbitrary. For example, if it is decided that an aborted baby does not look like a baby after it has been aborted, then it is not considered to have been a human child.¹⁰⁹⁰

Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, the standard American abortion procedure is considerably Talmudic in nature, since the Talmud specifically states that if the unborn baby is adduced to be a rodef, the rabbis authorize that it can be chopped up at any time: "They chop up the child in her womb." ¹⁰⁹¹

We shall anticipate the objection of the master deceivers, who will opine, "Hoffman is taking this passage out of context. The entire passage reads, 'But once its greater part has gone forth they do not touch him, for they do not set aside one life on account of another."

But "greater part" is usually taken to mean the baby's head. At most then, Mishnah Ohalot 7:6 is saying that an unborn baby designated a rodef can be aborted unless it is a partial-birth abortion. If we accept this statement at face value, it still authorizes the murder of the unborn child that has been dehumanized as a rodef, unless its "greater part" (head) is emerging from the birth canal; the dissembling text, "we do not set aside one life on account of another" not withstanding.

We therefore still have a multiplicity of circumstances under rabbinic law in which almost all unborn babies can be aborted. However, the addition of the modifying clause about not setting aside one life for another, in addition to being the height of hypocrisy in that it only applies to partial birth abortions, is, even in that case, placed in the text as part of the rabbinic

880

hermeneutic of dissimulation in the event that gentiles penetrate the text and study the uncensored Talmud, which is the case in our post-modernist Revelation of the Method era; an eventuality prepared for by the "sages" of the past.

The gentile cannot know, without studying the intricacies of Talmudic case law, that this statement — "not setting aside one life for another" — is a decoy — but the rabbonim are surely aware that it is, because, speaking of context, the context of Mishnah Ohalot 7:6 in rabbinic law— that is, the complete halakhot governing the rodef — is missing when Mishnah Ohalot 7:6 is considered only by itself. Context is the key to fully decoding the passage.

The most striking legal dimension of the concept of the rodef is the fact that a rodef is killed without due process, without a hearing, appeal or finding of fact. In rabbinic law, the rodef is a wrong-doer of the most virulent and irredeemable sort. The nature of a rodef precludes any niceties like mercy for an infant's "greater part" protruding out of the birth canal, and any lofty rhetoric about one life being equal to another.

If we know anything about the halackic status of a rodef we know that due to its decidedly inferior position under the rabbinic law governing "the pursuer," a rodef can be killed with impunity at any time, by any means necessary. Such killing is regarded as a great mitzvah. In that case, nothing can lessen the horrific status of the unborn baby who has been designated as a "pursuer." There are no modifications or qualifications in this regard. In Orthodox Judaism, the life of the "pursuer" is forfeit. Period.

What kind of religion renders the innocent unborn child with so felonious an opprobrium, and to what extent has this rabbinic halacha influenced US legislation and jurisprudence from Roe v. Wade onward?

Let us consider Roe v. Wade in light of Talmudic law and note the startling similarities between that law and abortion as it has been implemented in the U.S. since Jan. 22, 1973. According to Isser Unterman, Chief Rabbi of the Israeli state (1964), with regard to the fetus designated a rodef:

881

This is how Chief Rabbi Unterman's draconian statement is misrepresented to gentiles by the master liars and deceivers: "Rabbi Unterman stood squarely in the tradition of Maimonides...on the right....The 'rightist' approach begins with the assumption, formulated by Unterman, that abortion is 'akin to murder' and therefore allowable only in cases of corresponding gravity, such as saving the life of the mother. The approach then builds down from that strict position to embrace a broader interpretation of life-saving situations." (Emphasis supplied).

Yes, indeed, and how incredibly "broad" it is! But the Talmudic apologist stops there and delves no further, leaving "family values" goyim with the impression that Rabbi Unterman was solidly pro-life and only dissented from his strict position on abortion when it pertained to circumstances involving saving the life of the mother. Unterman's position is thereby rendered palatable in the eyes of conservative Judeo-Churchianity — and how utterly

882

far from the truth! Most of us are ill-equipped to grasp the misleading nature of Judaism, its fathomless capacity for word parsing, double-entendre and lawyer's contortions, as part of the shrewd and calculating cat-and-mouse game in which it situates its teachings and juridical decisions. We are deceived by Judaism because is inconceivable to most of us that religious leaders would mislead so maliciously, unconscionably and predeterminedly.

The observation by the apologist that "The approach then builds down from that strict position to embrace a broader interpretation" is a classic statement of how rabbinic dissimulation operates. Let's watch it in action, in the teaching of Chief Sephardic Rabbi (1939), Ben Zion Meir Ouziel:

"It is clear that abortion is not permitted without reason. That would be destructive and frustrative of the possibility of life. But for a reason, even if it is a slim reason (taam kalush)...then we have precedent and authority to permit it." Chief Rabbi Uziel's statement is very similar to the statements of pro-abortion politicians who say that while they are "personally opposed to abortion," a woman's right to "choose" an abortion must be preserved. Since 1973 women in America have chosen to abort millions of their unborn babies for very "slim reasons" indeed, sometimes merely for convenience, and it turns out that they have had halachic support for their "choice" from such illustrious and revered Judaic sources as Rashi, the Talmud, and Israeli chief rabbis.

Rashi, "the Talmud's preeminent commentator," declared that the unborn child is not a human person and does not have a soul (nefesh). Daniel

883

Schiff: "According to Rashi, then, the mother's priority was not to be perceived as some arbitrary determination, but stemmed from a subservience of the fetus which could be understood logically: lacking nefesh status, it was subject to being killed in the name of the predominant need of a full nefesh."^x09S Rashi's "explanation. ..allows for the question of whether there might be conditions under which other, less extreme, physical or emotional traumas to the mother might also countenance abortion of the fetus. After all, if the mother's standing as a "full" nefesh meant that her claim to life superseded that of the non-nefesh fetus, could not her superior position as a nefesh also imply that her claim to health and well-being might overwhelm a claim to life on the part of a non-nefesh? Rashi's position renders the latter a possibility." ¹⁰⁹⁴

While Schiff poses the matter in precise terms, he does so with a naivete which reflects the pro forma politically correct approach incumbent on those who dare to take up these touchy and potentially "offensive" truths about Judaism. Our reply to Schiff is that it is not difficult to determine whether or not Rashi's view of the unborn child remained only a "possibility." The answer is found in the record of subsequent practice in Judaism: the "possibility" of implementing Rashi's grostesque dehumanization was long ago actualized; abortion for trivial reasons has been the norm in Judaism. This norm found its full force of expression in Roe v. Wade and the abortion-oriented "convenience" culture that has emerged from it. Schiff exudes a good deal of hogwash on this subject, particularly when he suggests that Maimonides' "rodef dimension acted as a restraint on the latitude of abortions, overlooking the fact that the rodef category is so broad that it permits the same license which Rashi allowed, but under a more conservative-seeming pretext, a bit of camouflage vital to the maintenance of Judaism's pillar of mercy and pillar of severity temple edifice.

Here we interject the important fact that gentiles in general are regarded by Orthodox Judaism as "lacking nefesh status" — not possessing the Neshama HaElyonah which superior Judaics possess. Gentiles, like the fetus, are subject to being killed "in the name of the predominant need of a full nefesh" This has been the case with Russian and East European

884

Christians under Bolshevism, and Palestinian and Lebanese Arabs under the Israeli military, though no human rights institutes for the systematic study of nefesh-deficiency have sprung up on anything faintly comparable to the infinite assortment of academies and institutions dedicated to the study of "antisemitism." Non-Judaics who have been killed because they were judged to have no nefesh, are the lowest of the low, because little or no memory of their murder and of the Talmudic inspiration for the atrocities against them, have been preserved. In that sense, their rabbinically-assigned lack of humanity and soul has been confirmed in extremis.

"...gentiles in general are regarded by Orthodox Judaism as 'lacking nefesh status' — not possessing the Neshama HaElyonah which superior Judaics possess. Gentiles, like the fetus, are subject to being killed 'in the name of the predominant need of a full nefesh."

Maimonides measured Rashi's chomer (stringent) declaration on abortion by placing it in the context of the rodef, without fundamentally altering it: "...the fetus is like a rodef pursuing her to kill her...it is permitted to dismember the fetus within her, either by drugs or surgery..."

The "family values" conservatives can find something to cheer in the supposedly more "lenient" (kal) declaration of Maimonides, if they read him incompletely and selectively, while the abortion-on-demand zealots can draw sustenance from the whole of the rabbinic corpus, starting with Rashi. Judaism's ability to appeal to both sides of a diametrically opposed issue is one of its most potent chameleon attributes.

The kal va chomer dialectic of the poskim presaged the Hegelian dialectic by centuries. These are the "family values" which conservative Republicans share with their rabbinic brethren in the Janus-faced abomination known as the "Judeo-Christian tradition."

885

While we certainly acknowledge that thousands of evil abortionists in the U.S., Canada and Europe are gentiles, some of the more militant and financially profitable abortion clinics and practices seem to be operated by persons who have been influenced by the traditions of Judaism.



A poster-boy for that observation is the Canadian-Judaic abortionist Dr. Henry Morgentaler (pictured at right), who, as late as 2007, owned six lucrative abortion clinics in Canada. One can only guess at how many unborn children Dr. Morgentaler has personally killed. In 1988, the Canadian Jewish News stated that Morgentaler "had terminated about 20,000 pregnancies since 1968...Morgentaler claims that his obsession with providing this service combined all the elements of a humanist philosophy with 'what is best in the Jewish tradition...'

"Morgentaler began to study medicine in Germany...despite the antipathy he had developed for Germans. The feeling remains with him to this day... 1 have a deep kind of reluctance to relate to Germans. But I treat them as well as any of my patients' ....He has received his share of anti-semitic hate mail. 'I get letters saying, 'Dirty Jew, you're killing Christian babies.' Had these letters affected him? 'Of course they bother me. To a survivor of the Holocaust, these letters carry connotations of violence. But I decided I wouldn't give in to them. I believe in the justice of my cause. I'm no longer a helpless Jew who could be crushed by the might of the Nazi military machine.'

"...Morgentaler, whose companion, Arlene Leibovitch recently gave birth to his fourth child, resents accusations that he is a baby killer. 'I love babies,' he told an interviewer." ¹⁰⁹⁵ In 2005 Morgentaler received an honorary doctorate from the University of Western Ontario and addressed the graduating class.

.

886

True and False Christian Zionism

There have occasionally arisen in prior centuries, sincere Christian Zionists, but there are important distinctions between the authentic Christian Zionist position of the past and that of the Judeo-Churchian Protestants and papists who support Talmudic-rabbinic Israeli nationalism today:

"Not a shred of Judaism do I expect to be restored. For no temple at Jerusalem do I look. Circumcision, priesthood, sacrifices, ritual separations and peculiarities, I hold to have been all done away with in Christ, never to be revived. If the Restoration of the Jews cannot be maintained without one or more of these Judaisms, I shall give it up; for not one of these things can I make explicit with Scripture, and the catholic character and spiritual genius of Christianity.. .beyond all doubt the Savior meant to announce that Jerusalem was to lose its peculiar character—that it would cease to be, even to the Jews themselves— 'the city of their solemnities, whither the tribes should go up'—that, in fact, it would possess not a whit more of a distinctive religious character than the mountain of Samaria about which the woman consulted Him, I cannot but wonder that Christian men and dear brethren, sitting at the Redeemer's feet to receive the Law at His mouth, should dream of a revived Judaism, and picture to themselves 'believing nations frequenting the' restored 'temple, in order to get understanding in the types and shadows'...True,' there are many dark things in the Word;' but they will become darker still if, instead of explaining the dark things by the clear, we explain the clear things by the dark, making the Old Testament the key to the New. It is this unnatural method which lies at the foundation of all the Jewish expectations of Christians; and never until we reverse the process are we safe from the danger to which we found Jerome alluding, of Judaizing our Christianity, instead of Christianizing the adherents of Judaism....We have seen that these localities (Jerusalem etc.) have been, by the work of Christ, divested forever of all their peculiar sacredness, and that in respect of acceptable worship, 'Zion' and 'Jerusalem! are ^lin every place' where God is 'worshipped in spirit and in truth.' It is this very change, beyond all doubt, which the apostle designed to express, when he said to the Hebrews, who were clinging to the local Jerusalem and the literal Zion, after all their glory had passed away, 'But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the

887

living God, the heavenly Jerusalem' (Heb. 12:22). To say, in the face of this most naked statement, that the religious peculiarities of the local Jerusalem and the literal Mount Zion are either not abolished at all, or abolished only for a time, to be again restored, is, if it may be said without offense, intolerable." ^,096

Dr. David Brown delves further into the basis of the perversion of Christianity by "Judaization": "As a last refuge, we sometime hear it said, that though an Aaronic priesthood and bloody sacrifices and circumcision, and a metropolitan ceremonial at Jerusalem, may be unsuitable to the genius of the present economy, they may, for aught that we know, be consistent enough with one to come. This surely is a desperate argument. Nor should I allude to it, but to ask my readers whether this be the impression which they gather from the apostle's reasonings on the subject of the ceremonies, in the Epistles to the Galatians, Colossians and Hebrews? Was it only the abuse of them against which he wrote? Was it only their temporary removal which he contemplated, in the view of their ultimate restoration? Does he not characterize them as, in their own nature, 'worldly rudiments,' 'beggarly elements,' the mere discipline of minors, as a 'bondage' unsuited to the liberty of Christ's freemen? (Gal. 4). Are they not represented as 'a shadow* of which 'the body is Christ,' for the entire neglect and abandonment of which Christians ought not to allow themselves to be 'judged' by Judaizing zealots, who were swarming in some of the infant churches, and whose policy was to sap and mine whatever was spiritual and free, and catholic in the new economy? (Col. 2). Is not the priesthood said to be 'changed' and the ceremonial institute to be 'disannulled.' expressly because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof? Now, to what order did those 'sons of Zadok' belong, the 'ministrations' of whose descendants in the restored temple are expected to give 'new impressiveness and fulness to certain portions of truth'? They belonged, as everyone knows, to that very Aaronic order which the apostle says has been swept off the stage of the Church, with all that appertained to it, as a weak and useless thing after Christ's coming. Yet further; is not the co-existence of two priesthoods regarded as a thing incongruous, and does not the apostle represent the whole ritual system as in a 'decaying, antiquated and evanescent' state when he wrote? (Heb. 8). Is it

.

888

conceivable that such language would have been used of a system only temporarily set aside, to be brought back, with a few changes, to more than its pristine splendor? If such expectations, or anything like them, are not directly in the teeth of all that the apostle says on the subject of the temple-service, he has used language which it was next to impossible not to misunderstand, and which the whole Church, with hardly an exception, has been misinterpreting to this hour." ¹⁰⁹⁷

These are the words of Dr. Brown, a sincere nineteenth century Christian whose "Zionism" was expressed in having taken Romans 11 literally as a prophecy of the return of "the Jews" to the land of their fathers after they were converted to Christianity. Brown's theory is separate and distinct from the modern adherents of Churchianity in our midst today who enthuse over the institution of the Zionist establishment of the Babylonish Talmudic religion in Palestine (which they are pleased to call "Israel"). This writer respectfully disagrees with Dr. Brown while acknowledging that his theory does no intentional violence to the Scriptures and above all does not pander to the rabbinic establishment out of fear, or a desire for money, prestige or influence.

We believe, however, that the Israel of Romans 11 can only mean the Christian ecclesia. The Gospel Church is historically and lineally The Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). Brown was much influenced by the Judaic-Dutch convert to Calvinism, Isaac da Costa, and the quack genealogy of Henry Hart Milman in the latter's ambitious, multi-volume reference work, The History of the Jews from the Earliest Period Down to Modern Times, first published in 1829:

"A people transported from their native country, if scattered in small numbers, gradually melt away and are lost in the surrounding tribes; if settled in larger masses, remote from each other, they grow distinct commonwealths; but in a generation or two, the principle of separation, which is perpetually at work, effectually obliterates all community of interest or feeling. If a traditionary remembrance of their common origin survives, it is accompanied by none of the attachment of kindred; there is no family pride or affection; there is no blood between the scattered descendants of common

889

ancestors...One nation alone seems entirely exempt from this universal law."¹⁰⁹⁸

Mr. Milman and Dr. Brown mistake the Khazars for the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The strong circumstantial evidence that Caucasian people actually hold that distinction was for many centuries knowledge restricted to masonic-type secret societies and revealed only to heavily processed initiates during the customary spookhouse rituals. This legend, dispensed in extremely distorted form, has come to be known as "British Israel" (the Encyclopedia Britannica [eleventh edition] terms it "Anglo-Israelite theory"). Combining genealogy, cartography and hieroglyphics, this hypothesis arose at the same time as a plan for "British empire" was conceived—both of these having been used as a kind of occult allegory or meme by the Elizabethan sorcerer-mathematician John Dee. Dee's vision for a New World Order, a naval-based spy agency, British rule of the sea and a rebuilt Temple of Jerusalem, were expressed in his manuscript Brytanci Imperii Limites and his four volume General and Rare Memorials Pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation ¹⁰"

"To forge ties between Jewish merchants and British Imperialists, John Dee created the concept of British-Israel, which gave the British and the Jews a common racial identity, and invoked biblical prophecy to show the inevitable triumph of British Imperialism: the British, as Abraham's seed, were to inherit the earth. Dee also introduced the Jewish Cabala to the British ruling class and its interlocking network of European royal dynasties. All this set the stage for the later absorption of European Jewish merchants and bankers into British society...In essence, the dissemination of the British-Israel doctrine was an intelligence coup carried out by the British Monarchy."¹¹⁰⁰

Dr. Brown's misidentification of Khazars as Israelites was also due to Da Costa, whose "conversion" to Christianity was marked by a flaw often prevalent among such "converts": he never fully converted. He continued to

1099. 
      
      

890

cling to and uphold race pride and "pedigree" and the racial prestige of those people called "Jews." Brown quotes a statement from Da Costa: "Were there' —says the late lamented Dr. Isaac da Costa of Amsterdam, himself a distinguished Israelite — 'Were there now in existence an individual who could with certainty trace his pedigree from one of the ancient Greek or Roman families, with what care and interest would such a circumstance be investigated as a living remnant of antiquity! And yet Israel, the very Israel whose annals extend to the most remote periods of sacred and profane history, still remains, not as a remnant only, consisting of a very few solitary or individual families, but the whole body of the people still exists, scattered over every part of our globe."^ll01

Is this how Christians should term the apostles Peter and Paul, with the rags and baggage of being "distinguished Israelites"? And how is it that Isaac da Costa knows that there are those who can with absolute assurance, be certified as "Jews," and who can "with certainty trace their pedigree" to the "most remote periods" of "sacred history"? Who has the competence or authority to prove such a fantastic claim.? This is a diabolical hoax, swallowed whole by certain gullible Christians forever dazzled by racial boasts, and who should know better than to credit claims to divine eminence based on race (Luke 3:8). Because it emanates from an alleged "convert," this toxin is not so quickly dismissed as it would be had it been disseminated by a non-Christian. In the prophetic words of John Prideaux, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, "Such Hebrew roots have been swallowed by some otherwise learned and orthodox, without a grain of salt."

891