Judaism discovered

Judaism's Hermeneutic of Concealment in Theory and Practice

"The Talmud is just a series of Debates" Because gentiles often stumble into the vast subject of Judaic studies in fear of being deemed "antisemitic," to safeguard themselves from this smear, they begin from the premise that the rabbis and their apologists are


150

humanitarian truth-tellers of good will. This combination of ignorance of the rabbinic texts and naivete concerning how they are disingenuously presented and ingeniously concealed by the rabbis' hide-and-seek hermeneutic, results in fatuous declarations like the aforementioned "the Talmud is just a series of debates." Part of this silliness is predicated on ignorance of the fact that the "Talmud-in-formation," that is the Mishna and Gemara as they were being decided upon and committed to writing, represented a stage of formation and exegesis without contemporary analogy. The process that resulted in the decisions that were made concerning the canonicity of one Talmudic text over another is no longer in effect. As the "Kesef Mishneh" relates, gone are the days when the Amoraim could overrule the Tannaim. The license of an Amora to overrule a Tanna ended when the Mishna was redacted by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi; and the license of a contemporary posek to contradict an Amora ended when Rabbis Ashi and Ravina formally pronounced the contents of the Talmud. What the dim-witted gentiles with their debating society fable don't know is that only those rabbis who participated in the real time Halachic debates of the ancient Babylonian academies were considered the lords of rabbinic tradition (Baalei Mesora). Once the debate is reduced to writing, the ebb and flow of exchange is frozen and the opportunity to overthrow the traditional majority consensus and precedent is gone forever. Even God is subservient to them. The rulings of the Mishna and the Talmud as decided by the subsequent consensus of Chazal through their supernatural power of siyata dishmaya as expressed in the authoritative codifications such as the Shulchan Aruch, Mishneh Berurah etc., are binding legal precedents. Modern rabbinic opinions inconsistent with this Talmudic and Kabbalistic canon are void. There is no authentic debate about the gentiles having no souls, (though there may be a bogus one rigged for gentile consumption where and when necessary, as the situation requires). That gentiles do not have souls is the fixed sacred law and dogma of Gedolei Yisroel. How the law that gentiles have no souls is applied is certainly subject to discussion and contestation in the Mishneh Torah, Kesef Mishneh and a thousand lesser texts. The law itself is incontestable. When Judaics point to debates about how halacha is to be interpreted as evidence that the halacha

Supreme cosmic divine insight, exceeding even that of God Himself.

itself is being debated, they are playing a cruel prank on their goyische dupes, which behind the scenes is the subject of much mirth.
Masters of Public Relations: Judaism "for the sake of appearances" Let us take another example for purposes of illustration. For a Judaic male to shake hands with a gentile woman violates a fundamental rabbinic principle regarding the low status of the shiksa (female gentile). For a Judaic male to shake the hand of a female Judaic who is not his wife or relative is also problematic. BT Berakot 61a decrees: "If a man counts out money from his hand into the hand of a women so as to have the opportunity of gazing at her...he shall not escape the punishment of Gehenna (fiery destruction)." So this is a soul-killing offense. Yet Orthodox Judaic Senator Joseph Lieberman

152

shakes hands with gentile women and Judaic women to whom he is not related on a regular basis. The principle is not at issue: it is wrong to shake hands with a woman. A higher consideration is, however: those times when, if one were to fulfill this law, then the fundamentally ugly, sexist truth about Judaism would be revealed to the world. Camouflage and deceit are everything. The cover cannot be be blown off the pious pose of the universal humanitiarianism / religion of the prophets mythos. Hence, in the responsa of HaGaon HaRav R. Hayyim Berlin, son of the Netziv, he wrote that Judaics must act in such a way in public "that the goyim would not condemn or reproach them for appearing to be lacking in common decency" and thus, he wrote that while it is preferable that Judaic males do not shake hands with women, if, in a public place the woman initiates the action by putting out her hand to the man, it may be permissible to shake it for the sake of appearances.¹²⁶ Where the gentiles have no power over the Judaics or where Judaics are in a position of superiority and dominion, they may return to the most rigorous application of the law and refuse to shake a woman's hand. The propriety of this is the subject of on-going rabbinic discussion. The underlying Taliban-like law: that men must not shake hands with women, is not subject to debate. The higher consideration of maintaining Judaic survival and dominion however, trumps the hand-shaking proscription under certain circumstances (what those circumstances are is subject to debate).

153

Power Over the Court System

While it can be accurately said that orthodox Judaism consists in living a life for this world through the body, the means by which this living is implemented are psychotic. Sexuality in orthodox Judaism is mediated by thousands of regulations, because Talmud is the essence of the bureaucratic mentality, a fact that emerges as America and Britain abandon Christian-Israel's Biblically-inspired Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and Common Law and embrace the Talmudic law of Big Brother bureaucracy. The American system of jurisprudence has degenerated from courts that ruled according to God's law, to courts that make the law through judicial interpretation and case law (precedent). The latter is entirely Talmudic and reflects the subversion of our nation: "The growth of Talmudic Law, in all its aspects, was for the most part, the work of judicial interpretation rather than of formal

154

legislation. The judge served in effect as a creator of law and not only as its interpreter..."

Halachic permissibility of bribing judges

The rabbis put a high value on manipulation of judges and courts. The Judaic Communist financier Armand Hammer was taught the science of bribery by Vladimir Lenin in the Soviet Union. Lenin considered bribery as important as terror in the achievement and maintenance of power. It will come as a surprise to many persons to learn that Judaism preceded Lenin in making bribery an art and a science, particularly the bribery of judges. The halachic permissibility of bribing judges is defined by many rabbinic sources, the most influential authority being the "Chelkas Yaakov," Rabbi Morechai Breisch. Before we begin our study of this subject, the reader should be aware that the topic is so sensitive that it is camouflaged even in the original Aramaic and Hebrew texts. In fact, if you are unaware of Judaism's deceitful practices you could quote Moses Maimonides' prohibition against bribing non-Judaic judges and let the matter rest there. But if you did, you would be a victim of Judaism's hermeneutic of concealment. The definitive rabbinic teaching on bribery is not found in Maimonides because he made his ruling for the benefit of disarming potentially hostile and literate critics in his time and his ruling was for the benefit of the perceptions of those outsiders. We know from the Shoel U'Meishiv that Maimonides' teaching in this instance has been subsequently reconciled with the ancient rabbinic doctrine. A loophole appears in the Shoel U'Meishiv that allows for a modification of Maimonides' ruling: the prohibition against bribing a non-Judaic judge applies only when the bribe will lead the judge to issue an incorrect ruling. Consequently, a Judaic who is, for example, concerned that litigation over a boundary dispute should be decided in his favor, should not bribe the judge in the case if he believes that giving the judge the bribe will cause the judge to rule "incorrectly," i.e. against the Judiac's boundary claim. The poskim (rabbinic legal decisors, also spelled posikim) explain a model case as follows:

"A (Jewish) businessman was persuaded by his partners to enter into an illegal transaction wherein they were arrested and prosecuted and faced a sentence of imprisonment. The Jew's lawyer told him that since the judge in that court did not distinguish between intentional and unintentional

155

violations of the law, the only way he could avoid prison time would be to send the judge a substantial bribe.' The poskim ruled that it was permissible for the Judaic to bribe the judge "since it was an effort to be treated equitably, toward the goal of having the magistrate act mercifully toward someone who unintentionally broke the law. The bribe is not being given in order to obtain a corrupt verdict, but leniency in sentencing."

Not only does this rabbinic ruling reveal the criminal nature of Judaism, it also says a great deal about the mentality of self-deception that is instilled in Judaism's adherents. Transparently dishonest tactics are explained away with alibis that would shame a 12-year-old. We conclude this section with an Orthodox Judaic text:

Rav Menashe Klein , the Mishnah Halachos, also writes that in this type of case it is permitted to give a gift to the judge and adds an additional reason-When there is reason to believe that the judge is looking to deal harshly with a Jewish defendant the purpose of the gift is to level the playing field rather than to cause a miscarriage of justice and is therefore permitted. .

Apologetics for the Mishnah, Gemara etc. run the gamut from outright misrepresentation and dissembling to a more subtle epistemological spin based on a fallacious notion of Talmudic indeterminancy. In public discussions of treatment of gentiles in Judaism, apologists refer to halachic rulings as "opinions" and they posit one "opinion" against another "opinion," which gives the impression that there is no didactic rabbinic position pro or contra the gentiles. Israel Shahak rejected this line and so does this writer. Prof. Shahak demarcated the actual praxis of Orthodox Judaism vis a vis gentiles, which was unwavering in its hostility, except in so far as the goyim might have the predominant position in society, in which case there was to be a temporary, tactical modification of the hostility. Those who interpret the sages to the goyim and do not explain to them that the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch are binding on all Orthodox Judaics as halacha, not opinion, do a grave disservice. Are the rabbinic laws of niddah an opinion? Absolutely not. Neither are the halachos on the goyim.

Of course, we are well aware that none of the sages are unanimous on every point, especially when it comes to minhag and even in certain more weighty matters. The infantile naivete with which scholars of the post-1945 era approach Judaism is absent from almost all other fields of academic study. How can one study a subject without the scientific method, viz., without applying the epistemological tools of scrutiny and skepticism? To discover the famous Judaic immunity even in scholarship, whereby Judaism is exempted from investigations that question and probe its claims is a tribute to a remarkable power of intimidation. One of the most refractory intellectual and practical difficulties that scholars of integrity face in the post-modernist era is deciding how to apply to Judaism the same critical scrutiny to which Christianity and Islam are subjected, without being defamed as a "hater."

Judaism is not just Talmud, it is Talmud and Kabbalah, as well as a mountain of successive texts. Maimonides is marshaled in the campaign to claim that Judaism is not Kabbalistic and that Kabbalism is an abuse and distortion of an otherwise purely scriptural rabbinic Judaism. In fact, Kabbalistic psychology meanders as much through Orthodox Judaism as the Mississippi flows through the American heartland. The Kabbalistic temple is supported by the pillar of chesed (mercy) and the pillar of gevurah (severity), both are required to support Judaism's supremacy. These two seemingly

157

opposing pillars offer two ways of relating to the world depending on the spirit of the age in which Judaism finds itself situated. Judaism's Temple is the synthesis of these two forces. The Temple cannot be sustained only by presenting a lenient or merciful face, or only by severe or judgmental means. The personification of this process is found in the earliest documents of Pharisaic Judaism, in the "Pirkei Avot" where we encounter Hillel and Shammai. This pair is used to put over the image of Judaism as a kind of good-natured Socratic debating society, sustaining the image of the adherent of Judaism as history's premier deep thinker who, unlike the allegedly tunnel-visioned Christian, keeps alive the flame of dissent and free inquiry. The history of rabbinic book-burning, thought control, physical punishment and even execution of the apikorsim and the minim (two categories of heretic) puts paid to that lie. BT Sanhedrin 90a denotes an apikoros as one who rejects the legitimacy of the Oral Law. Quoting Rabbenu Yonah, the Tshuvat Ha'Rashba 7:179 defines a min as he who doesn't believe in divrei Chazal (the Oral Law of the "sages").

When we think of a book-burner what is the first image that comes into our minds? If we are candid we will admit that we see in our mind's eye uniformed Nazis with swastika armbands tossing books onto a burning pyre. If we search our memory banks a bit more, the next image is usually of black-robed, hook-nosed Catholic priest solemnly overseeing another conflagration of the printed word. We doubt that one person in 10,000 recalls an image of a rabbinic court supervising the burning of heretical books, for the simple reason that no one has ever shown us such an image. Needless to say, the fact that the tunnel vision of the Talmudicized West suppresses such depictions does not mean that they are absent from the historical record. The leaders of the Judaic community at Vilna banned and burned every copy they could find of Abraham Issac Landau's 1824 book, Sefer HaKundass, a rollicking satire of Judaism's halachic codex, the "Shulchan Aruch."

The leading Judaic heretic in Galicia in the early nineteenth century was Nahman Rrochmal, author of the book "Moreh Nevukhei HaZ'man." "He was the target of harsh persecution from the Orthodox leadership who cited as his main offense that he had corresponded and met with a Karaite from the Russian village of Kukizov...Krochmal was attacked for having allegedly formed a friendship with the Karaite and supposedly having written in a

letter that the Karaite would have a 'portion in the world to come,' even though he did not believe in the Oral tradition."

When the Judaic dissenter Moses Mendelssohn published his German translation of the Bible, Rabbi Hirsch Jacob Janow imposed, in 1779, a ban on it: "The Chief Rabbi of this city has pronounced a ban on every Jew who will read the translation of the Pentateuch whose author is M. Mendelssohn of Berlin." In 1782 "Rabbi Pinhas HaLevi Horovitz, head of the rabbinic court of Frankfort-on-the-Main, attacked Mendelssohn's translation from the pulpit of his synagogue...Rabbi Horovitz criticized the translators for having neglected the Midrashim... 'these books of heresy mak(e) a mockery of the teachings of our Sages of blessed memory...these books were burned in a number of cities and...they were incinerated publicly in Vilna. All those who took part in this act are worthy before the Lord of Hosts."

In a letter dated Tammuz 6, 1782 addressed to Rabbi Tevele of Lissa, Horovitz wrote concerning Mendelssohn's translation of the books of the Bible: "I have already made public my demand in the great synagogue of our community that these empty words should be declared shameful; they contaminate by their very existence...that this shall not be permitted in a Jewish home. We have posted manifestos in all the synagogues, old and new alike, cursing those heretical books and their like, and have set forth restrictions concerning them...And we are prepared to do even more to pursue and expose the guilty."

The rabbis of Cracow threw "Mendelssohn's German translation of the Bible into the fire at a public auto-da-fe." The Hasidic Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (1759-1841; not to be confused with his twentieth century namesake), founder of a Hasidic dynasty in Hungary and Galicia, whose branch at Satu Mare ("Saint Mary") evolved into the "Satmar" Hasidim, "threw Mendohlssohn's Bible translation into the lighted stove and burned it." Hartwig Wesseley's 1782 book Divrei Shalom VEmet (Peace and Truth) was burned by rabbis in Posen, Vilna and Brody. "In Vilna the book Divrei Shalom VEmet was 'hanged' in an iron band in the synagogue courtyard before it was incinerated." Wessley was himself formally cursed by Rabbis Ezekiel Landau, Solomon Dov Baer, and in Posen by Rabbi Joseph ben Pinhas. The Chief Rabbi of Berlin, Hershel ben Aryeh Loeb Levin, sought to have Wesseley banished from the city. Rabbi Elimelekh of Lyzhansk issued a ban on his book in the following words, "My beloved brothers, avoid looking at

159

Divrei Shalom YEmet, for, as my father, teacher and master said, 'Whosoever will look at them and gladden his heart with them will not live to see the consolation of Zion." As recently as 1927 the ban on Wessley's book was still in force, reaffirmed by Rabbi Shimon Pollak in Romania.

Rabbi Jacob Orrenstein (1775-1839) of the rabbinic court of Lwow, placed a ban on any Judaic who studied the German language since the study of German "held the key to the wisdom of the non-Jewish nations." He wrote:

Brother Jews! It is revealed and known to you that recently various studies of the other nations, including the study of the German language, have begun to gain momentum in our midst The fault lies with two young men known in infamy — Solomon Rapoport and Hirsch [Tzvi] Natkes, it Is they who are at the root of all this; their effort was uppermost in this treachery, They have quite openly transcribed our holy Torah into the German language, studying the Commentary by Moses of Dessau [i.e., Mendelssohn] and they have advised all their friends and acquaintances to learn various languages and other [secular] subjects. We therefore declare by all that is holy that these people shall be subject to the great ban, they, their students, their companions and all who associate with them and listen to them. We hereby pronounce a ban also upon all those who will study the German language; it is forbidden to talk to them and to walk within four ells of them, etc.

Book-burning by East European rabbis in the latter decades of the eighteenth century was pandemic. "The burning of books spread to the city of Zolkiew near Lwow. There, 'books of (non-Judaic) learning both in the German and Hebrew languages, and also the Bible with Moses (Mendelssohn's) German translation and commentary, were cast into the flames of the fireplaces and privies.' The rabbis compelled their congregants to turn over any books by 'enlightened' authors in their possession so that these works could be burned. Hebrew printing establishments, especially those in Berdichev, Slavita, Ostrog, Zaslav, Sudilkov, Polna, Koretz, and other Polish towns refused to print books which smacked of Enlightenment."

We can furnish many more examples from several historic era of relentless harassment of apikorsim and the burning of books by rabbis and

160

their followers. In the twenty-first century, in addition to the huge Zionist censorship apparatus that employs intimidation to block truly Christian books and websites from gaining an audience, we have the continuing interdiction of material published by Judaic heretics. In 2002 a series of biographies of idolized Orthodox Judaic religious leaders, The Making of a Godol, was published. It was penned by Nathan Kamenetsky, the son of the Chief Rabbi of Toronto, Canada, Jacob Kamenecki, who had been the protege in Eastern Europe of the illustrious Rabbi Nota-Hirsh Finkel, the Alter of Slabodka. Orthodox rabbis have banned its possession and sale. It has even been burned, all due to its less-than-sanitized view of the Orthodox rabbinic world. "What has made the book so controversial is that the portraits are perhaps too human. Rather than the saintly figures often depicted in biographies for the Orthodox market, the Lithuanian sages— a godol is a great sage — are shown wrestling with the lures of secular life and with their own sometimes crusty personalities. Even as they display remarkable analytic powers in tackling the Talmud...they are mercurial and moody...they have relatives tempted by Communism...Children in the most pious homes were forsaking Orthodoxy for socialism...The head of a yeshiva in Brooklyn said last year (2002) that it would be better to buy a crucifix than to read the book. And in November (of 2002), leading sages in the United States and Israel, including three members of the Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Israel of America, the dominant traditional Orthodox group, declared in open letters in community newspapers that the book 'disgraces and denigrates our great Torah masters of past generations'...The banning edict was signed by Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, the head of Agudath Israel...Using a Hebrew term for God (Hashem), they proclaimed, 'We hereby publicly declare our decision that this book is forbidden to be brought into the community of Hashem whether into one's possession or for sale purposes." In 2003 Kamenetsky wrote a book, Anatomy of a Ban, privately printed and "unavailable to the public," with the intention to "reveal, rationalize and record for posterity the background of this ban." There are very few copies extant of Anatomy of a Ban or the first edition of The Making of a Godol.

Another victim of twenty-first century rabbinic censorship are the books of Nosson Slifkin. Slifkin's books are on the rabbinic index of forbidden

161

works. In January, 2005 posters went up in Mea Shearim, Jerusalem's largest Orthodox Judaic ghetto, announcing that twenty-three Orthodox rabbis had signed an edict denouncing the books of Slifkin. The letter read in part: "His books must be kept at a distance and may not be possessed or distributed." Slifkin, the letter-writers continued, should "burn all his writings."

Book-burning, censorship, bans and boycotts are a regular occurrence inside Orthodox Judaism. This centuries-old rabbinic drive for thought control is the root of the ongoing campaign by highbrow Zionist literary figures and the ADL to obstruct books like the one you are reading.

Non-negotiable Rabbinic Dogma About Which There is No Debate

Judaism is extraordinarily sensitive to its public image. To counter claims that it is an oppressive tyranny, it has cultivated an appearance of broad tolerance of diverse thinking, as supposedly epitomized in the paradigm of Hillel vs. Shammai. Like so much of Judaism, this is little more than a hoax. No Judaic who doubts the divine origin of the Oral Law is tolerated in Orthodox Judaism. It may be that the persecution of such a Judaic is delayed, denied or covered up with misleading rhetoric in order to deceive inquiring outsiders, but the facts, as attested by the history of Judaism, show that apikorsim (heretics) are those who deny one or more of the following sacred dogmas:

• The Divine Origin of the Oral Law (Torah SheBeal Peh)

•