Judaism discovered

The Kosher ("Kashrut") Food Racket

The Talmud does not allow the combination of meat (fleshig) and milk (milchig). The basis for the prohibition offers good insight into how the rabbinic mentality functions with respect to its attitude toward misappropriating the Bible to justify the unnecessary and burdensome prohibitions with which it oppresses its adherents. Exodus 23:19 states, "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk." ¹¹⁴⁸ This is repeated at Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21 and that is all the Bible has to say about it. The rabbis interpreted this as a proof text for prohibiting all milk and other dairy products (cheese etc.) being consumed together with meat of any kind. The rabbinic exposition of this in the Gemara alone runs from BT Hullin 113a to 115b. Thousands of additional pages in rabbinic codifications of the halachos of kashrut have been written to justify this spurious prohibition and invent a Biblical basis for it. The Judaic woman is bound with heavy burdens by having to maintain two separate kitchens, each one dedicated to either meat or dairy products, in order to keep the two apart. This needless oppression is the result of the word of mere men. The word of God decrees otherwise. In the Bible Abraham cooked meat and milk and offered them to the angel; from this scriptural fact we know that milk and meat are not prohibited.

"."

956

We see above that the rabbis of the Orthodox Union's kosher certification unit have been hosted at two public institutions: Columbia Law School and Creedmoor Psychiatric Center. Tabnudists predominate in the legal field. They may also be heavily represented at psychiatric centers, at least in New York. (Source: November, 2007 newspaper advertisement).

957

The Talmudic understanding of the food laws differs radically from the Biblical teaching. ¹¹⁴⁹ The purpose of Talmudic doctrine on kosher food is almost entirely a matter of 1. maintaining a barrier of segregation between the Judaic and the non-Judaic and 2. maintaining profit by causing food "blessed" and supervised by rabbis to be foisted on gentile consumers who incur extra cost for the "privilege" of consuming it. The rabbis maintain that, "Since even a small trace of a non-kosher substance can render a food not kosher, all processed foods and eating establishments require certification by a reliable rabbi or kashrut supervision agency." That's the financial angle.

On the home front, Judaic women must be made to suffer through the imposition of hundreds of needless rules and regulations governing their kitchens and dining rooms. The rabbis say: "Even a small trace of a non-kosher substance — as little as l/60th (1.66 percent) of the food's volume, and in certain cases, even less than that — will render an otherwise kosher food not kosher. Even the slightest residue or 'taste' of a non-kosher substance will render a food not kosher. So it's, not enough to buy only kosher food. The kitchen, too, must be made 'kosher/ meaning that all cooking utensils and food preparation surfaces must be used exclusively for kosher food, and that separate stoves, pots, cutlery, dishes, counter surfaces and table coverings are used for meat and dairy. A general rule of thumb is that any time that hot food comes in contact with another food or a utensil, the food or utensil will absorb its 'taste.' Also cold foods and utensils will, under certain circumstances (such as when the food is spicy or salty, is cut with a knife, or it sits in the utensil for an extended period of time), transmit their 'taste.' Before dishes and utensils can be used in the kosher kitchen, they must acquire an additional measure of holiness which is conferred through the ritual immersion in a pool of naturally gathered water, or mikvah. A mikvah is a specially constructed ritual pool connected to a source of pure rainwater. Vessels may also be immersed in certain natural bodies of water such as the ocean. The procedure is known as toveling (derived from the Hebrew tovel, to immerse). Immersion in a mikvah is required only for utensils that were manufactured or were ever owned by a non-Jew. Even those that were previously used without having been immersed still require immersion, after

958

thorough cleaning, and koshering if necessary. Preparation for immersion consists of the removal of any substance that would intervene between the water of the mikvah and the surface of the utensil, such as dirt, rust, stickers, glue from labels, and price markings. Steel wool and/or acetone (nail polish remover) are sometimes needed to remove all traces of surface markings. Types of vessels requiring immersion: a vessel made of metal or glass with which one eats, drinks, cooks, roasts, fries, or heats up water for drinking requires immersion with a blessing. Examples of vessels requiring immersion with a blessing include: Correlle dishes, silverware, pots and pans, glazed china, kettle, and those parts of a mixer or blender which come into direct contact with food. When immersing several items at the same time, only one blessing is said.

BA-RUCH A-TAH ADO-NOI ELO-HAI-NU

ME-LECH HA'O-LAM A-SHER

KID-SHA-NU B'-MITZ-VO-TAV VTZI-VA-NU

AL TE-VI-LAT KE-LI (KAI-LIM).

"(Blessed are You, L-rd our G-d, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us concerning the immersion of a vessel [vessels])."

Items made of two or more materials: when a utensil is made of two different materials, only one of which requires immersion, immersion is usually required. (Examples include glazed earthenware, pans with a nonstick coating, wooden handled utensils and Thermos containers). Utensils made from plastic: As regards plastic items, the need for immersion varies according to the type of plastic. Therefore, it is preferable to immerse plastic items without a blessing. Utensils that do not require immersion are: (1) those made of wood, paper, bone, or unglazed earthenware; or (2) disposable utensils such as plastic cups or plates which are not fit for long-term use and which one normally discards after using."

We will not importune the reader with the hundreds of additional kashrut rules governing the Talmudic housewife's stove, oven, microwave, refrigerator and several dozen other appliances, tools, foods, spices, condiments and gathering methods she may use in the course of cooking and food preparation. Inmates of insane asylums do not have as many manic-compulsive rituals and phobias as are exhibited in the rabbinic kitchen and blamed on the God of the Bible. Complicit in the bondage of the kosher

959

kitchen workers are those liberals and progressives together with Judeo-Churchian conservatives who all imagine that it is a decent gesture of ecumenical kindness and compassion to purchase and consume rabbinic-certified kosher foods and acquire them for their restaurants, grocery shelves and cupboards. What does uniting ourselves with the modern Pharisees who bind people with grievously heavy and needless burdens have to do with kindness or compassion? Why do so many otherwise intelligent and noble people feel they have an obligation to submit to the rabbinic agenda in order
•Not acceptable for mcnl

to feel good about themselves? It is not just individuals who are complicit. Governments are increasingly involved in partnering with rabbis in arrangements pertaining to the certification or distribution of kosher food. This lends official sanction to a hidden, religious tax paid by the consumer on his or her food.

No sin is committed before God by consuming food the rabbis label as unclean (treife). Kosher is just another instance of the imposition of unnecessary and nonsensical rules and regulations in the name of God and rabbinic notions of purity. Gentile consumers pay higher prices for kosher food (more than 80% of all food in U.S. grocery stores bears a kosher certificate). Kosher meat indicates that the animal has been cruelly killed by means of Shechitah fritual slaughter), in which the throat of the animal is sadistically severed by a shochet (kosher butcher), while it is still conscious. All kinds of junk food is certified as kosher. It's a huge racket set up to enrich the rabbis. In America almost everyone plays along so as not to be "insensitive to the needs of our Judaic brothers and sisters who have suffered at the hands of antisemites down through the ages." This extortion is

960

tantamount to claiming that a protest against paying protection money to the Mafia is "insensitive to the needs of our Sicilian brothers and sisters." Our Sicilian friends are as much oppressed by the Mafia as non-Sicilians. Those who exist under the hypnotic suzerainty of the rabbinic empire forget that Judaics are just as oppressed by the kosher food racket as non-Judaics. The whole notion that the rabbis are in general the legitimate defenders and spokesmen for "the Jewish people" is rotten to the core. Why would anyone want to claim that the intellectual dishonesty inherent in the rabbinic kosher food scam is a Judaic trait? Holiness and serving God have nothing to do with Judaism. Racketeers must be paid. Racketeers can't live affluently unless the population submits to their racket. Judaics are the first victims of rabbinic racketeers. Beyond them is the population at large. It is folly to submit to the kosher food racket in the name of the Judaic people. We are dealing with a rabbinic enterprise. The distinction must be kept ever in mind. As a rabbinic enterprise, the hypnotic dimensions of religiosity, the maintenance of "purity" and "holiness," and the spectre of "sin" and "offense to God," are upheld, when it is expedient. In Judaism as soon as God or holiness conflict with profit or potential resistance from prominent, politically powerful persons then the scam is abandoned. We can find evidence of this in the rabbinic laws themselves. Food is considered treife (unclean) in two ways: 1. by gentiles producing it without regard to rabbinic rigamarole, and 2. by Judaics failing to perform the ritual hand washing (netilas yadayim) and the correctly muttered rabbinic mumbo-jumbo prior to its consumption. Either failure renders the food "sinful" e.g. treife.

We choose to approach this investigation through a study of the rabbinic halacha on the relationship between food and its consumption by free-thinking Judaics who refuse to submit to the rabbis and who do not obey the Talmud, the so-called "non-observant" Judaics. The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 163:2 and 169:2) prohibits offering food to a fellow Judaic who will not ritually wash his hands over bread, or mumble the correct rabbinic formula before consuming the food. This has nothing to do with cleanliness. The Judaic can have hands as clean as a surgeon's before an operation and the Judaic will still not qualify as having washed his hands, unless he has performed the precisely stipulated ritual ablutions.

How can a frum (Talmud-observant) Judaic refuse a fellow, non-observant Judaic something as basic as food? The refusal is based on the

961

halachic principle that "forbids one to be an accessory to a fellow Jew's sin" (Mishnah Berurah 163:12). A Talmudist must expend every effort to avoid serving food to a Judaic who will partake of it without complying with at least the minimum requirements of the rabbinic law. Anything less constitutes being an accessory to the commission of sin. At this juncture the reader may be thinking, granted, this is somewhat bizarre but many of the practices of the great religions of the world are bizarre. Why single Judaism out for this? If they have a righteous desire to avoid committing a sin, that in itself is laudable, apart from whatever judgment we as outsiders may pass on the particular transgression in question.

Certainly that's a point of view and it might possibly have merit, if indeed its premise was correct. But the premise presumes sincerity and intellectual honesty, as well as a genuine fear of God, and none of that applies to rabbinic Judaism in this, or most any other case. The kosher food racket is just that. Appeals to holiness and avoiding sin are a ruse. Judaism's halacha was not concocted according to God but rather according to man. The raison d'etre of halacha is that God's way is too severe and requires the tender mediation and divine intervention of the merciful and humane rabbis, who have the power to suspend whatever God has enacted, as expediency and their personal whims dictate. These unscriptural enactments are legislated judicially, through precedent. Many rabbinic enactments, having no force of Biblical law, except in the eyes of the gullible or the comatose, under certain circumstances pertaining to money and power, are made to be broken when the rabbis deem it fitting to break them. In some instances they never do. In many other cases, there are numerous circumstances that allow for suspension. As noted earlier, two important considerations in determining whether something is an offense in Judaism or not, is whether it causes a loss of money and whether it offends politically powerful persons who may then become hostile to Judaism. Principles, ethics and sinning against God have nothing to do with it. Persons who bring those high-minded ideals to a study of the Talmud are lost.

A majority of poskim agree that that the prohibition against offering food to a non-observant Judaic who refused to ritually wash or recite the required rabbinic gibberish should be suspended in the following cases: 1. When the non-observant Judaic is a customer, client, business associate or potential business partner and denying him the food will cause a monetary
962

loss by adversely affecting a business relationship. In that case it is not a sin to give him the food, even if he has not ritually washed or recited the requisite "holy" words (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:13-1, 10; also cf. Meishiv Davar 1:43; Toras Chessed, O.C. 5; Maharsham 6:11; Rabbi Ezriel Hildesheimer. O.C. 28; Shevet ha-Levi 1:37).

2. If the non-observant Judaic is a politically prominent person who, by demanding of him that he ritually wash and recite the ceremonial words before eating the food, will become insulted and then use his influence to act with hostility toward the Talmud or toward Talmudically-obedient Judaics, then it is permissible to serve him the food anyway and no sin is committed (Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach, Minchas Shlomo 1:35; Halichos Shlomo 1:2-16, Orchos Halacha note #80. Also cf. the ruling cited in the name of the Chazon Ish in Pe'er ha-Dor, vol. 3, p. 195).

Here we see another example of the lawyer's trick of cheating God; of nullifying that which is a sin under one circumstance but not another, for the sake of making money or maintaining the political power of the rabbis and their followers. This ethic of fraud insinuates itself throughout Talmudic and rabbinic culture like a pernicious fog. It breeds generations of scam artists and swindlers who often perpetrate their deceit and sharp practices without being fully conscious of what it is they are doing, so accustomed are they to suspending the law when it suits their interest.

963

Business Ethics

Here is a representative example of a common trend and trait among the followers of Orthodox Judaism: "Run-of-the-mill Hasidic slumlord" Scaring my security deposit out of a slumlord. ¹¹⁵° January 16, 2008 12:30 p.m. Shady-Brooklyn-Landlord Filter: I don't have time to take him to court, but what if the notarized letter isn't enough to scare him? Last January two friends and I moved into one of those diseased, rotting apartments that blight the Brooklyn landscape. Our landlord was clearly incompetent, but the place was cheap and it was all my meager intern salary could afford. We paid in cash, since he can't accept checks, were on time with rent, made no unreasonable complaints, and were generally decent tenants.

"Things deteriorated bit by bit between us over the year, mainly due the landlord's tardiness in addressing pressing matters (no hot water, no heat in October, refusing to put peepholes on the doors and locks on the mailboxes) and by the time we moved out we were barely on speaking terms. When I started calling for the security deposit a week after we moved, he leveed these claims against us. 1. He is retroactively charging me rent for the basement that he allegedly would rent out to tenants, though it turned into a de-facto storage space that no one in the apartment building paid for but everyone still used. I never signed anything agreeing to this arrangement (nor did I do so verbally), but he seems to think he can charge $1000 nevertheless. 2. My roommate had bedbugs, twice. He exterminated, twice, though each time tried to make us pay for it. My roommate, who was most severely afflicted, agreed verbally to pay for half as she didn't know her rights. He's now trying to charge her for the full price, angering her to the point of refusing to pay at all. 3. When said roommate moved out and another girl took her place, our landlord refused to 'let' her move in, saying that she hadn't signed a lease and might insist on staying longer. However, he didn't evict the new roommate and accepted her money until our lease was up and we moved out. 4. We moved in Jan. 1st of 2007, paid rent on the first of each month (all in cash), and I notified the landlord that we would be out by the 1st of 2008. Our lease ended on the 31st of December. One roommate spent this last night at the apartment and was there in the morning to hand the
964

landlord our keys. The landlord is now ludicrously claiming that he is owed an entire month's rent for this overstay. 5. Because the two other original tenants moved out and their subletters simply paid their security deposit to the departing roommates (at the landlord's behest), two people who are not on the lease are now owed security deposits. Our landlord refuses to deal with either of the subletters and insists only on speaking to the original three tenants, though I am the only one on the lease who stayed the entire year. The two original tenants have signed waivers that transferred their claims to the security deposits to the subletters, though this hasn't changed our landlord's behavior to the subletters at all.

"I know his claims are wrong and a judge will likely favor us in small claims. The thing is, I don't want to miss a day of work to go through this ordeal. In addition to having the survival tactics of any money-grubbing slumlord, this man is also irrational, childish, and hell-bent on keeping our deposit. I have a feeling (that) due to the poor quality of the building and the fact that he rents exclusively to poor white kids fresh out of college who don't know their rights, he's not used to tenants aggressively demanding deposits and has now become irate. During calm phone calls where I attempt to settle matters civilly, he is reduced to a high-pitched treble and sometimes sounds like he's near tears.

"This is just your run-of-the-mill Hasidic slumlord who isn't affiliated with a Real Estate corp or anything of the sort, so I can't attack his superiors. We've taken the first step of sending a notified letter listing our rights to (the) money, with the final threat that he will meet us in small-claims to settle the matter. Are there other legally-intimidating measures I might take to let this dude know we mean business?" (End quote).

The preceding is one among hundreds of reports of alleged fraud and shady dealings, allegedly involving the archetypal Talmudic goniff, which have come to our attention.¹¹⁵¹

965

Yom Kippur: The Kol Nidrei Nullification of Vows

The Rabbins write, When any Jew

Did make to God or man a vow,

Which afterward he found untoward,

And stubborn to be kept, or too hard,

Any three Jews o' the nation Might free him from the obligation.

— Samuel Butler, Hudibras ^ilS2

The Talmudic "Day of Atonement" takes place on the Tenth of Tishri (in September or October), following Rosh Hashanah. (We have already elucidated the Yom Kippur kaparot ceremony and will not repeat that here). The American media reverentially showcase the pious Yom Kippur extravaganza of Pharisaic displays of penitence and purification, fasting and prayer, that allegedly give evidence of the supposed special relationship which Talmudists enjoy with God. Quite a gaudy show is made of the confessional Viduy comprising the Ashamnu and the Al het, the catalogue of sins which is meaningless as a form of self-accusation, since the Judaic recites the whole litany, whether he is actually guilty of each transgression or not. Like so much of Judaism, Yom Kippur as practiced by the rabbis is an empty tradition signifying little more than self-justification through works-righteousness. After the recitation of each transgression, one is to strike the left side of one's chest with one's right fist. This is followed by the prayer of supplication, Avinu malkenu and the Alenu, the so-called "mourner's kaddish." All of this makes an impressive Yom Kippur Eve accompaniment to the promise-breaking Kol Nidrei rite and demonstrates that rather than moving them closer to God, these ceremonies move Judaic persons who are adherents of Judaism farther away, by making God into an accomplice to deceit and oath-breaking, surrounded by a hypocritical show of piety and penance.

966

The morning and afternoon liturgies on Yom Kippur proper, are lengthy and tedious. Though officially based on a Biblical proof-text (Leviticus 16: 29-30), we can see no Biblical warrant for the Kol Nidrei rite, or for any among the usual pile of hundreds of rabbinic halachos that govern and regulate the observance of this "atonement" festival among the Talmudists.

"...the Kol Nidrei is without doubt one of the three most hateful and, for non-Jews, fateful elements of Jewish law and practice (along with the imputations to us of inherent moral turpitude and illegitimacy, and thinly veiled sanctions of murder)...This is so not only because it declares open season upon unsuspecting non-Jews for officially sanctioned yet covert deceptive practice, but worse, for the combined attitude of personal contempt for us gullible 'marks,' and inevitable moral abasement that this sort of treachery fosters in its practitioners."

—William N. Grimstad

Imputation of inherent moral turpitude:

rvD'Ditf ty tin^n orntf »jap _f»ia ny ^*nip? inyv *6 (p

T

"A Jew should not be alone with a gentile, because the gentile is suspect to commit homicide." (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 168:17)

One of the most sensitive portions of rabbinic ritual which has been the object of a certain amount of informed protest and exposure by gentiles over the centuries is the Kol Nidrei rite of Yom Kippur, which entails the nullification of all vows made in the coming year. Almost all stories about this rite which appear annually in September or October in establishment newspapers and other media, invariably falsify it, describing it as a noble plea for forgiveness and "atonement" for having broken promises in the past, which, if that were the case, would indeed be a commendable exercise. But as is customary in Judaism, the official explanation intended for the goyim is deceiving.

967

The Talmud admits there is no Biblical basis for the Kol Nidrei rite:

1:8 A. The absolution of vows hovers in the air, for it has nothing [in the Torah] upon which to depend.

Mishnah Hagigah 1:8 (a)

Moses Maimonides confirms that the Kol Nidrei rite is not in any way Biblical:

Maimonides wrote (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Haflnah, Hilkhot Shevuot 6:2): "[The absolution from oaths] has no basis whatsoever in the Written Torah."

The Talmudic law concerning the Kol Nidrei rite is as follows: "And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I make in the future shall be null." ¹¹⁵³

The reader will note that the Talmud declares that the action nullifying vows is to be taken at the beginning of the year and with regard to promises made in the future. This distinction is critical since it contradicts what the deceivers claim is a humble, penitential rite of begging forgiveness for promises broken in the past, rather than what it is, a nullification made in advance for vows and oaths yet to be made (and deliberately broken with impunity). This "advance stipulation" is called bitul tenai and it is the basis for a Judaic being absolved in advance of breaking promises that he will make in the future, or to use the rabbinic lawyer's jargon: "declaration of intent for the anticipatory invalidation of future vows."

In addition to the previously cited Talmud section at BT Nedarim 23b, we direct the reader's attention to Mishnah Nedarim 3:1 (this passage is censored in some English-language editions of the Mishnah):

968

Mishnah Nedarim 3:1:

He who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at Rosh haShanah and declare, "Every vow which 1 may make in the future shall be cancelled," provided that he remembers [the stipulation] at the time of the vow.

Rosh HaShanah marks the new year. For the Judaic to render his vow invalid, at the time he makes the vow he has to remember the "stipulation" — his cancellation of future vows that he made in the wake of Rosh HaShanah.

To all those "Christians" who, rather than seeking to rescue the pitiable Judaics who are captive to this system of institutionalized religious dishonesty, instead abandon them to it, we can only say, may God have mercy on you for the part you are playing in cooperating with the religion of Judaism in permitting more souls to be lost to the Father of Lies. It is our prayer that every precious Judaic person will find the Truth and the Law of God as Jesus expressed it so clearly, simply, and without equivocation, in Matthew 5:37: "Let your "Yes' mean Tes,' and your 'No' mean 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

Whomever dares to tell the truth about the Kol Nidrei rite must be prepared to be smeared with false witness in churches and synagogues, in the workplace and of course in the newspapers, television, radio, Internet and other media, as a hateful "antisemite." This is the ad hominem defense mechanism for keeping Judaic people mired in dishonesty and distrusted by non-Judaics who (justifiably) suspect that the word of a Talmudic Judaic cannot be relied upon. Who is responsible for this predicament? Certainly not the rabbis! Rather, Judaism holds that it is those who tell the truth about this institutionalized deceit who are to blame for any subsequent disrepute in which the oath of a Talmudist may be held:

969

Anti-Semites have frequently taken Kol Mdrei as evidence that the oath of a Jew is worthless. In the Disputation in Paris in 1240 it was attacked by Nicholas Donin and defended by R. Jehiel b. Joseph. Suspicion about the effects of Kol Siclrei on testimony given by Jews influenced the wording of the more judaico. It appeared too in the attacks of anti-Semitic writers such as *Hisenmenger, *Buxtorf, and *Wagenseil.

Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1978), vol. 10, p. 1167

The Kol Nidrei rite "...is popularly regarded as the most 'holy' and solemn occasion of the Jewish liturgical year, attended even by many Jews who are far from religion..." ¹¹⁵⁴ The popularity of Kol Nidrei is no wonder, since it allows Judaic participants to be absolved, of all contracts, vows and oaths they make and then break. This corresponds to the Talmudic lesson that God rewards clever liars (BT Kallah 51a), and it testifies to the fact that Judaism would seem to be more of a crime syndicate than a religion: "Any man, pretending to religion, who should act upon these principles, first swear, and then obtain absolution from his oath, would expose his religion to the contempt and indignation of all honest men..." (Alexander McCaul).

A candid study of Judaism's Kol Nidrei "nullification (absolution) of oaths" rite reveals the mechanics of lying, as it is inculcated in each individual adherent of Judaism. It ought to be exposed, mainly in order to rescue those Judaics who are in thrall to the "inevitable moral abasement that this sort of treachery fosters in its practitioners." But to prevent knowledge of the horrible truth about Judaism's nullification of oaths from exposure to the public at large, the rabbis and their apologists respond with a torrent of "antisemitism!" charges hurled at any researcher who dares to tread in this forbidden territory. It's rather like a chant of a witchdoctor around a jungle campfire. The chant by Talmudists and Zionists of a litany of pejorative phrases and associations such as, "Antisemitic! Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion! Stock Jew-hating epithets! Holocaust! Pogroms!

.

970

Bigotry! Hatred!" repeated over and over has significant efficacy for purposes of intimidation. Most gentile academics and scholars flee in abject terror as soon as this hoodoo is howled. And that's where the matter has stood for decades, up to our own twenty-first century. This paralysis is a disgusting datum: scholars out of cowardice, have refused to investigate and publish facts. This is a reversal of Enlightenment standards. The protection the Church once enjoyed prior to the Reformation and the Enlightenment, is now enjoyed by the synagogue. Today the memory and legacy of the medieval Church is spat upon, reviled and degraded by mainstream scholars, while the modern synagogue is as much enshrined as the medieval Church once was. Few are willing to acknowledge the irony and perversity of that substitutionary mystique. It is as if it is all very normal and natural to denounce the awe and terror the Church once supposedly inspired, while approving, either tacitly or openly, the dread which the synagogue inspires now.

A better standard is to establish the truth for its own sake, without recourse to worries over the hurt feelings and outrage of those who may take offense at truth. This seems right and just and the basis of any civilization worthy of the name. We are sorry that Judaism institutionalizes lying, and that its chief characteristic after self-worship, is the expert practice of deceit. If this had been halted by Judaics themselves long ago, we doubt we would need to dredge it up in the present, except as a historical footnote. Instead, Kol Nidre is an integral pillar of a proud, resurgent and assertive religion that continues to announce to the world that it is the standard-bearer of justice and ethics. Why have we not the right to challenge this imposture? Only the demands of rabbinic supremacy over our churches, our society and our minds, forbids it. Tyranny is tyranny, whether rabbinic or not, whether concealed and protected under a mountain of "Holocaust/Antisemitism" platitudes or not — these cliches being patently self-serving in their transparent objective of chilling free inquiry into what Judaism actually believes and teaches. It is our mission to bring this knowledge to mankind and no hate-filled rabbi, consumed by his own fears and malice and seeking to project those traits of his onto knowledge-seekers and free-thinkers, is going to frighten us into silence or self-censorship. Christian Hebraist Alexander McCaul assists the project of res ipsa loquitur:

971

"A religion which is plainly contrary to any of the Divine attributes, must necessarily be false. For instance, God is a holy God: a religion, therefore, which would promote unholiness could not have the Holy One of Israel for its author. God is also a merciful and a just God: a religion, therefore, which is characterized by cruelty or injustice, cannot proceed from him; and for this reason, among others, we believe that the religion of the oral law cannot be that true religion which God gave to Moses and the prophets. The oral law is most unjust in its laws respecting Gentiles, slaves, and unlearned men, and most unmerciful in very many of its enactments. But if there be one attribute more than another, which is distinctive of the true God, it is truth. In the prophecies of Jeremiah, He is even identified with truth, as it is said: The Lord God is Truth.' (Jer. 10:10.) And in that prediction, which he put into the mouth of Balaam, he says, that it is by this attribute that he is distinguished from the sons of men. 'God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?' (Numbers 23:19.)

"Men may be wicked enough to promise what they do not intend to perform, or after promising, may change their mind, and refuse to fulfill their engagements; but God is 'too holy' to deceive willfully, or to alter what has proceeded out of his mouth. A religion, therefore, which in any wise tends to lessen our reverence for truth, or encourages men to alter a solemn engagement, or, what is still worse, teaches how to absolve from oaths, cannot proceed from the God of truth; and this is what the oral law does in certain cases.. .The doctrine itself is as follows:

972

"...Here it is plainly taught, that if a man has reason to fear any personal inconvenience, or even if he changes his mind, he may escape from the most solemn obligation that can be laid upon the consciences of men; and that, after appealing to God in confirmation of his declaration to do or to leave undone some particular action, one or more of his fellow-sinners can remit his duty to his Creator, and give him a license to do the very contrary of that which he had promised before and unto God, that he would do.

"Now let every Israelite reader first consult his own reason, and reflect whether this doctrine is agreeable to the character of God, as set forth in the Scripture. The God of the Bible is a God of eternal and immutable truth. One of his peculiar characteristics, that he keeps covenant and mercy. A man, therefore, who breaks his word, and still more so, a man who breaks an oath, is unlike God. Is it probable, then, that God would give a religion with a special provision for making men unlike himself? Again, God is a God of knowledge, and therefore knows that the children of men are in a great degree the children of habit; he knows also that by habit the evil propensities are strengthened, and that there is in men a strong propensity to shrink from their word, if it cause any trouble or damage: is it likely, then, that God would give a law directly tending to strengthen that evil propensity by forming a habit of breaking one's word, even under the solemn circumstances of an oath? Reason decides that such a law cannot proceed from the God of

973

Israel. Has it then any support in the written Word of God? It would be strange, indeed, if the Word of God should contain anything contrary to reason. As revealing the nature of Him who is incomprehensible, it may contain things above our reason: but that in giving laws for man it should give him license to do what his reason tells him is directly opposed to the character of God, is altogether incredible.

"The rabbis, themselves, however, do not endeavor to justify the doctrine by a reference to Scripture. They say, in plain terms, This matter has no foundation whatever in the written law,' and thus acknowledge that it is altogether a matter of tradition, the argument against it, therefore, becomes doubly strong. Everyone knows, that a story loses nothing by passing through many mouths, but that in the course of its progress it gets so many additions, and undergoes so many changes as at last to be scarcely recognizable. This circumstance makes all oral tradition uncertain and unsatisfactory, but is particularly suspicious when it appears, not only opposed to the Scripture character of God, but also favorable to the evil propensities of man. If it had exacted a more scrupulous regard to truth and a willing submission to hardship and inconvenience for the sake of truth, then, as opposing the principles of self-interest, it would have been less suspicious; but when it actually tells men that to do what may save them from worldly trouble or personal disadvantage is a Divine institution, one cannot help suspecting that it is an invention of men, who found it convenient occasionally to escape from the obligation of an oath. But after all, the great arbiter must be the written Word of God. The rabbis say, that it has been learned from Moses by oral tradition, that the words, 'He shall not profane his word' mean that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of levity, but that he shall go to a wise man and get absolution; let us then read the whole verse from which those words are taken.

'If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.' Now let any man of common sense and honesty say, whether if it had been God's intention to forbid all absolution from oaths, He could have employed words more to the purpose than these; or whether the plain simple grammatical meaning is not directly opposed to the Rabbinic doctrine? God says, Tf a man swear, he shall not profane his word.' The rabbis say, he may profane his word. To prevent all mistake, God further

974

adds, 'He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.' The rabbis say, he need not do what proceeds out of his mouth; and yet they have the face to tell us, that their doctrine is from Moses, and is the traditional interpretation of words which signify the very reverse of what they say.

"It is only wonderful that they should have referred to this verse at all, and the fact can only be accounted for by the supposition that this verse was too plain to be got over, and therefore they thought it best to take the bull by the horns, by selecting this very verse as the basis of their interpretation. That this verse in its grammatical construction is directly opposed to the oral law no one can doubt, for it forbids what the rabbis allow, and commands what the rabbis forbid.

"But the opposition is not found in this verse only. The other verse to which the rabbis also allude is equally plain against it. The words, *Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God. I am the LORD,' plainly forbid that absolution from oaths which the rabbis teach not only as lawful, but as of Divine authority...A sinful falsehood is a willful departure from truth; here is that willful departure. Who, then, will dare to affirm, that such conduct is not contrary to the express command of God? Rabbis sometimes say, that though the oral law sometimes commands more than is commanded in the Scriptures, it never allows what God has forbidden; but here we have a plain example to the contrary. Here the oral law allows false swearing, which God has positively forbidden. The doctrine of absolution from oaths teaches men to transgress three negative precepts. The man who swears to do anything and then does it not, because he has got absolution, violates, first, the negative precept, 'He shall not profane his word;' he violates, secondly, the negative precept, "Ye shall not swear by my name falsely;' and, lastly, he violates a negative precept more important than either of the others; and that is, 'Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.'

"...Let, then, every Israelite who thinks that the negative precepts are more important than the affirmative, remember, that in this one instance the oral law teaches him to violate three such precepts...How can the men who profess such a religion pretend to have any regard for the law of Moses, or how can they with any consistency reproach Christians with the non-observance of the ceremonial precepts, when they themselves profess religious principles which unceremoniously subvert such plain commands?

975

"The second case is, however, far more flagrant. It supposes a man to have sworn that he would not do a certain thing, but afterwards willfully to have done it — that is, it supposes a man to have been guilty of willful perjury, and yet declares that he may be delivered both from the guilt and the punishment, by going to a rabbi and getting absolution. This oral law, which would flog a poor starving creature for eating Gentile food or meat and milk together, devises an expedient for delivering him who is guilty of the grave crime — of perjury — that is, though cruel to the poor, it is merciful to the criminal. If this be not to violate the laws of God with a high hand, then we know not what sin is.

"Here both classes of the precepts, negative and affirmative, are treated with the same contempt; both equally trampled under foot. The guilty are absolved, not only from doing what God commands, but from the penalty of actual transgression. The rabbis presume not only to absolve a man from doing what he has sworn to do, but also to turn perjury actually committed into innocence. They have assumed the high prerogative of God, have abrogated his laws, and taught the guilty to set his threatenings at defiance...

"Now, then, we call on every reader to decide whether the oral law can really be from God? Has this doctrine of absolution from oaths anything resembling the character of the Divine Being as a God of Truth? Is it possible that God should give an oral law directly subversive of that which he has given in writing; or will anyone dare to say that the Almighty, when he wished to give a law permitting absolution from oaths, knew so little of the Hebrew language as to enunciate it in words which directly forbid it?...(T)he oral law is dishonoring to God, subversive of the commands given by Moses, and injurious to the best interests of the Jewish people; nay, that it is actually a libel on the children of Abraham; and that, therefore, if they have any love to God, any reverence for Moses, and any respect for themselves and their brethren, they are bound publicly to renounce the principles which it inculcates, and by which they have been deluded for so many centuries.

"It is possible to do one of two things — either to approve the doctrine of absolution from oaths — or to disapprove of it. Those who approve of it will, of course, endeavor to uphold it, and will thereby continue the profanation of God's name...Those, who disapprove the idea of a rabbi's absolving from a solemn oath, and think that oaths are not to be tampered with, are bound not only to protest against this particular abuse, but to reject the whole oral law.

976

The rabbis declare that this doctrine is not an ordinance of the Scribes, but an oral tradition from Moses; if then it be false, the rabbis are again convicted of passing off an invention of their own as an ordinance of God, and are therefore wholly unworthy of credit.

"The oral law depends altogether upon the validity of the testimony, and if the witnesses can be proved, in any one instance, to have spoken falsehood, the credit of the whole is destroyed. Now this is eminently the case, for not only have they said what is false, but have endeavored to establish a principle subversive of all reverence for truth. It would be difficult for any man, who was known as one in the habit of getting dispensation from oaths, to find belief or credit in the world, and he would scarcely be admitted as a valid witness in a court of justice; but the man who propounds dispensation from oaths as a religious doctrine, and teaches it systematically as agreeable to the will of God, is a more suspicious person still, and such are the authors of the oral law. The former might be regarded as a deluded person, who only broke his oaths when he got dispensation, but the latter would be considered an artful underminer of principle, and a willful despiser of truth; his testimony would, therefore, have no weight.

"Now, it is upon the testimony of such persons that the authority of the oral law entirely depends. It is confessed, that until the Mishnah and Gemara were compiled, there was no written record of its contents, but that it was propagated from mouth to mouth. If, therefore, it appear that those who transmitted it were men whose love for truth was equivocal, we cannot be sure that they did not transmit a forgery. The doctrine, which we have just considered, shows that they did not love truth, and that they have actually libeled the memory of Moses, the servant of God, by asserting that he taught them how to get absolution from oaths.

"...Every one naturally thinks that his own religion is the true one. The Muslim thinks thus of Mahomedanism, the Christian of Christianity, and the Jew of Judaism, and yet it is plain that they cannot all be right — two out of the three must necessarily be in error. What then is to be done? Are they all to go on in listless and lazy indifference, and leave it to another world to find out whether or not they have been in the right, or are we to lay it down as a maxim that everyone is to continue in that religion in which he was born, whether right or wrong, and that therefore the Turk is to remain a Muslim, and the Hindu an idolater, to his life's end? There are very many in the world
977

who seem to think so, and who adhere to a religion simply because it was the religion of their forefathers. Now we grant that no man should carelessly or lightly abandon the religion of his childhood, and have no scruple in saying that he who changes his religion as he would his clothes, must be a fool, or something worse. But we must say, at the same time, that he who retains his religion, merely as a matter of prejudice or interest, is not a great deal better, and can hardly be considered as a rational being. Every being, whom the Creator has endowed with reason, ought to have a religion and to know why he prefers it to all others.

"Perhaps some reader will say, I have a religion, I am a Jew, and I prefer this religion to all others, because God himself gave it to Moses on Mount Sinai. To this we reply, but how do you know that you have got the religion of Moses? If you really had Moses' religion you could not be wrong, but how can you prove that the religion which you now profess is really that true religion? Your fathers in the times of old often forsook Moses and the Prophets, and taught their children a false religion. How then, can you be sure that this is not the case with what you have got at present?...The Judaism of the present day must be compared with the Law and the Prophets. If it agrees with them, then the Jews have reason to believe that they are in the right; but if not, then they must be in the wrong.

"Our own firm conviction is that modern Judaism is altogether spurious, and plainly opposed to that religion which God gave to your fathers. The doctrine of dispensation from oaths is sufficient to prove this...But we have more objections still to make against that doctrine, and all confirm the conclusion to which we have come...

978

■

"He that has a vow upon him, with respect to profit from his neighbor, is not to be absolved, except in that neighbor's presence. How is this proved? Rav Nachman says, it is proved by the words, 'And the Lord said unto Moses, in Midian, Go return into Egypt; for all the men are dead which sought thy life;' he said to him, In Midian thou hast vowed, go and get absolution from thy vow in Midian, for it is written, 'And Moses was content.' (Exodus 2:21.) Now this word means nothing else but swearing, as it is written, 'And he took an oath of him.' (Ezek. 17:13.) It is further proved by the words, 'And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God.' (2 Chron. 36:13). What was the nature of his rebellion? Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit, whereupon Nebuchadnezzar said to him, Swear to me not to reveal this, nor to report the matter. Zedekiah swore, but afterwards he was grieved, and went and got his oath absolved and told. Nebuchadnezzar heard that they despised him, and sent and fetched the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah, and said to them, Ye see what Zedekiah has done, although he swore by the name of God not to reveal the matter. They said to him, He got a dispensation from his oath. He said, Is it lawful, then, to get dispensation from an oath? They said, Yes. He said again, Is this to be done in the other's presence or absence? They say, In his presence... (BT Nedarim, fol. lxv. 1.)'

979

"This passage not only illustrates the doctrine of dispensation, but throws much light upon the character and knowledge of the men from whom the tradition is derived. In the first place, it shows a strange confusion of mind to derive, 'he was willing/ from 'he sware'; but it is stranger still, out of this mistranslation, to invent a story of Moses having sworn and got absolution; but the most strange of all is, that anyone should be found who can believe this a sufficient warrant for the doctrine of dispensation from an oath made to a fellow-creature. If even it were true, as the rabbis say, that Moses had sworn to Jethro not to return into Egypt, still this is not a case in point; for Moses did not get absolution from any third person, but received express permission from Jethro himself to return, as we find in the chapter referred to, where it is said, 'And Moses went and returned to Jethro, his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, 'Go in peace.' (Exod. 4:18.) If there was any oath, we see that it was dispensed with not by a wise man, nor by any third person or persons, but by him to whom the oath was made. This passage is, therefore, decidedly against the Rabbinic doctrine, and therefore the Rabbinic doctrine cannot be true.

"The second case cited by the Talmud is still stronger, as a testimony, both against the system and the men. It tells us that Zedekiah swore to Nebuchadnezzar not to betray him in a certain matter, which no law, either of God or man, compelled him to divulge — that he swore by the name of the God of Israel, and yet that after this most solemn transaction, he did what he had sworn not to do. He betrayed a man from whom he had received kindness, and equally disregarded the obligations of gratitude and the sacred ties of an oath — in short, that he committed perjury. This is in itself bad enough; but the Talmud proceeds further to tell us, that this was not his own individual act, but the solemn decision of the Supreme Council of the Sanhedrin. Zedekiah did not perjure himself without having advice. He went to the Sanhedrin, and they absolved him from the obligation of the oath, and that contrary to their own maxim, that an oath sworn to a neighbor cannot be absolved, except in his presence.

"Here, then, the Talmud plainly confesses that the Sanhedrin did wrong, in fact, that they were aiders and abettors in Zedekiah's perjury; that, therefore, they were men who had no regard for truth, and no fear of God;

980

and, consequently, that no man of any common sense would believe a single word that came out of their mouths. What, then, becomes of the whole fabric of Jewish tradition? It depends altogether upon the unimpeachable character of the various Sanhedrins through whose hands it passed. If, therefore, we should find that any one Sanhedrin consisted of notorious liars, the genuineness of the oral law is at an end. But here the Talmud itself tells us that even before the deportation of Zedekiah, the Sanhedrin consisted, not of common liars, but of false swearers, of men who had so little regard for the name of the Lord, as to absolve a solemn oath of which that name was the safeguard." ¹¹⁵⁵

).

981