Noahidenews239

… Moshe Tendler, an Orthodox rabbi and biologist who teaches at Yeshiva University, was one of the leading spokesmen against the Oslo Accords. In a long phone conversation, Tendler said that for several weeks he has been trying to enlist Orthodox rabbis and organizations for the struggle against the evacuation. He says that not only is he encountering refusal and evasion - but many are accusing him of interfering in Israeli politics.

Tendler, who has 53 grandchildren and great-grandchildren living in Israel, some in settlements, participated in a visit to Gush Katif organized by Moskowitz. He says he speaks out everywhere, but nobody is listening, and he tells his rabbinical colleagues that even the Shin Bet security services and Israel Defense Forces commanders say that after the disengagement the terrorism will resume.

UNLESS THERE IS NOAHIDE ENSLAVEMENT

Tendler says that U.S. Orthodox rabbis and organizations are not willing to join a public struggle against the evacuation, and points out that all of a sudden, the religious organizations have decided that a protest against uprooting Jews from their homes is not politically correct.

Tendler recently turned to the leaders of Young Israel, a mainstream Orthodox organization that includes dozens of synagogues in North America, and suggested that they use their influence to organize a protest march in Washington against the disengagement. He says that with the help of other organizations, Young Israel could enlist 50,000 Jews for such a march, but that they ignored his suggestion, not even bothering to reply to it.

The head of Young Israel, Rabbi Pesach Lerner, says in response that he doesn't recall such a request by Tendler. Lerner confirms that Orthodox rabbis are refraining from openly opposing the disengagement.

Lerner adds that the silence of the rabbis reflects "fatigue and confusion." He says that people are simply tired and confused, and don't understand exactly what's going on. Sharon was the "father of the settlements," and suddenly he is uprooting them, he says.

Lerner is trying to enlist support for Gush Katif settlers outside the Orthodox organizations. He says that synagogues and other bodies in the U.S. raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for the buses that transported the thousands of Israelis who visited Gush Katif during Pesach.

Tendler is particularly angry at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU), which is considered the most influential Orthodox organization there. He says the OU is has been deliberately refraining from expressing an opinion on the disengagement. A few weeks ago, the organization initiated a videoconference with the head of the Disengagement Administration, Yonatan Bassi, with the participation of Orthodox rabbis and activists.

"The discussion was an embarrassing failure," says one rabbi who participated in the meeting.

OU president Steve Savitsky and his deputy, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Weinreb, say they have reservations about the disengagement plan and are very concerned about the planned evacuation of settlements and the uprooting of thousands of Jews. But they say that their organization is adhering to its long-standing policy of supporting official positions of the Israeli government.

Savitsky says that senior Israeli officials told him that Israel will not implement the road map peace plan before the Palestinian terrorist organizations are dismantled.

Noahide Law imposed

He admits that the OU is upset about the disengagement, but says they support the government and the prime minister.

Collective paralysis

of shemborg

Rabbi Shraga Schoenfeld, one of the most well-known and admired rabbis in New York, has serious complaints about his colleagues. He says that in general, U.S. Orthodox rabbis are "paralyzed." He says that in private conversation, rabbis express opposition to the uprooting of settlements, but that his attempts to organize a public protest have been fruitless. He says that the rabbis are afraid to speak out, and adds that Sharon has apparently "bewitched" them.

Schoenfeld is the former head of the Rabbinical Council of American (RCA), the largest organization of Orthodox rabbis in North America. Recently, he says, he suggested to the heads of the RCA that they publish a statement protesting against the uprooting of settlements and the evacuation of settlers. He says that the proposal was rejected firmly and out of hand. The heads of the organization told him that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate had refrained from taking an official stand against the disengagement.

Recently, he turned to the leaders of Agudath Israel in America, an ultra-Orthodox organization, and tried to convince them to publish a protest against the disengagement. They replied, he says, that educational issues are more important to them than the evacuation of Gush Katif.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, former chair of the New York Board of Rabbis, says that the passivity of local rabbis on the issue is to a great extent the result of lessons they learned from the murder of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. He says that they discovered that words and declarations can be very dangerous. Schneier says that one of the reasons why rabbis are afraid of declarations against the evacuation of Gush Katif and refrain from criticism of Sharon is that the disengagement plan is supported by U.S. President George W. Bush.

Quite a number of rabbis are angry about the support of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the U.S. Jewish umbrella organization, for the disengagement. The head of the conference, Malcolm Hoenlein, is Orthodox.

"I don't understand what happened to the Presidents Conference," says one rabbi. "I don't recall that the conference supported the Oslo Accords. But it decided to support a plan that is worse and more serious than the Oslo Accords."

Rabbis who were interviewed for this article expressed a strong desire for authoritative spiritual leadership;

Mooshiyuck

in their opinion, its absence has created an oppressive vacuum. "There is no Orthodox rabbi in America today who is accepted by most of his colleagues and who is capable of ordering that a Torah scroll be taken out into a city street as a step of protest and sorrow," says a veteran New York rabbi, who was one of the main spokesmen against the Oslo Accords.

It is no wonder that some of the interviewees long for the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who dictated priorities and patterns of response on current issues to much of U.S. Orthodox Jewry, for example, on the question of who is a Jew.

"Since the death of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, there is nobody to lead a public debate on an issue that involves Israeli security," one of the rabbis said.

Having analyzed in previous shiurim some of the different aspects inherent in monarchy, the time has come to direct our attention to individual components of the halakhic system of government.

Which of the various possibilities for selecting a king does the Torah endorse? Actually, the formulation of the Torah itself is ambiguous. On the one hand, the narrative states that the people will set a king upon themselves (Devarim 17:14 - "Ve-amarta asima alai melekh"). On the other hand, the king is described by the Torah, in the very next verse, as being chosen by God.

In the Sumerian Doctrine of the Sanhedrin this god who is not the ONE LORD GOD, is the chief of the devils, the DRAGON

The Ramban, who points out the discrepancy between the two verses, quotes the opinion of "the commentators" (da'at ha-mefarshim) who explain that the choice of the king is in God's hands, made known to us by means of the urim ve-tumim or the prophet. The first verse, which describes the people as choosing their king should be understood to mean that they shall coronate the person chosen by God. The Ramban himself, however, believes that it is the people who appoint the monarch, offering various other suggestions to understand the phrase that the king will be God's choice.

It is he the Creator who sends this false Christ upon an ungodly people and to Judge them according to their laws and blasphemy

A third approach is adopted by the Rambam who combines the two elements, ruling that both the Sanhedrin (High Court) and a navi (prophet) are required.

The Sanhedrin Revived beat from the sea Revelation of Jesus the Christ chapter 13, and the Dragon will give this king his seat and power and authority

Actually, the Rambam is fusing together two Tannaitic sources. The Tosefta (Sanhedrin 3:4) states that the Sanhedrin is required to appoint a king, while the Sifri explains that the prophet determines God's choice.

Rather than assuming that the two sources disagree, along the lines of the Ramban and "the commentators," the Rambam posits a system which accepts both elements as necessary to appoint a monarch. What is the relationship between the functions? Obviously, if the navi selects a person as being worthy of the position, the Sanhedrin would not be able to contradict his choice, for they cannot dare claim that their knowledge or information is better than his. "For man can see the eyes, but God sees into the heart." Therefore, we must understand the Rambam as requiring human participation in order to establish an additional source of authority. Though the prophet is the ultimate search committee, whose ruling is final, the Sanhedrin must be involved as representing the people.

Their acceptance and appointment of the king establishes the monarch as deriving his authority from the people's election.

1: And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2: And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

The Sanhedrin do not function here in their judicial but rather in their representative capacity. By involving the Sanhedrin in addition to the prophet, the Rambam roots the monarchical powers in the will and acceptance of the nation.

What great folly they have raised upon their unbelieving anti-Christ nation and the earth apostate and oblivious

The same point is explicit in a gemara in Berakhot (55a), though in somewhat of an aggadic context.

Even though the Almighty has chosen Betzalel, He requests that the people also participate in the selection. Moshe's reaction is that since God Himself has made the decision, what need is there for any additional input? After all, the proper choice has certainly been made.

being they they say in their law that God said they are as gods, the walah, there you have it, built in authority. Except the sad part is, he by whom the Laws were given they Crucified and cried out then as well as this time "Give us a king to be over us" then they cried, Crucify him and give us the "ROBBER". They deny that God has come in the flesh, and their god is not the Father, but the murderer from the beginning, who has no SON. Apostate Judeo Churchinsanity are now in bed with their whoredoms and they too say the non-god of the jews is now their god, and they are also anti-Christ, they say LORD LORD but their mammonizing fleshite hearts are far fromthe LORD the WORD GOD

The Almighty, though, responds that the participation of the people is necessary, not in order to select the best candidate, but in order to provide him with the necessary mandate for his authority.

[The idea of the Sanhedrin functioning as the representative body of Am Yisrael, at least in the Rambam's doctrine, is well established and has been advanced by various Acharonim, basing themselves upon the Rambam's formulations in Hilkhot Terumot 1:2 and Hilkhot Melakhim 5:2. See Rav Soloveitchik's article on kiddush ha-chodesh in Kovetz Chidushei Torah and Rav Goren's discussion in the opening essay of his sefer Meishiv Milchama, amongst others. See also Prof. Blidstein's book, "Ekronot Medini'im," p. 58. Actually, as pointed out by Prof. Blidstein, the Rambam himself already formulated this very idea in his Peirush Ha-mishnayot on Horayot (1:6). There, the Rambam states explicitly that the Sanhedrin is "Kahal Yisrael bi-khlaliyuto" (The Congregation of Israel in its entirety).]

14: And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

Having concluded that the Rambam requires a mandate from the people and therefore rules that the Sanhedrin must be involved in the selection, we must now look into the role of the prophet. Is he serving only as a search committee, better equipped than mere mortals to identify the proper candidate, but not invested with any special authority, or does he also serve as the representative of Divine authority? In other words, is the source of monarchical power rooted only in a human source of authority or is a Heavenly source required as well? The implications of this for our current situation are obvious. If the only necessary source of authority is the decision of the people, then it is available nowadays, no less than in yesteryear, and open to democratic as well as monarchical heads of government. If, however, Divine authority is also required, then we can only grant legitimacy by means of a prophet or the urim ve-tumim. (Other possible sources of authority for democratic functions will be discussed in future installments, b"n.

The halakhic expression of this query is the issue whether a navi (prophet) is required only le-khatchila or also be-di'eved. If we support the former position that the navi is no more than a search committee, then his involvement is not crucial.

sorry folks the false prophet comes after Sanhedrin abnd the false king Moshiach...Because he is not of the Father

Rv:13:11: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

If he can assist in the selection process - thank God; if not, then Beth Din (the court) will apply their own judgment.

For, even since Ezekeil dug into the Wall and saw the abominations the seventy ancients have done in the house of ISREALHELL, they have not had their Authority from the Living God of heaven. When they Crucified the LORD they served the Dragon, and that is why they hate GOD.

However, the latter position maintains that God must grant His authority, and therefore the navi is indispensable. The Keren Ora, in his commentary on Horayot (11b) seems to suggest that this issue is a machloket (dispute) between the Talmud Bavli and the Yerushalmi.

The tradition which Makes the WORD of GOD of none effect to them and their Sanhedrin of the Dragon, this Mishnah Torah of ORAL Lies

The Bavli is of the opinion that any leader accepted by the people is considered a king, while the Yerushalmi, which states that all Israelite kings after Yehu were thieves (since they were not appointed by a prophet), insists upon the authority of the navi alone to grant the mantle of monarchy.

And Both are Liars and in complete err and lead the children into the abyss of the dragon

He also quotes a Tosafot (Sanhedrin 20b) that requires election by God in order to exercise royal authority, since Divine authority alone can grant one man power over his fellow man. In contrast to this Tosafot, the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna (Keritut 1:1) raises various scenarios regarding the accession of a prospective king, including popular acclaim, use of force, appointment by a navi, the Sanhedrin or Kohen Gadol, all of which are recognized as granting him royal authority.

The Only Power comes from the KING of KINGS the IAM, Jesus the Christ, Our LORD and OUR GOD the same redeemer from the beginning the same Word from the start. Whom they Replaced with their "replacement Theology" unto the Sumerian gods they worship by their own admittance

Two other well-known sources who address this issue are the Radvaz (Melakhim 3:8), who opines that a king may be chosen either by a prophet or by the people, and Rav Kook, who ponders this issue in a teshuva (Mishpat Kohen 144:15) and tends to accept the first option, that a navi is dispensable, thus paving his way for legitimizing the Hasmonean kingdom.

Thus, the question of the necessity of Divine involvement in the appointment of a king is the subject of a (possible) machloket between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi and between Rambam and Tosafot, and is also the subject of further discussion in Acharonim.

Having presented the above mentioned opinions, we cannot yet conclude this segment without connecting them to the issues and concepts dealt with in previous shiurim. Throughout all of the above discussion, we did not disbetween different functions of royalty. However, as we explained in previous shiurim, it is obvious that not all halakhot (Law) relating to a melekh (King) can be lumped together without analyzing their essential nature. Therefore, we must now proceed to review our conclusions in light of this. As a starting point, we may take a remark of Rav Kook's in the closing lines of the responsum cited above. Having been questioned as to the right of the Hasmoneans to wage war (a royal prerogative) and concluding that they were legitimate rulers since appointment by a navi is dispensable, he adds the following:

wars and murders are their primary thoughts. Then when they "REVEAL" their murderer he will murder the saints of Jesus the Christ wonderfully

The truth of his remarks rings loud and clear. As long as we are concerned with the public weal - what we defined as issues of malkhut (government) rather than personal status - it is eminently logical that the people have the ability to grant the authority and prerequisites of power to a ruler (or, in the absence of a monarchy, to any governing administration set up by the people). To the extent that a navi is needed, it is only for matters pertaining to the king's personal status. Conversely, if we accept the claim that the Davidic kingdom confers a personal sacral status, that clearly can be authorized by Divine authorization alone.

How they set up the Fall of secular zion, Aholibah the whore Judah, Sharon, to place False king Moshiach of their dragon

Thus, the sources cited above must be analyzed as to which element of monarchy they are dealing with. Since both the Bavli and Yerushalmi are discussing the issue of korban nasi (leader's sacrifice), they are obviously disagreeing; however, it is not necessarily a machloket regarding the legitimacy of the governing authority, but rather a narrower question of whether the korban is a function of personal status or abuse of power. The Radvaz makes his comment regarding the halakha of mored be-malkhut; Tosafot discuss mishpat ha-melekh (royal privileges); the Rambam deals with the halakha of anointing a king after a disputed succession;

Regarding each, a separate analysis must be made. At the moment, we will not undertake this task; however, we must point out that the issue at stake may be the understanding of each particular function and its relationship to the varying royal elements, rather than a sweeping machloket as to the need for a navi to legitimize royal power and person.

In conclusion, it is worthwhile to point out that the Ramban also claims, basing himself on the phrase, "Ve-amarta asima alai melekh," that the people's request of a king is itself part of the mitzva, (Law requiremement) requirement which would indicate that the source of authority is rooted in the people, who must express their willingness to establish a human king over themselves.

PROTOCOL No. 7

Ha'aretz: Rabbi Moshe Tendler Upset With OU, Young Israel Over Disengagement – RCA's Rabbi Fabian Schoenfeld Turns To Agudath Israel But Is Rebuffed – No Leadership Without The Lubavitcher Rebbe?