Part 937

4-1-2010- 2007 AD of Our LORD Jesus the Christ the Creator

Talmudic Dragon Moon Calendar  Nisan 18, of Talmudic

 Perpetual PURIM MURDER

  5770      

 

their Babylonian times of their  Babylonian Sumerian Doctrine and laws 5769

Ps:118:24: This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

 

 The FINISH 

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

 

The invisible, unknowable, untouchable, ghostlike, so called nobody knows, "Illuminati" of the propagating misdirecting useful anti-Christ yiddiots of the chews religion

• Illuminati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Illuminati (plural of Latin illuminatus, "enlightened") is a name that refers to several groups, both historical and modern, and both real and fictitious. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati - Cached - Similar

• Illuminati Conspiracy Archive: ConspiracyArchive.com

  The Illuminati has become synonymous with the one world conspiracy. Conspiracy Archive will keep tabs on the New World Order.
  www.conspiracyarchive.com/ - 20 hours ago - Cached - Similar

• The Illuminati

  Are the Illuminati and the Masons connected? Here's some information to help you decide.
  www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm - Cached - Similar

• Image results for illuminati

 

Sin-Hedrin who crucified Christ, Sinhedrin, aka.....the Beast

The revelation of Jesus Christ sent by his angels unto John on the Isle of Patmos

13:1: 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.

THE VILNA GA'ON (ibid.) supports Rashi's interpretation. He explains that when Sanhedrin sat, ten (of the most important members) sat in the middle of the group, and they were surrounded by the other sixty. These are the "sixty mighty men *around* the bed of Shlomo. (The ten in the middle correspond to the seven "Ro'ei Pnei ha'Melech" and three "Shomrei ha'Saf," who are closest to the king, in a king's court -- and in the king of king's court -- see Megilah 23a. The verse in II Melachem 25:19, which associates these authoritative members of the king's court with sixty other men, is discussing the members of the Sanhedrin.

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.

they will "reveal" their false Christ Moshiach ben David soon

 

Socialism, Communism and capitalism has been merged for their New "Old" Babylonian World anti-Christ Odor

3: And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4: And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5: And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

No the world will not end in 2012, but many will wish that it would

6: And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7: And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8: And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9: If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10: He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
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.
12: And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13: And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14: And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15: And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18: Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/masechet_sanhedrin_14a20b/

Sanhedrin 16a-b

According to the Mishnah (2a) one of the tasks assigned to the Great Sanhedrin of 71 judges is to make a decision regarding embarking on a milhemet reshut - a war that is not required. The Me'iri explains that a mihemet mitzvah - a war that is obligatory - would be one that involves capturing or defending the Land of Israel from its enemies or fighting against the nation of Amalek. Such situations are left to the discretion of the king who will decide if the army should go to war. A war that would engage the Jewish army in a fight between two other countries, would illustrate Israel's might to its enemies or would stem from economic factors would be a milhemet reshut that would require a decision to be made by the Great Sanhedrin.

To illustrate this point, the Gemara shares a story about a day in the life of King David, who awoke at midnight and was visited by the elders (learned elders of Tzion) at dawn. (Keep in mind that all of this is anti-Christ babylonian Talmudic perversion and fables and has nothing to do with the WORD of GOD) The elders described the need to invigorate the economic base of the people. David's first suggestion - that the people would do business with each other - was rejected as insufficient with the parables "a single handful of food does not satisfy a lion, and a pit will not be filled merely from its mouth." Upon hearing their responses, King David suggested calling up the army and going out to war. This was done only after a series of consultations - with the king's advisor, (False Prophet)  Ahitofel, with the Great Sanhedrin and with the prophecy of the Urim Ve-tumim.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion states, in Protocol 1,

 

"Our government, following the line of peaceful conquest, has the right to substitute for the horrors of war less noticeable and more efficient executions, these being necessary to keep up terror, which induces blind submission. A just but inexorable strictness is the greatest factor of governmental power. We must follow a program of violence and hypocrisy, not only for the sake of profit, but also as a duty and for the sake of victory."

 

Protocol 3 states,

 

"The modern constitutional scales will soon tip over, for we have set them inaccurately, thus insuring an unsteady balance for the purpose of wearing out their holder. The Goys thought it had been sufficiently strongly made and hoped that the scales would regain their equilibrium, but the holder—the ruler—is screened from the people by his representatives, who fritter away their time, carried away by their uncontrolled and irresponsible authority. Their power, moreover, has been built up on terrorism spread through the palaces. Unable to reach the hearts of their people, the rulers cannot unite with them to gain strength against the usurpers of power. The visible power of royalty and the blind power of the masses, separated by us, have both lost significance, for separated, they are as helpless as the blind man without a stick.

 

To induce the lovers of authority to abuse their power, we have placed all the forces in opposition to each other, having developed their liberal tendencies towards independence. We have excited different forms of initiative in that direction; we have armed all the parties; we have made authority the target of all ambitions. We have opened the arenas in different states, where revolts are now occurring, and disorders and bankruptcy will shortly appear everywhere."

 

Protocol 7 states,

 

"In short, to sum up our system of shackling the Goy governments of Europe, we will show our power to one of them by assassination and terrorism, and should there be a possibility of all of them rising against us, we will answer them with American, Chinese, or Japanese guns."

 

Protocol 9 states,

 

"When we are enthroned we will substitute for the liberal words of our Masonic catchword, 'Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,' another group of words expressing simply ideas, namely, ‘the right of Liberty, the duty of Equality, the ideal of Fraternity.’ Thus we will speak and. . . we shall have the goat by the horns. . . . De facto, we have already destroyed all governments except our own, although de jure there are still many left. At present, if any of the governments raises a protest against us, it is done only as a matter of form, and at our desire, and by our order, because their anti-Semitism is necessary to enable us to control our smaller brothers. I will not further explain this, as it has already been the object of numerous discussions.

 

In reality there are no obstacles before us. Our supergovernment exists under such extra-legal conditions that it is common to designate it by an energetic and strong word—a Dictatorship.

I can honestly state that at the present time we are lawmakers; we are the judges and inflict punishment; we execute and pardon; we, as the chief of all our armies, ride the leader's horse. We rule by indomitable will because we hold in our hands the fragments of a once strong party now subject to us. We possess boundless ambition, burning greed for merciless revenge, and bitter hatred.

Unglorious Bastards

From us emanates an all-embracing terror. People of all opinions and of all doctrines are in our service; people who desire to restore monarchies, demagogues, socialists, communists, and other utopians. We have had to put all of them to work; every one of them is undermining the last remnant of authority, is trying to overthrow all existing order. All the governments have been tortured by this procedure; they beg for peace, and for the sake of peace are prepared to make any sacrifice, but we will not give them peace until they recognize our international super-government openly and with submission.

The masses have begun to demand the solution of the social problem by means of an international agreement. The division into parties has delivered all of them to us, because in order to conduct a party struggle money is required, and we have it all.

We might fear the union of the intelligent power of the Goys' rulers with the blind power of the masses, but we have taken all measures against such a possibility. Between the two powers we have raised a wall in the form of mutual terror; thus the blind power of the people continues to be our support, and we alone will act as its leader and, naturally, we will direct it towards our goal.

You may say that there will be an armed rising against us if our plans are discovered prematurely; but in anticipation of this we have such a terrorizing manoeuver in the West that even the bravest soul will shudder.

Underground passages will be established by that time in all capitals, from where they can be exploded, together with all their institutions and national documents."

Sick paranoid chewish satan worshippers of the synagog of Satan, Sinhedrin and their Noahide anti-Christ proselytes of hell

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/01/1011432/court-attack-on-building-is-hate-crime

 

 

Attack on building is hate crime, N.Y. court rules

April 1, 2010

(JTA) -- A person can be guilty of a hate crime even if his victim is a building and not a person, a New (Chew) York court found.

The state's Court of Appeals affirmed Tuesday that Mazin Assi's conviction under New York's hate crimes statute for throwing firebombs at a Bronx synagogue in 2000 was valid.

Assi was convicted in 2003 of attempted arson and criminal mischief as hate crimes and sentenced to five to 15 years in prison. In an appeal, Assi claimed that his conviction under the hate crimes law should be reversed since he attacked property and not a person.

"It is self-evident that, although the target of the defendant's criminal conduct was a building, the true victims were the individuals of Jewish faith who were members of the synagogue," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote in the court's opinion, according to the New York Daily News.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/bar/bar153.htm

NOTE ON THE SANHEDRIN.

The Synedrion (συνέδριον) called in Aramaic Sanhedrin, was the Supreme Court of the Jewish nation. It is invested with an awful interest, as having been the tribunal, which deliberately rejected the Messiahship and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ,—a decision to which the Jewish people have adhered up to the present time. As its name implies, it was a kind of senate, established during the Greek occupation of Palestine, which preceded the Maccabæan period, and is not, f as the Jews think, a continuation of the seventy elders appointed by Moses. It seems to be mentioned in 2 Mac. i. 10; iv. 44; xi. 27; under the name of the Council (ἡ γερουσία). To speak accurately, there were three Sanhedrins—two smaller, and one great one. The two smaller ones seem to have served as standing committees of the general body. The chief president was called "Prince," and the vice president "Father of the House of Judgment." When priests, elders, and scribes are mentioned together, the Great Sanhedrin is meant. The Rabbis say that to be an ordinary member of the Sanhedrin, a man must have been wise, handsome, aristocratic, old, a magician, and able to speak seventy languages, that the Sanhedrin might not need an interpreter. It is said to have had ten "flittings"—from the chamber in the temple to the shops in the outer court; from the shops in the outer court to Jerusalem; from Jerusalem to Jabneh; from Jabneh to Osha; from Osha to Shepharaam; from Shepharaam to Bethshaaraim; from Bethshaaraim to Sepphoris; from Sepphoris to Tiberias. To make up the number ten, it is said to have flitted backward and forward twice between Osha and Jabneh. These flittings began forty years before the destruction of the Temple.

The Presidents are stated to have been,

Ezra,

Simon the Just,

Antigonus of Socho (the Master of Sadoc),

Joseph, son of Joezer; P. Joseph, son of Jochanan. V. P.

Joshua, son of Perachiah, fled to Alexandria, from Alexander Janneus.

Judah, son of Tabbai, P. Simon, son of Shetach. V. P.; they were remarkable for hanging eighty witches in one day.

Shemaiah, P. Abtalion, V. P., descendants of Sennacharib; supposed to be the Sameas and Pollio of Josephus.

Hillel P. Shammai, V. P. Hillel was likened to Moses. At forty years of age he came to Jerusalem; forty years he studied the law; forty years he was president.

Simeon, son of Hillel, supposed to be the one who took our Saviour in his arms.

Gamaliel, son of Simeon (teacher of St. Paul). When he died the honour of the law and purity died also.

p. 367

Simeon, his son (slain in Jerusalem).

Jochanan, son of Zaccai.

Gamaliel of Jabneh, son of Simeon.

Simeon, son of Gamaliel (first patriarch of Tiberias).

Judah, son of Simeon.

Gamaliel, son of Judah.

Gamaliel of Jabneh is said to have been deposed for a time from the presidency, and afterwards restored with Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Azariah, as joint president. The reason of his deposition is said to have been his want of judgment in dealing with Rabbi Joshua, who said that "prayer is a thing arbitrary," while he taught it to be "a bounden duty." Whereupon he made the Rabbi stand while he expounded the law. The congregation resented this as a sign of pride and passion, and elected Eliezer who was but sixteen years old but very grave. Rabbi Akiba was offended that he himself was not chosen, and said, "it is not because he is more learned, but because he is of nobler birth—happy is he who has ancestors to privilege him—happy is the man who has a nail to hang on." "And what was the nail of Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Azariah?" "He was tenth from Ezra."

http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php/The_Re-established_Jewish_Sanhedrin

This website is about the re-established Jewish Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin is the name given in the mishna to the council of seventy-one Jewish sages who constituted the supreme court and legislative body in Judea during the Roman period. It continued to function for more than four hundred years after the destruction of the Temple and there have been several orthodox attempts to re-establish it since that time. The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is generally referred to as the "nascent Sanhedrin", or the "developing Sanhedrin".

Here are the seven of the Ten

The SEVEN

13:1: 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.

THE VILNA GA'ON (ibid.) supports Rashi's interpretation. He explains that when Sanhedrin sat, ten (of the most important members) sat in the middle of the group, and they were surrounded by the other sixty. These are the "sixty mighty men *around* the bed of Shlomo. (The ten in the middle correspond to the seven "Ro'ei Pnei ha'Melech" and three "Shomrei ha'Saf," who are closest to the king, in a king's court -- and in the king of king's court -- see Megilah 23a. The verse in II Melachem 25:19, which associates these authoritative members of the king's court with sixty other men, is discussing the members of the Sanhedrin.

 

http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php/Current_members_of_the_Nascent_Sanhedrin

The authorized representatives of the Sanhedrin are as follows:

Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz Teacher, philosopher, social critic and prolific author who has been hailed by Time magazine as a "once-in-a-millennium scholar." His lifelong work in Jewish education earned him the Israel Prize, his country’s highest honor. Born in Jerusalem in 1937, Rabbi Steinsaltz studied physics and chemistry at the Hebrew University. Following graduation, he established several experimental schools and, at the age of 24, became Israel’s youngest school principal. In 1965, he began his monumental Hebrew translation and commentary on the Talmud. To date, he has published 38 of the anticipated 46 volumes. The Rabbi’s classic work of Kabbalah, The Thirteen Petalled Rose, was first published in 1980 and now appears in eight languages. In all, Rabbi Steinsaltz has authored some 60 books and hundreds of articles on subjects ranging from theology to social commentary. Continuing his work as a teacher and spiritual mentor, Rabbi Steinsaltz established a network of schools and educational institutions in Israel and the former Soviet Union. He has served as scholar in residence at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies in Washington, D.C. and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University. His honorary degrees include doctorates from Yeshiva University, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Bar Ilan University, Brandeis University, and Florida International University.

Rabbi Yoel Shwartz An outstanding Torah scholar and prolific writer has published over 200 seforim. He is a product of the great Yeshivot Poneviz and Mir and merited to study with the famous Rosh Yeshivah of Yeshivat Mir, Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitch zt"l. As a past Mashgiach in Yeshivat Itri and currently a Ram in Yeshivat Dvar Yerushalayim, Rabbi Schwartz brings scores of years of experience in Torah education to the Nahal Haredi. Rabbi Schwartz has served as a spiritual advisor and educator since the inception of the program in 1999. He resides in Jerusalem with his wife, children and grandchildren.

Directly under these are four more rabbis who, together with the above three, are the democratically-elected leadership council of the Sanhedrin. They are (not in order of seniority):

Rabbi Dov Levanoni Torah scholar and author of ha-Mikdash: Teur Bet ha-Mikdash ha-Sheni lefi shitat ha-Rambam HaMikdash : a description of the Second Temple according to the Rambam.

Rabbi Yisrael Ariel A former Yeshiva head and founder of the Machon Hamikdash. Rabbi Ariel was the Rosh Yeshiva and spiritual leader of Yamit. Rabbi Ariel is a scholar of great renown, and is also the author of many Hebrew works, including the highly acclaimed "Atlas of the Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel." He served in the paratrooper brigade which liberated the Western Wall in the Six Day War of 1967, and was one of the first soldiers to reach the Wall.

Rabbi Yehudah 'Edri Torah Scholar and accomplished writer, a principal and educational supervisor for the hareidi Shas Party´s El HaMa´yan educational system Expert on the various opinions regarding the history and location of the Mikdash and its measures.

Rabbi Dov Meir Shtein Received semikha for the Rabbinut from Rav Sternberg of Edas Hareidi. A pioneer in the Sanhedrin's renewal for the last 20 years, he has been secretary of the Sanhedrin since its inception, dealing with logistical aspects as well as interacting with recognized Torah scholars and inviting rabbis to join the body.

The seven-member leadership council (above) convenes on weekly basis within a larger court of ordained rabbis from the general ranks of the Sanhedrin that grows steadily, in the ongoing development of a full Sanhedrin Qe`tanah (small Sanhedrin) to lead the Sanhedrin.

The leadership of the developing Sanhedrin stress that they are still in a transitional phase, and that though today's members are Torah scholars and experts in many secular and scientific fields, every one of them has agreed to step aside the moment a more deserving candidate should step forward.

4: And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.  ...  Full support will be given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance offered where necessary.  Jewish courts ... will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts. 

The pre-existing Noachide judges and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha....  ....  And law and order will be fully restored through the establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with Torah law. — Committee for Israeli Victory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8600285.stm

 

 

Thirteen Israeli air strikes hit Gaza Strip

 

The strikes hit several places in the Gaza Strip

Israeli planes have carried out 13 air strikes on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, Palestinian sources have told the BBC.

Four of the strikes took place near the town of Khan Younis, where two Israeli soldiers were killed in clashes with Palestinian fighters last week.

The Israeli military has told the BBC the operation was targeting four weapons factories.

The strikes are the most serious for more than a year, says the BBC's Jon Donnison from Jerusalem.

The director of ambulance and emergency in the Palestinian Ministry of Health, Dr Muawiya Hassanein, said that three children including an infant were slightly injured by flying debris.

Witnesses and Hamas officials said the Israeli raids targeted metal workshops, farms, a milk factory and small sites belonging to the military wing of Hamas.

'Retaliation'

"Israel will not tolerate terroristic activity inside Gaza that threatens Israeli citizens," the Israeli military said in a statement released to the BBC.

Palestinian news agencies reported that Israeli aircraft dropped leaflets over parts of Gaza on Thursday warning residents of retaliation for last Friday's killings of the soldiers in Khan Younis.

They were the first Israeli soldiers to be killed in hostile fire in Gaza in over a year. The military wing of Hamas claim responsibility for those attacks.

Hamas said police stations and training facilities were among the targets of Israel's overnight raids.

Tensions in the region are running high after a recent Israeli government announcement of plans to build 1,600 new homes for Jewish people in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as a capital of a future state.

Militants in the Gaza Strip have recently stepped up rocket fire directed at Israel.

On Wednesday, they fired a rocket into an empty field in southern Israel, but there were no reports of casualties or damage, military sources said.

 

 

Mt:5:11: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Mt:10:18: And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

Mt:10:22: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mt:10:39: He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Mt:16:25: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Mt:19:29: And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Mt:24:9: Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Mt:24:22: And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Mk:8:35: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Mk:13:9: But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

Mk:13:13: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mk:13:20: And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

4: And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Satan's ShemmyGOG, SinHedrin

 

http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php/Psak_5767_Tevet_6e

What about those who hold "that person" is messiah?

Mk:13:9: But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

Question: What about those who hold "that person" is messiah?

People who hold that he is not and was not any part of a divinity, but still holds that he was a messiah.

Answer: It is the opinion of Rabbi Schwartz that a person who believes that "that man" was a messiah is not transgressing any prohibition. However the issue is as follows: someone who believes that "that man" was a messiah seems to be only partly disassociating himself from full christianity, and there is a problem of what is meant by the term "messiah". Is the messiah a "divine messenger" to "save" the world. Now when I say "a divine messenger" I mean someone - otherwise normal human being - sent by "the divinity" as a messenger. It seems that some people mean "a person with divine attributes"!

An issue which could be seen as semantic becomes of major consequence.

The decision of Rabbi Schwartz is therefore that in the beis din over which he presides he will not accept declarations of people with christian background if they think that "that man" was a messiah. This DOES NOT MEAN that the declaration of such a person before any [other] beis din is valueless. Perhaps another beis din will be satisfied that the person before them is bona fide in acceptance of the totally non-divinity of "that man". They may accept the declaration, and it will be fully valid

Zohar Torah portion of Va'era page 32a

...In the future, the children of Yishmael will rule over the Holy land for a long time while the land is empty, just as their circumcision is empty and without completion. And they will hinder the children of Israel from returning to their place, until their merit in the Holy land runs out. In the future the children of Yishmael will stir great wars in the world. And the children of Edom [the West] will gather against them, and make war with them, one on the sea, and one on the land, and one by Jerusalem; and each one will prevail over the other but the Holy land will not fall to the hands of Edom. At the same time, a nation from the end of the world will be awakened against wicked Rome.(Rome here is said to refer to the spiritual center of western civilization) and it will make war against her for three months, and many nations will gather there, and they will fall by her hand, until all the children of Edom will gather against her from all corners of the earth. And then G-d will awaken Himself against them, as it says, "a sacrificial slaughter for the Lord in Batzra", and it says, "to shake the corners of the Land". And after this, the children of Yishmael will be finished from the world. And all the supernal powers of the nations will be broken, and no power will remain above except for the power of Israel alone.

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/empire/2009/12/2009122284925717630.html

What future for 'Greater Israel'? (Eretz Itsreallyhell)

What future for the "Greater Land of Israel"?

Six decades after its founding, Israel has grown into one of the world's top 20 industrial states, with GNP (General National Product) superior to all its neighbours combined.

Thank you so much Marakan Judeo-Churchinsanity Taxpayer

With an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, and one of the most advanced air forces in the world, Israel promotes itself as the Middle East's most powerful military and one of the world's five leading arms exporters.

Greatest thief and murder of all top nations....back to you Bob

Priding itself on being a Western-type democracy; (Noahide demonicrazy)  Israel has always sought close relations with empires and superpowers, underlining its estrangement within its own region.

Thanks to decades of preferential treatment by Western superpowers, Israel has had its cake and eaten it too. It has occupied, annexed and exploited Palestinian and Arab lands with impunity, and at the same time received over $100bn as the West's foremost ally in the Middle East.

Not to mentions the TRILLIONS Stolen

Israel's control over the Occupied Territories has radicalised its own society and identity as much as it has deformed that of the Palestinians. And yet, despite all, Israel's borders remain undrawn, its capital unrecognised, its Jewishness unaccepted, and its security in question.

SICK SICK SICK anti-Christ Itsreallyhell

 

Today, after two failed wars in Lebanon and Gaza and a deadlocked peace process, Israel's moment of truth has come ...

Now the world knows the TRUTH of ITSREALLYHELL, But woe unto the earth for her

A radical right-wing coalition government (Hasidic anti-Christ Talmudic Chabad controlled SinHedrin and Netandyahoo)  in Israel is determined to press ahead with the expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and Palestinian territories occupied in 1967.

Palestinians refuse to accept anything less than a total freeze on all settlements but they are divided on the best way forward - diplomacy or resistance.
 
The all-powerful US is powerless. Since the election of Barack Obama, the US president, and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, relations have become stifled.

Is Israel still a strategic asset? Was it ever? Or is it a strategic burden? Obama staked his presidency on a breakthrough, but his efforts have stumbled at the first hurdle.
 
The United Nations continue to issue toothless resolutions with no impact on the ground. Is it left to the European Union to make the running with yet another vague overture?
 
The diplomatic vacuum leads to more unilateral policies and a radicalisation of both sides that could escalate the conflict even further. So how can the international community end an illegal occupation that has lasted for four decades? Is a two state solution still possible, or one state or no state!
 

The GOOD NEWS

ITSREALLYHELL

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

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

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

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

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

 

Well Maraka, and my fellow TRUE Christ believers, we are finally arrived to the time that all the Prophecies of Jesus spoke of. Beware of the Talmudic Televangelist Tinky Winky Mammonite Telly Tubbies, for they prophecy for the Master Race of the anti-Christ Choose and they Hate this Jesus who is Christ. Soon, things will begun to unfold and deteriorate so fast many will simply slay themselves for what is come upon them. I bid that you all Fall face forward and pray that the Lord will come quickly. And that the LORD himself slay all them who refused him and who slay mankind.

_____

Casting Purim Lot for the Chooish Lotto of Chabad of 770

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/89689007.html

7-7-7-7 costs Pa. Lottery bigtime

By Peter Mucha

Inquirer Staff Writer

Talk about your lucky 7s.

Wednesday night, all 7s came up in Pennsylvania Lottery's Big 4 drawing, resulting in a whopping $7.77 million payout to 3,107 winning tickets.

Even more oddly, the news comes on a day when the Super 7 jackpot is $7.3 million, and Cash 5's top prize is $770,000.

The Big 4 payout was a staggering 1,573 percent of sales, according to lottery spokeswoman Kirstin Alvanitakis.

In other words: The lottery has to dish out about $7.2 million more than it took in for that drawing.

"We definitely lost money on the Big 4, that's for sure," Alvanitakis said. "But it's great for our players. People love to play quadruple numbers."

"It's definitely not an April Fools joke," she said.

A key factor is that Big 4's winning amounts are fixed - they're not a cut of cash collected. A 50-cent wager fetches $2,500, a $1 bet $5,000.

Also, 7-7-7-7 is extraordinarily popular. Most Big 4 drawings produce far fewer winners. Wednesday's midday drawing had 104 winners, and Tuesday evening's game was hit by 250 people, Alvanitakis said.

Luckily for the state, quadruples - popular with players - are rare. The last quadruple drawn was 2-2-2-2 on Sept. 2, 2008. All together, the 1,236 winners raked in $3.09 million.

Only two other times has 7-7-7-7 come up since Big 4 began in November 1980.

This big payout - 15 times the amount taken in - suggests questions about the soundness of Big 4's setup. This would seem to wipe out the revenue from more than two weeks of sales.

Such exceptions are not surprises, Alvanitakis said.

"We operate our numbers games with the expectation that when triples or quadruples hit we will lose money," she said. "Drawing triples and quadruples is great for the large number of our players who enjoy playing these number combinations."

Besides, there is a safeguard. "We have a sales cutoff of $10 million for Big 4 for any number combination - including quadruples - to ensure Lottery's liability does not exceed its ability to pay winners," she said.

Despite the big payout, the game still made money for March, she said.

On average, quadruples should happen every 1,000 drawings, since there are 10 such sequences (0-0-0-0, 1-1-1-1, etc.) out of the 10,000 possible combinations.

____

http://blog.beastwatchnews.com/2010/01/26/2010-year-of-the-first-pesach-sacrifices-on-temple-mount-in-over-2000-years/

2010: Year Of The First Pesach Sacrifices On Temple Mount In Over 2,000 Years?

This Passover 2010 could prove to be a turning point in Bible prophecy because this could be the year of the annual return of Passover sacrifices on Temple Mount.  Thanks to a reader of Beast Watch News, this information comes to my attention.

This prospect raises all kinds of questions and excitement. [A] poster by the name of made4eternity at Fulfilled Prophecy emailed the Sanhedrin to ask the burning questions. Below is an excerpt of the questions and answers from The 70th Week Blog.

Question: Do you intend to use the newly built alter? I understand it is mobile. I have also heard that other tools have been prepared for use.

Sanhedrin’s response: Yes

Question: Another very important question I would love to know, do you intend to erect any kind of tent or portable Tabernacle?

Sanhedrin’s response:
No need for a tent. The sky is enough. But every step is depended on the permition of the secular government of Israel. Mean while the government is afraid from the Arabs. And afraid of changing the Jews attitude to the religion following such act.

Question: Surely the Israeli government will soon realize nothing will appease the Arabs and it is time to move forward in Israel’s best interest?

Sanhedrin’s response:
There is a difference between the state ISRAEL and the nation ISRAEL. The state Israel is a state of 2/3 Jews 1/3 non-Jewish the majority of this 1/3 are hating the nation ISRAEL. About 1/3 of the Jews are assimilated Jews who reject in some way their Jewish identity and they are behaving like traitors (This is a result of the long time being spread among Non-Jewish – 2000 years). To this balance add the international pressure which is operated on Israel only, because Israel is not a mad state, and Israel is Of Jews which means beat again the Jews, and Israel has not oil, and what remain from the Jewish nation is 14,000,000 persons instead of 500,000,000 persons (if not the continues holocausts during 2000 years), and because the Muslims are counted 1,500,000,000 and their political power is very great, and the pope (That leads more or less another 1,500,000,000 persons) wants, silently behind the walls, continuously, to erase Israel from the earth because it’s existence made theological problem to Christianity, and the leadership of the Israeli state does not claim the right for Israel because it was s gift from G-D but uses secular reasoning (because it is a secular leadership) that are useless. All these together means that the government of Israel is not reacting well against outside pressure and from time to time it’s relation toward Jews worst than it happened to Jews in another country.

Question: Regarding the Temple, is it already built and ready to be transferred to the Temple Mount?

Sanhedrin’s response: No

Question: If not, will it take long to build?

Sanhedrin’s response:
Depending upon the resources that will be invested in the project. According the existing technology it may be finished during 3 months.

Question: Or, do you have a tent/tabernacle such as was used in the wilderness in the days of Moses?

Sanhedrin’s response:
No tent will be constructed! It is contradictory to the Torah. The tent of Moses was a temporary unique event in history.

This is the first time a “notified” Pesach has been attempted in over 2,000 years.  What is a “notified” Pesach? It is not just an attempt by the Priesthood to hold a Passover for themselves or Jews in Israel, as was done previously, but they have invited - “notified” - the entire world’s Jews to attend in 2010. In fact, the Sanhedrin has strongly encouraged the world’s Jews to travel to Jerusalem this year for this purpose by stating “The spiritual imperative of Korban Pesach is so strong that failure to participate can bring karet or spiritual cutting off from the nation”. Apparently, the hope is that Jews will fear being cut off from their nation enough to come to Jerusalem this year.

Will the Jews be able to conduct a Passover on Temple Mount this year? Only Abba knows the answer to that question, but it is not likely according to one source. Remember, the Jews have been attempting to simply place a cornerstone for the Temple on the Temple Mount for almost 20 years without success. 

In 2007, the Sanhedrin planned the sacrifice, but did not announce it on the web. Authorities in Israel were aware of the plan and denied them. 

2008 was the year in which the Passover lamb was  sacrificed in an apartment near the Mount of Olives.

In 2009, it is believed someone was arrested for attempting to sacrifice on Temple Mount. But also in 2009, the Korban website of the Sanhedrin’s Initiative came online. Also in 2009, they started building a model sacrificial altar and in December 2009 they stated this altar was completed.

Now, in 2010, we have the Sanhedrin notifying the world of their plans and calling Jews worldwide to attend using the threat of being cut off for not participating in the Korban Sacrifice.

The one effect this could have is the overwhelming number of Jews that could be in Jerusalem at Passover this year. The Sanhedrin may be counting on an overwhelming number of attendees so that they can forcibly sacrifice on Temple Mount. This move on the part of the Sanhedrin is the most brazen regarding the Pesach sacrifice so far.

This could be another of the many reasons 2010 will be dubbed “The Pivotal Year”.

___

The Fallen away and partnership with the Beast

Jn:16:2: They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=172307

The war of the roses

By GIL HOFFMAN
02/04/2010 02:35

PM says no to Christian gift of friendship flowers, so as not to upset Obama.

Has the fight between US President Barack Obama and Israel become so fetid that it can overcome the fragrance of nearly 10,000 roses?

That appeared to be the case on Thursday, when officials in the Prime Minister’s Office made clear that they cannot accept a donation of 800 dozen yellow roses from American Christians who were upset by reports of Obama’s treatment of Binyamin Netanyahu in the White House last week.

Florida-based radio host and author Janet Porter was so incensed by what she thought was Obama’s inappropriate behavior that she called upon her listeners to give Netanyahu yellow roses to symbolize friendship, with each bouquet costing a symbolic price of $19.48.

The response was overwhelming as Christian supporters of Israel went online to the Web site of Porter’s Faith2action organization and ordered the flowers, which were to be accompanied by a card with the words, “Be encouraged, Americans stand with you,” along with a quote from a psalm: “The Lord builds up Jerusalem.”

Rv:11:8: And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


Porter contacted respected Beit Shemesh-based florist Richard Kovler, who would be ready to deliver the huge amount of flowers after Pessah ends next week. But he needs someone in the Prime Minister’s Office to receive them.

When Kovler contacted the appropriate Netanyahu adviser, he was told that the Prime Minister’s Office could not get involved, because Netanyahu must be very careful to avoid anything that smacks of disrespect for the president at such a sensitive time.

Kovler said it would be a shame if he went to Netanyahu’s official residence in Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood and was forced to leave the flowers in the street.

“I understand the politics of why the prime minister cannot publicly support this effort, but on the other hand if these flowers are rejected, it could also cause a lot of anger among the literally thousands of American Christians who are just trying to show Israel some very much needed goodwill,” Kovler said.

“It looks like [Netanyahu’s advisers] are spitting in the face of these friends, even though Obama could be out of office in less than three years while these friends will be with us for a long time.”

Kovler said he would donate a portion of the proceeds from the flowers to charity. One possible solution for where the flowers could go was Jerusalem’s two Hadassah hospitals. But hospital officials turned down the gift, because they were worried about the impact of that many flowers on patients with allergies.

Porter told The Jerusalem Post that she believes Netanyahu could still be persuaded to receive the flowers, despite the anti-Obama message that she is not trying to hide. The quantity of flowers donated was expected to rise after Porter spoke at an anti-Obama rally at Washington’s Lincoln Memorial on Thursday.

“We are sending a message in a beautiful way that Obama needs to learn how to treat friends,” Porter said. “The prime minister needs to know that the Obama administration doesn’t speak for Americans. I want his office to be covered with flowers. All of Israel should know that the US people stand for Israel with the sweet aroma of encouragement.”

She went further in a column for the Web site WorldNetDaily, in which she expressed outrage that after US Vice President Joe Biden came an hour and a half late to a dinner in Jerusalem hosted by Netanyahu, when the prime minister came to the White House, Obama left the meeting in the middle to go have dinner with his family.

“I never heard whether Prime Minister Netanyahu was at least offered table scraps from Obama’s table,” she wrote. “No, those, I’m sure, went to the dog, who was treated far better than the leader of Israel.”

Porter is the president and founder of Faith2Action, which aims to turn people of faith into people of action to win what she calls the cultural war for life, liberty and the family. She has a nationally syndicated daily radio program, is a correspondent for Christian networks, and is the author of the book The Criminalization of Christianity.

Netanyahu’s spokesman responded by promising that the issue would be dealt with in a professional manner.

Because, IT is Written

ALL, whose names are not written in the Lambs Book of life, shall worship their Beast

Satanic spirituality

Publicly Deny Jesus, and make their acceptance oath unto Satan, and receive the Mark of the Beast

Can buy and sell for they have the Mark of the Beast

_____

Maraka, a Talmudic Anti-Christ Common wealth of the satanic chews

Rv:13:8: And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism: What the Noahide Laws Tell Us About Citizenship and 
1 
Alienage 
By: Gidon Rothstein, PhD 
Gruss Scholar in Residence, NYU School of Law, 2003-20004 

Abstract: This article argues that the Jewish picture of the Noahide laws, laws thought to 
apply to all non-Jews but particularly to those who would reside in a Jewish 
commonwealth, can shed light on how to balance a strong sense of citizenship with 
reasonable policies towards Lawful Permanent Residents. The article enunciates models 
for how to adapt the provisions of one legal system to another, shows that the Noahide 
system demanded that non-Jews accept fundamental aspects of a Jewish worldview in 
order to live among them, and then applies those lessons to argue for a reinvigorated view 
of American citizenship and a reconsideration of the meaning of lawful permanent 
residence. 

The inherent tension between emphasizing the importance and exclusivity of 

citizenship and extending a kind hand to aliens has come to the fore in recent academic 

literature in the United States. Offering rights too easily to non-citizens minimizes the 

value of citizenship itself, a problem for those who wish to promote strong identification 

with the country.2 The overriding desire to help aliens, many if not most of whom inhabit 

difficult lives in the lower socioeconomic classes of society, spurs others to argue for 

expanding the rights of lawful permanent residents (LPR’s), even to where they are 

indistinguishable from those given to citizens.3 

1 I have appended both footnotes and endnotes to this essay; the footnotes list citations and clarify 

points in the text. The endnotes take up ancillary issues, those not worth inserting into the text itself. 
2 For examples of arguments for strengthening citizenship, see in IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP IN 

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, ed. Noah Pickus, (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998): Charles R. 
Kesler, The Promise of American Citizenship 3-39, David A. Hollinger, Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, 
and the United States, 85- 99, and Noah M. J. Pickus, To Make Natural: Creating Citizens for the Twenty- 
First Century, 107-139. Prior to that collection, important briefs for this view included Frederick Schauer, 
Community, Citizenship, and the Search for National Identity 84 MICH. L. REV. (June 1986) 1504-17, Peter 
H. Schuck, Membership in the Liberal Polity: The Devaluation of American Citizenship GEORGETOWN 
IMMIGRATION LAW J. 3:1 (Spring 1989), 1-18, and William N. Eskridge, Jr. The Relationship Between 
Obligations and Rights of Citizens 69 FORDHAM L. REV. (2001) 1721-1751. 
3 Those in favor of loosening citizenship rules and/or extending greater rights to all aliens (not just 

Lawful Permanent Residents) include IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, 
ibid, the following chapters: Kwame Anthony Appiah, Citizenship in Theory and Practice: A Response to 
Charles Kesler 41-47, Joseph H. Carens, Why Naturalization Should Be Easy: A Response to Noah Pickus 
141-146, and Hiroshi Motomura, Alienage Classifications in a Nation of Immigrants: Three Models of 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 2 

Underlying the debate is a disagreement about the purpose and value of 

citizenship, especially when it is counterpoised to the sticky questions of when or 

whether it is proper to discriminate against or deny benefits to people based on their lack 

of membership in a certain club. This article suggests reasons why, and a model for how, 

to distinguish between citizens and lawful permanent residents. 

We do so by extrapolating from a system that articulated the two categories fairly 

fully, Jewish law. While Jews were bound by the commandments of the Torah, they also 

envisioned another set of laws, known as the laws of the sons of Noah or Noahide law,4 

which applied to all non-Jews.i While it was universal, classical Jewish sources also saw 

Noahide law as a kind of immigration law, in that the Talmud—the authoritative source 

of Jewish law, edited around 500 CE—set agreement to adhere to Noahide laws and 

standards as a fundamental requirement in order to be allowed to live in a Jewish 

commonwealth.5 That was already only a theoretical possibility for the rabbis of the 

Talmud and ever since, but studying the system’s expectations of resident aliens sheds 

light on how one group of thinkers balanced their keen interest in a strong sense of 

“Permanent” Residence, as well as T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Citizenship, Aliens, Membership and the 
Constitution 7 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY 1990 9-34, Linda Bosniak, Universal Citizenship and the 
Problem of Alienage 94 NORTHWESTERN U. L. REV. (2000) 963-982 and Constitutional Citizenship Through 
the Prism of Alienage 63 OHIO ST. L. J. (2002) 1285-1325, and Peter J. Spiro, Questioning Barriers to 
Naturalization 13 GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION L. J. (Summer 1999), 479-519. 
4 The term Noahide comes from the Jewish view that all people today descend from Noah. The Talmud 

bSANHEDRIN 56a, actually seems to assume that the commandments were originally given to Adam; why 
they are referred to as Noahide laws is something of a continuing question, but one that need not detain us 
here. 
5 See Maimonides (c. 1138-1204, whose MISHNEH TORAH, an attempt to codify all of Jewish law, 

whether currently practical or not, we will cite frequently), LAWS OF IDOL WORSHIP 10;6, based on bGITTIN 
8b. Note that Maimonides himself prohibits even temporary passage for non-Noahides; his glossator, 
Rabad (R. Abraham b. David of Posquieres, 1125-1198) disagrees. Maimonides’ view would argue for an 
even stricter view of how to treat aliens than we offer in the text. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 3 

citizenship with a desire to act fairly and reasonably towards outsiders who wished to 

reside among them. 

We will see that even when they saw themselves as thinking universally, Jews 

were remarkably particularistic in their expectations of non-Jews.ii Resident aliens in a 

Jewish polity were required to accept fairly specific and fundamental aspects of the 

Jewish worldview; once they did so, they were welcomed into Jewish society. Since, 

however, they did not fully attach themselves to the Jewish way of life, they also only 

received some of the benefits of citizenship. 

The particularism of the Noahide laws, we will argue, is simply an example of the 

necessary particularism of all legal systems, which always implicitly espouse a particular 

worldview in the details of their laws. Citizens are those members of a society who 

accept that way of looking at the world, of how society should work, of how citizens need 

to treat each other and outsiders, and of the proper ways to work for change and 

improvement within that society. Those who wish to fully join in the endeavor of 

furthering the prosperity of that society and worldview will become citizens; those who 

sympathize with essential aspects of the society but choose not to join it fully cannot then 

expect the full benefits of the system that they have chosen not to join.6 Those who 

refuse to identify with the society’s goals and values in even a limited way should not 

expect the right of permanent residence, and perhaps not even residence at all. 

6 Some of this work was anticipated by Gordon Lafer, Universalism and Particularism in JEWISH 

IDENTITY eds. David Theo Goldberg and Michael Krausz, (Phil.: Temple U. Press, 1993), 177-211. Lafer, 
too, explicitly wants to offer a model of universalism and particularism that will be reasonable and 
attractive even to liberal theorists. At the same time, p. 183, he refrains from translating the Jewish model 
into an American one, assuming that cultural translation can only offer insights, some of which may be 
relevant and acceptable to the receiver of that translation. I assume here, instead, that offering my view of 
how the Jewish model translates to American culture will jumpstart the process of critiquing that model and 
finding the moments of insight that will produce a smooth translation. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 4 

The idea of using Jewish law to reflect on American is not new, but has been 

cogently critiqued by Suzanne Last Stone.7 Responding to a trend started by the late 

8 
Robert Cover and followed by others, Stone argued thatsuch analyses often neglect 

features of Jewish law that make it less salient than it might seem. Specifically, she saw 

the centrality of divine authority in Jewish law—Judaism’s insistence that adherence to 

the law be grounded in the belief that God commanded it—as making this system too 

different from secular law to provide useful comparison.9 

THREE MODELS OF APPLYING ONE LEGAL SYSTEM TO ANOTHER 

Professor Stone obliquely raises the question of how one system, with its 

particularistic assumptions and worldview, can offer meaningful insight for another, a 

question we obviously must address before embarking on our endeavor in comparative 

alienage. Granting her point that systems of law often differ so greatly as to rule out 

importing elements from one to another, we can still envision three circumstances where 

transfer is plausible and appropriate. 

First, claims of one system may appeal to the members of the other because they 

are convincing within the second group’s own ways of looking at the world. 

Theoretically, all or most Americans might decide that the Jewish (or Moslem or Russian 

7 Suzanne Last Stone, In Pursuit of the Counter-Text: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model in 

Contemporary American Legal Theory 106 HARVARD LAW REVIEW (Feb. 1993), 813-894. 
8 Stone mentions S.F. Friedell, The "different voice" in Jewish law: some parallels to a feminist 

jurisprudenc e 67 INDIANA L. J. (Fall 1992), 915-49 and J.W. Singer, The player and the cards: nihilism 
and legal theory 94 YALE L. J. (November 1984) p. 1-70. Other examples are William N. Eskridge, Jr., 
supra note 2, who explicitly acknowledges his debt to Cover for the idea that Jewish concepts of obligation 
ought to be incorporated into American legal theory and discourse, and Elliot Klayman and Seth Klayman, 
Punitive Damages: Toward Torah-Based Tort Reform 23 CARDOZO L. REV. (Nov. 2001), 221-251. 
9 Stone, 865-70. What Stone actually says is that Jews’ commit to the practices and messages of their 

legal system out of a desire to achieve a relationship with God, a wish that a secular system cannot 
replicate. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 5 

or French) view of marriage, or self-defense, or contracts, made sense in an American 

context as well, and adjust their laws to incorporate that decision. 

I stress the importance of naturalizing the innovation into the host context because 

I do not want to be misunderstood as arguing in favor of allowing outside systems to 

shape that of the United States. To claim that the United States should act in a certain 

way because God commanded x (or whatever justifies that law for the external system) is 

to speak gibberish in the context of the public debate of the United States. For a mixture 

of reasons political and principled, this country has long rejected the authority of any but 

the most general religious framework in structuring the country’s laws and institutions. 

Private belief is a matter of personal conscience, but to be heard in the public arena 

requires phrasing oneself in terms that stand independently of any particular religious 

belief. 

Even given the restrictions just posited, there will still be circumstances that allow 

for the reasonable claim that the United States should adopt another legal system’s view 

of a topic. Once we grant that American values and ideals must remain the frame of 

reference, we can easily imagine occasions where other systems’ handling of a particular 

national concern seems more effective than current American practice, in a way that does 

not diverge from any American values or ideals. For example, in a world where 

terrorism plagues many societies, we might find that another country’s protocol for how 

to balance individual rights with the needs of combating terrorism is more effective and 

appealing than our current practice, and fits smoothly with our prevailing national values. 

In such situations, we could feel free to adopt that practice in toto. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 6 

Where pure cutting and pasting cannot work, it may still be possible to transfer 

categories of one system to the other, with the details differing from system to system. 

Nation building provides a good example, since the nation overseeing the building tries to 

apply broad categories—democracy, tolerance, pluralism— while recognizing that they 

may be expressed in a vastly different manner than in the original country.10 The 

resulting laws reflect the home country, but their underlying categories come from the 

overseeing nation. 

The least intrusive model, the one that best fits our current discussion, argues only 

for importing broad themes from another legal system. If a religious law insisted that its 

members pray a certain number of times a day, a thematic application of that law could 

recognize its underlying assumption that repeated recitations of formulae help people 

deepen their connection to core values. Picking up on the theme, although not its content, 

a secular legal system might decide to institute some kind of ritualized recitation, such as 

the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem, to help its citizens retain their sense of 

connection to the goals of the larger society. 

We will here suggest that that last kind of transference would be helpful in 

shaping the American discourse about citizenship and alienage. In order to do so, 

however, we need to unravel the tangle of claims that Judaism made about Noahide law. 

CHARACTERIZING NOAHIDE LAW 

10 Note President Bush’s comments in his speech of November 5, 2003, calling for Arab states to move 

towards democracy: “…we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. 
Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should 
not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary 
systems. And working democracies always need time to develop - as did our own. We've taken a 200-year 
journey toward inclusion and justice - and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at 
different stages of this journey.” Similar views can be found in Noah Feldman’s work, particularly his Op- 
Ed, A New Democracy, Enshrined in Faith, NEW YORK TIMES, November 13, 2003. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 7 

Previous discussions of Noahide law saw it as a form of natural law, where 

natural was used as a synonym for intuitive, or a law aimed at developing a minimal 

political community. We will show that despite indications that the Jews who originally 

articulated these laws thought of themas r ational and minimal, the system actually 

required non-Jews to understand and accept fundamental aspects of the Jewish 

worldview—which were neither intuitive nor obvious-- before they could reside in a 

Jewish commonwealth. 

As listed in the Talmud, non-Jews must establish a court system,iii are prohibited 

from committing blasphemy (cursing the Name of God), idolatry, incest, murder, theft, 

and eating part of an animal that was removed before the animal died. Studying some 

details of those general requirements will show that these laws were meant to inculcate a 

fairly Jewish view of four central topics: God, society, sexuality, and food. 

Previous academic discussions of the Noahide laws have tended to ignore or 

failed to recognize its particularism. Hugo Grotius, one of the earliest non-Jewish writers 

to speak of Noahide law, characterized it as a Jewish version of ius gentium, the term 

used for Roman laws governing relationships between Romans and non-Romans.11 Part 

of that characterization is the recognition that these laws evinced a Jewish strategy for 

how to deal with strangers in their midst. Ius gentium was assumed to be a universal law, 

“an intercultural law known to all peoples, later portrayed as a universal law flowing 

11 Alasdair MacIntyre, WHOSE JUSTICE? WHICH RATIONALITY? (U. of Notre Dame: Notre Dame, 1988), 

p. 149, first cites Wolfgang Kunkel, AN INTRODUCTION TO ROMAN LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
HISTORY, trans. JM Kelly (Oxford, 1973), p. 77 to point out that the norms of ius gentium were in fact no 
more than an extension of Roman law, a description that will be useful in our consideration of Noahide 
law. On p. 199, MacIntyre notes that ius gentium was primarily about relationships between peoples, a 
characterization we will not find true of Noahide law. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 8 

from a natural reason common to all mankind.”12 Grotius saw Noahide law as an early 

universal law, the basis for international law. 

Since the Noahide laws were universal, Grotius and the majority of those who 

followed him have assumed that they must be rational, by which they meant that the laws 

could be intuited even without any external or divine guidance.13 Some Talmudic 

sources also seem to take that view,iv leading writers from Moses Mendelssohn in the 

eighteenth century, Hermann Cohen in the nineteenth, Martin Buber in the twentieth,14 

and extending to contemporary thinkers such as David Novak and Nahum Rakover,15 to 

all assume that the Noahide laws were a Jewish vision of an intuitive universal law. 

Marvin Fox, however, argued against the concept of natural law in Judaism, in 

general and specifically regarding Noahide law .16 Faced with sources that identified 

some laws as intuitive, Fox claimed that the Talmud only meant that they were 

12 Suzanne Last Stone, Cultural Pluralism, Nationalism, and Universal Rights 21 CARDOZO LAW 

REVIEW (February 2000), 1213. 
13For the sake of clarity, we will refer to such laws as intuitive, using the word explicable for laws that 

could not be inferred independently, but make sense once they are promulgated. I am avoiding the 
adjectives rational and intelligible because they are ambiguous as to the important question of whether the 
law is intuitive or merely explicable. 
14 For a discussion of each one’s views, see the relevant chapters in David Novak, THE IMAGE OF THE 

NON-JEW IN JUDAISM: AN HISTORICAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE STUDY OF THE NOAHIDE LAWS (New York: 
Edwin Mellen, 1983). Note that Novak, NATURAL LAW IN JUDAISM (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 
1998), 147-49, tries to define natural law differently. He suggests that natural law is a catchall term for 
laws that humans must promulgate when they come to relate to those outside their communities; it is a law 
of the limits on behavior that need to be accepted by those who would interact across community lines. 
While that accurately captures the particularism of any legal system, as I am arguing in the text, it loses the 
fundamental goal of natural law theorists, finding a law that was both universally binding and universally 
recognizable as such. Once natural law becomes an extension of a particular community, there is no reason 
to think of it as natural in any way. 
15 In English, Rakover’s main contributions to the discussion have been Jewish Law and the Noahide 

Obligation to Preserve Social Order 12 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW (1991):1073-1136 and LAW AND THE 
NOAHIDES: LAW AS A UNIVERSAL VALUE (Jerusalem, 1998), a translation of a previous Hebrew book on 
the same topic. 
16 Marvin Fox, Maimonides and Aquinas on Natural Law 3 DINE ISRAEL (1972), pp. 10 and 26. See 

also J. David Bleich, Judaism and Natural Law 7 JEWISH LAW ANNUAL (1988), 5-42. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 9 

explicable, that after God had commanded them , they could be explained in a way that all 

people would accept as reasonable. 

To prove that Noahide laws were not supposed to be intuitive, Fox pointed to 

Maimonides’ ruling that non-Jews had to obey these laws because they recognized it as 

God’s command in order to gain the desired reward-- a share in the World to Come.17 

Someone who figures out Noahide law independently, Maimonideswrote , may qualify as 

wise, but not as one of the Righteous of the Nations, his term for non-Jews who properly 

fulfill God’s wishes.v Insisting on an awareness of divine command, Fox cogently 

argues, means that Maimonides was not satisfied with observance of Noahide law as an 

act of reason or intuition.vi 

Rather than argue further about whether Noahide laws were intuitive, it seems 

most correct to accept the middle position suggested by Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, 

among others.18 Explicitly avoiding expressing an opinion on the issue of natural law, 

Rabbi Lichtenstein noted that Jewish sources certainly assumed the existence of an 

intuitive and universally binding morality.19 That morality, however, is not coterminous 

with Noahide law, as Norman Lamm and Aaron Kirschenbaum also wrote.20 

17 LAWS OF KINGS 8;11. 

18 Not to be confused with Aaron Lichtenstein, author of THE SEVEN LAWS OF NOAH (New York: RJJ, 

1986), to which we refer infra. 
19 Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Does Jewish Tradition Recognize An Ethic Independent of Halakha? 

MODERN JEWISH ETHICS (Ohio State, 1975), 62-4. He does not define that morality fully, but it seems to 
share many of the characteristics of the moral minimalism that Michael Walzer speaks of in THICK AND 
THIN: MORAL ARGUMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD (Notre Dame: U. of Notre Dame, 1994), 1-21. Of 
course, since Jewish sources assumed that Noahide law was actually binding on all people everywhere — 
and given the thickness of Noahide law I am in the process of demonstrating—Judaism seems to have 
assumed that revelation informed the world of a baseline morality much less thin than the one that all 
people everywhere could intuitively accept. 
20 A. Kirschenbaum and N. Lamm, “Freedom and Constraint in the Jewish Judicial Process” 1 

CARDOZO LAW REVIEW (Spring, 1979), p. 120ff. See also Bleich, Judaism and Natural Law, supra note 
16, pp. 13-25. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 10 

The details of the Noahide laws we are about to lay out lead to that same 

conclusion. Regardless of whether the Noahide laws were intuitive in their broad outline, 

their detailsvii go far beyond any kind of intuitive or natural law. Reviewing these 

particularistic pieces of Noahide law will reveal the nomos, the underlying vision of the 

kind of a world its adherents should inhabit, embedded within Noahide law. Noahide 

laws, we will now see, obligate non-Jews to view themselves as members of a society 

dedicated to a joint set of beliefs rather than as individuals free of positive obligation to 

the society as a whole, to concede the existence of a single God and to refrain from 

rebelling against Him,21 to adopt a radically strict respect for rights to property and life, 

to be aware of proper and improper forms of sexuality, and to recognize the seriousness 

of making use of animals as food. Proving those statements will ready us for considering 

how that should affect our consideration of American citizenship and alienage. 

DINIM—A SOCIAL SYSTEM 

The commandment to establish courts has received too much attention for us to 

meaningfully summarize it here.22 What we can show, however, is that it was geared 

towards forming a sense of a cohesive society, not just one that headed off conflict 

among its inhabitants.viii 

The extent of cohesion that was expected depends on is a matter of dispute among 

medieval Jewish scholars as to the scope of the obligation. Maimonidesclaimed that this 

commandment explained why all the people of Shechem23 --in the Biblical story of the 

21 Several adjunct rules for Noahides—prohibitions that the Talmud saw as capital crimes, but did not 

imagine a human court punishing—indicate that they were also expected to recognize the special status of 
the Jews, see infra. 
22 See Novak, supra note 14, and Rakover, supra note 15. 

23 GENESIS 34. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 11 

abduction and rape of Dinah-- deserved their deaths at the hands of Simeon and Levi. In 

his view, all those present were capitally obligated to protest and judge their prince’s 

abduction of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob; their failure to do so made them liable for 

death.ix In addition to solving the theological problem of how two admired figures, 

progenitors of Tribes of Israel, could commit mass murder, Maimonides here expresses a 

forceful view of non -Jews’ responsibility to insure the observance of the Noahide laws. 

His assumption of extensive observer-responsibility is itself certainly not 

intuitive, as shown, at the very least, by Nahmanides’ (a thirteenth century Catalonian 

Talmudist and Biblical commentator) rejecting it.24 Nahmanides instead sees the 

obligation of dinin as mandating the establishment of a system of civil law.x He did not 

set clear parameters for what this system had to cover, but gave numerous examples, 

including “theft, overcharging, withholding wages, bailments, rape and seduction, torts, 

lending, business, and so on.”25 

Although Nahmanides does not fully define that civil law, the sixteenth-century 

R. Moses Isserles assumed thatnon -Jews had to adopt Jewish law in these areas.26 

Jewish civil law, let us note, is certainly not intuitive; its laws are derived, analyzed, and 

elaborated in extensive and complex Biblical and Talmudic discussions, with debates at 

most stages of the process, indicating that even those who grew up in the system were not 

able to intuit the law in any simple manner. Isserles, too, would have to be placed on the 

list of those who see Noahide law as particularistic. 

24 COMMENTARY TO THE TORAH, trans. C. Chavel, GENESIS 34;13. 

25 COMMENTARY TO THE TORAH, GENESIS 34;13. Nahmanides incorporated an obligation to set up a 

court system in this set of laws as well, but as a positive obligation, not a possible capital crime. 
26 RESPONSA REMA, 10. R. Moses Sofer, RESPONSA HATAM SOFER 6:14 and R. Eliezer Waldenburg, 

RESPONSA TSITS ELIEZER 16;55 analyze Rema’s view at length, and Sofer at least seems to accept it. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 12 

Even if Nahmanides thought that dinin meant that non-Jews would make their 

own laws,27 he may still not have thought of those laws as intuitive. Rather, hemay have 

assumed that the types of laws were intuitive, but thatthere was a range of equally 

acceptable laws dealing with the issues raised by those areas of law. In addition, his 

allowing non-Jews to write their own laws in this area implies that the rest of the system, 

where they did not have such power, was not accessible to intuitive rule-making. 

Whether we follow Maimonides or Nahmanides in either of his versions, then, we have 

only a weak form of natural law, and much of Noahide law left unexplained.xi 

Although these perspectives of the commandment differ sharply from each other, 

they nonetheless each envision non-Jews as obligated to create a cohesive society rather 

than just avoiding conflict among citizens. This is most clear for Maimonides, who sees 

the Noahides as capitally responsible for the behavior of others in their society. For 

Nahmanides and Isserles, the scope of laws they required still goes beyond the minimal 

needs of a working society.xii 

One final aspect of dinin is the Talmud’s assumption that each of the seven 

Noahide laws was punishable by death, including theft of a minimal amount of money.28 

This severity of punishment gives the impression that adhering to the standards of the 

seven Noahides was the bare minimum that justified human existence; violating any of 

these laws, to any extent, meant that the person had forfeited the right to life. That, too, 

27 As did R. Naftali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, in his commentary on R. Ahai Gaon’s SHEILTOT, HAAMEK 

SHE’ELAH. Berlin pointed out that Psalms 147;20—“He has not done so to any nation, nor has he informed 
them of laws [mishpatim]” seems to assume that God only gave a full civil law to Jews. 
28 The contrast with Jews, who would not incur the death penalty for some of these same acts, needs to 

be discussed fully in a different context. Suzanne Last Stone provides insightful commentary, from a 
different perspective of Noahide law than suggested here, in Sinaitic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism in 
Jewish Law 12 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW (1991), 1179. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 13 

is not only not intuitive, but makes a very Jewish assumption, that one’s right to life 

depends on adhering to standards of behavior set by God rather than by man. 

GOD—IDOLATRY 

The commandments to forego all idolatry and to refrain from blasphemy obligate 

non-Jews in a Jewish model of monotheistic belief29 and basic submission to the Creator. 

Considering that paganism was alive and well in the societies where Jews lived well 

beyond the completion of the Talmud—Christianity did not conquer the Roman world 

until the fourth century, and Persia was pagan even beyond then-- it is hard to imagine 

that Jews thoughtthat these rules were intuitive .xiii Talmudic references that seem to say 

that the prohibition of idol worship was intuitive must then have meant only that non- 

Jews could readily understand why Jews, who believed in one God, would outlaw idol 

worship so forcefully.xiv 

More specifically, the Noahide rules force non-Jews to learn and understand 

Jewish views of what it means to worship a deity. We can easily understand that non- 

Jews would be prohibited from worshipping any idol according to its ordinary manner of 

worship (ke-darkah); what becomes more surprising is the system’s calling for the death 

penalty for a non-Jew who bows down, offers incense, sacrifices, or libates to an idol;30 

in contrast, other acts of admiration and love for the idol—kissing, hugging, washing, 

dusting-- do not incur the death penalty. The forms of worship that make the list for 

capital punishment are those that constitute an avodat penim, an act of worship that 

occurred within the sanctuary of the Temple itself. 

29 One of the prohibited forms of idol worship is accepting the idol as a God. 

30 bSANHEDRIN 60b. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 14 

When a system asserts that particular acts count as worship regardless of the 

interpretation of those acts in the minds of the people performing them, it is privileging 

those acts, announcing that Temple forms of worship carry an objective weight not true 

of other forms of affection or obeisance. To adhere to this law properly and avoid the 

death penalty, non-Jews would have to engage and understand Jewish rules for each of 

these kinds of worship.31 

Although non-Jews could obey the Noahide blasphemy regulation without any 

particularly Jewish knowledge—the law simply prohibits cursing God, using any term 

that clearly refers to Him32-- they are nonetheless being required to recognize and accept 

Judaism’s views of the consequences of certain kind of behavior towards God. 

MURDER 

Criminalizing murder is intuitive, but the particular rules codified by Noahide 

laws are not nearly as obvious. The killing of a fetus (abortion), a terminally ill patient, 

or bringing about another’s death indirectly but deliberately (such as by tying her up 

where a train will run over her) all qualify as capital murder in the Noahide system.33 

American society’s raging debate about abortion and assisted suicide shows that these are 

not intuitive rules; more than that, these rules show that the Noahide system expected 

31 LAWS OF KINGS, 9;2, based on bSANHEDRIN 56b, which ties a Noahide’s liability into a Jew’s being 

killed by a court for his worship. It would be possible for a non-Jew to ignore the Temple element of the 
prohibition and just learn the technicalities of the types of worship for which a Jew would be punished. 
Even so, he would have to learn a Jewish view of idol worship in order to live his Noahide life. 
32 LAWS OF KINGS 9;3. 

33 Ibid., 9;4. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 15 

people to treat all human life, however underdeveloped or certain to end, as out of bounds 

to human actions to end it. 34 

INCEST 

Incest laws as a class may be intuitive,35 but the Noahide version is certainly not. 

Maimonides concluded36 that non-Jewish men were prohibited from engaging in 

intercourse with their mothers, father’s wives, married women, maternal sisters, men, and 

animals,37 primarily based on the Talmudic parsing of the first verse in Scripture that 

discusses human marriage. 

The verse reads “therefore shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to 

his wife and they shall be one flesh,”38 which allows the Talmud to assert that sexuality 

cannot be expressed with one’s parents (since the man is supposed to leave his parents, 

with the father’s wife standing in for the father himself), must create a physical cleaving 

of the sort that only men and women can create (not men and men),39 must be with one’s 

own wife as opposed to somebody else’s, and must be of the kind of union that could turn 

them into one flesh, which rules out bestiality. 

34 The seriousness of these rules has led some to question whether Noahides were allowed to wage war; 

for discussion, see J. David Bleich, CONTEMPORARY HALAKHIC PROBLEMS II (New York: KTAV, 1983), 
159-66. 
35 Although, interestingly, Nahmanides was unsure of the reason for the prohibition; rejecting 

Maimonides’ view that it was aimed at lessening human sexuality generally, he instead viewed the matter 
as an esoteric secret, see his COMMENTARY TO LEVITICUS 18;6. 
36 Other medieval authors understand the Talmudic discussion differently, but not in ways that affect 

our discussion here. 
37 LAWS OF KINGS 9;5-8. Note that Maimonides devotes significantly more space to his discussion of 

incest and of eating a limb cut off of a living animal than to the other Noahide laws, perhaps because these 
were least intuitive. 
38 GENESIS 2;24. 

39 Again, the assumption that homosexuality is prohibited is not intuitive, either in Talmudic times or 

our own; its inclusion in the Noahide laws is an expression of the view that sexuality must create a man- 
woman bond. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 16 

Sexuality, in this presentation, is an extension of marriage and procreation; only 

those relationships that could be marital and/or lead to children are allowed.40 Marriage, 

and therefore sex, could only happen outside the original nuclear family and only with 

partners who could theoretically lead to offspring.41 Even without insisting that sex 

happen only within marriage, Noahide law was requiring that it take the form of a marital 

act, and that it not interfere in any preexisting marriage.xv 

THEFT 

Like murder, theft is intuitive, but the Noahide reaction to it goes beyond that. 

Theft of even the most minimal amounts of money, even if the victim of the theft is 

himself not the rightful owner, incurs the death penalty. In the most extreme example, if 

one non-Jew steals any amount of money from a thief who himself stole that money, both 

would be liable for death.xvi More than seeking to protect property, which could 

obviously be done through less extreme measures, Noahide law was making clear that 

violating others’ rights to their possessions forfeited one’s own right to life in that 

society. 

EVER MIN HAHAY—THE LIMBS OF A LIVING ANIMAL 

Those who see Noahide law as either natural law or a minimal political law 

identify the prohibition of ever min hahay, eating the limb of an animal that was removed 

40 Although non-Jews have no obligation to marry every time they wish to engage in sexual intercourse, 

see Maimonides, LAWS OF MARRIAGE 1;4. 
41 This is particularly true given that Rashi, in his Commentary to Genesis, reads the “one flesh” as 

meaning the baby that a couple could produce. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 17 

while it was still alive, as one of cruelty to animals.42 That would be true if the rule 

forbade cutting off the limb of an animal, but it only actually prohibits eating a limb that 

was cut off before the animal’s death. In trying to understand its purpose in the code, we 

need to focus on what the rule actually addresses, not the issue that jumps out at us first. 

Recalling that Jewish tradition thought that Adam was not allowed to eat meat at 

all43 suggests that ever min hahay (limb from a living animal) was a food prohibition, not 

a cruelty one. When, after the Flood, God allowed people to eat meat (in Judaism’s 

reconstruction of early human history), He required them to insure that the meat was dead 

before they ate it. Animals were now acceptable sources of food, but they only became 

so after they had died or been killed. The seriousness of the prohibition was to stress how 

off limits animals were expected to be while they were still alive. 

Taken together, the seven Noahide laws thus obligate those who would live as 

resident aliens in a Jewish society to accept fundamental Jewish ideas in four areas of 

life—the relationship to God, to sex, to others’ lives and property, and to animals as food. 

Resident aliens would not need to become Jews to be tolerated,44 but they would have to 

accept and adopt basic Jewish beliefs in realms that go to the core of self-perception. 

42 A. Enker, Aspects of Interaction Between the Torah Law, the King’s Law, and the Noahide Law in 

Jewish Criminal Law 12 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 3-4 (Feb.-March, 1991), 1147. David Novak, supra note 
14, 245, sees all the possible “min hahay” prohibitions, such as meat from a living animal and blood from a 
living animal, as violations of the order of nature. Aaron Lichtenstein, THE SEVEN LAWS OF NOAH, 2d ed. 
(New York: RJJ School, 1986), 56 sees the rule as teaching two principles, the first of which is cruelty to 
animals. His other reason is the one we suggest in the text. 
43 bSANHEDRIN59b. 

44 This toleration, I would point out, is not the same as the American model; since it is basically a 

religious system, it is more akin to the Ottoman millet system described in M. Walzer, ON TOLERATION 
(New Haven: Yale, 1997), 17-18. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 18 

Were this allof Noahide law, it would already teach us a great deal .45 To round 

out our picture, however, we need to consider two more aspects of that system, its 

codifying rules that emphasize the differences between Noahides and Jews and its 

expectation that Noahides would go beyond these rules and observe a set of unenforced 

obligations. 

ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR OTHERNESS 

Although the status of a ger toshav, the Jewish legal term for a lawful permanent 

resident of a Jewish commonwealth, earned the non-Jew equal support in the minimal 

social welfare network,46 several rules highlight the system’s insistence that non-Jews 

remember, recognize, and respect their status as outsiders. First, the Sifre, an extra- 

Talmudic collection of authoritative Scriptural inferences, rules that even such non-Jews 

may not live in Jewish cities.47 The requirement to set up separate communities stresses 

that they are being accepted and tolerated, but only as outsiders; full inclusion requires 

conversion. 

Similar themes underlie Talmudic statements about the significance of a non-Jew 

striking a Jew, observing the Sabbath, and studying Torah. In each case, the Talmudic 

rhetoric stresses non-Jews’ need to be aware of their status as outsiders to a special 

community. 

In the first example, the Talmud characterizes a non-Jew striking a Jew as akin to 

striking God. That phrasing emphasizes the Talmud’s assumption of Jewish 

45 The Talmud records other laws that some included in the Noahide corpus, but we do not need to 

analyze them for our current discussion. 
46 Jews are required to support the non-Jewish poor as well as their own, see Maimonides, LAWS OF 

GIFTS TO THE POOR 7;1 and Rabad’s gloss to LAWS OF PROHIBITED RELATIONS 14;8. 
47 SIFRE, DEUTERONOMY 259. Rabad, ibid, assumes that Maimonides would maintain that rule even 

today, while he himself only draws that distinction when the Jewish commonwealth is fully functional. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 19 

exceptionalism, that the Jews’ more detailed legal system gives them a special status as 

God’s most public representatives on earth. As such, striking a Jew becomes more than a 

simple tort, it becomes an offense against God Himself.48 

The other two examples involve areas of Jewish life thatwere seen as so 

particular to Jews that non-Jews were not allowed to take part; the Talmud assumed, in 

fact, that God would treat non-Jews’ trespassing these boundaries as a capital crime. 

Study of Torah was seen as the vehicle of a unique bond between God and the Jewish 

people,49 so that a non-Jew who studied Torah deserved death for breaking into this 

bond.50 

The right to take a day a week to cease all productive activity—the Sabbath -- was 

also seen as a special gift to the Jewish people; human beings had to devote every day to 

being productive, to contributing to the settlement of the world.xvii 

Part of being a resident alien in a Jewish land, then, was recognizing the limits 

that status placed on participating in the majority society. Full participation was readily 

available, but only to those who actually converted to the culture, lifestyle, and, in this 

case, religion of the majority. 

POSITIVE ASPECTS OF NOAHIDE LAW 

Until now we have only reviewed the prohibitions of Noahide law, but several 

sources suggest that there were positive expectations as well. A tantalizing Talmudic 

48 bSANHEDRIN 58b with Maimonides, LAWS OF KINGS, 10;6. I do not want to be misunderstood as 

saying that Jews saw themselves as better than those non-Jews; I only mean that their role as public agents 
for God meant that an attack on Jews had overtones that an attack on an ordinary human being would not. 
49 bSANHEDRIN 59a. 

50 This prohibition is not nearly as exclusionary as it seems; non-Jews were certainly allowed to study 

the Noahide laws, which, as we saw supra, could be quite extensive. In addition, as we will see infra, a 
non-Jew could decide to keep laws other than the minimal list, and could then be free to study those as 
well. It was studying Torah as a self-contained religious activity without practical ramifications which the 
Talmud meant to limit to Jews, since that study is an act of worship that God granted only to Jews. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 22-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 20 

statement as well as non-Jews’ right to voluntarily accept specificcommandments 

highlight the system’s assumption that codified Noahide law was a minimum; non-Jews 

were expected to supplement the prohibitions of Noahide law with (self-initiated) 

practices that give positive content to their spiritual existence.51 

In Tractate Hullin,xviii the Talmud mentions that non-Jews accepted thirty positive 

commandments, although it hastens to add that they only managed to stay faithful to 

three of those.xix Without trying to fully unpack the statement, it showsthe Talmud’s 

approval of non-Jews’ independently legislating obligations outside of the original 

Noahide corpus. 

That statement, somewhat off the beaten path of the Talmudic discussion of non- 

Jews,xx could not on its own support a claim that they were expected to develop a positive 

relationship with God as well. In the midst of its discussion of the Noahide laws, 

however, the Talmud notes that its list includes only prohibitions, not requirements of 

action,52 suggesting that there might be an extensive set of positive obligations not clearly 

codified in the Talmud. Indeed, the next sentence asserts that non- Jews must exercise 

justice,53 while other Talmudic statements assume that non-Jews were required to give 

charity and to bear children.54 

51 These would be what Joseph Carens refers to as aspirations, see supra note 3, p. 142. 

52 bSANHEDRIN 58b-59a. To the extent that classical sources do not carefully outline a set of 

responsibilities, they implicitly assume wide latitude for those who seek to fulfill the general goals 
mentioned. 
53 As opposed to just avoiding committing injustice. 

54 For giving charity, see the discussion bSANHEDRIN 57b, which excludes women from functioning as 

judges, and then asserts that GENESIS 18;19’s reference to Abraham’s commanding his children, including 
women, to “do justice and righteousness” meant that the men would do justice and the women would give 
charity. In terms of childbearing, bSANHEDRIN 59b seems to obligate only Jews, as noted by Tosafot ad 
loc, but bGITTIN 41a-b and bYEVAMOT 62a assume a Noahide responsibility to have children as well, as 
already codified in the eighth century SHEILTOT of R. Aha of Shevaha, no. 165. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 23-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 21 

Taking that positive obligation seriously means that Jews saw non-Jews as 

obligated by a law that taught them basic propositions about life, but that also reminded 

them to expand that minimal law in positive ways. Somewhat similar to Adam’s original 

mandate to “work and preserve” God’s garden, non-Jews were supposed to bear children, 

give charity, set up a just society, and live productive lives, with the exact definition of 

those later terms left open to the sincere judgment of the non-Jews involved.xxi 

ADOPTING JEWISH VERSIONS OF WORSHIP 

For those non-Jews uncomfortable with such an open-ended set of requirements, 

one more option was available, an option that is particularly surprising in light of our 

earlier discussion. Jewish authorities generally assumed a non-Jew’s right to observe any 

commandments of the Torah other than the Sabbath and Torah study and to be rewarded 

by God for that action. 

Most surprisingly, Maimonides allows a Jew to circumcise a non-Jew, as long as 

the non-Jew intends the act to fulfill the Biblical commandment of circumcision. I note 

this in particular because the Bible and Talmud55 assume that circumcision, like the 

Sabbath, created a covenant between God and the Jewish people;56 letting non-Jews 

circumcise without any intention of converting allows them into a circle that might 

otherwise be clearly thought of as exclusive to the Jewish people.xxii 

The question of how open Judaism is to the performance of its commandments by 

non-Jews is vigorously debated,xxiii but it offers at least one option for fleshing out a non- 

55 For example, bSHABBAT 132a, which assumes that the right to circumcise on Shabbat is more 

obvious than the right to perform other commandments that would ordinarily be seen as violations of 
Shabbat because GENESIS 17 uses the term berit, covenant, thirteen times in its discussion of circumcision. 
56 Or, at least, the descendants of Abraham, see Maimonides’ comments on the descendants of Keturah, 

LAWS OF KINGS 10;8. Maimonides, in fact, assumes that all Arabs should perform circumcision on the 
eighth day, since the descendants of Ishmael have been mixed with those of Keturah. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 24-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 22 

Jew’s obligations towards God. That does not mean that non-Jews are supposed to 

undertake such obligations, or that these obligations are the only way for a non-Jew to 

have a successful relationship with God. Jewish writers’ raising that possibility, though, 

offers one final proof that Noahide law was not seen as the end of a non-Jew’s road, but 

the minimum base from which to build a fulfilled relationship with God. 

TRANSLATING JEWISH LAW TO AMERICAN IMMIGRATION CONCERNS 

We have seen that a Jewish commonwealth would demand that any resident aliens 

in its midst adopt practices that inculcate and observe fundamental principles of the larger 

Jewish society. Those resident aliens would have to see themselves as members of a 

society that prevented injustice, they would have to recognize only a single God whom 

they could not blaspheme, they would have to strictly respect the sanctity of property that 

was not their own and of life, and they would have to limit their intake of animal flesh to 

that of animals that were already dead. Beyond that, they were supposed to adopt 

positive goals such as childbearing and giving charity, and, more broadly, developing a 

vision and a practice of how to serve the single God. 

The universalist model of having one legal system inform another would argue for 

the United States to adopt the entire Noahide system. Since Jewish law thought of this as 

the bare minimum of acceptable society, Jews might hope that any non-Jewish society 

would adopt those laws as well. Fine for the traditionalist and believer,57 that model only 

works for those already convinced of the second system’s greater rightness than the first. 

The second option does not concede nearly as much to Noahide law. In a 

structural adaptation, we would note that Noahide law picked on God, society (meaning 

57 A Google search for “Noahide” turned up more than 5,000 hits, among them several sites dedicated 

to delineating and promoting observance of the Noahide laws. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 25-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 23 

property and personal rights), sexuality, and food as areas to legislate for resident aliens. 

Taking the categories but not the content, we might then argue that resident aliens should 

be specifically regulated in those areas as well. Here too, however, Professor Stone’s 

complaint about trying to import what is essentially a religious system into what is 

essentially a secular one still rings true. 

What the Noahide system does suggest, however, is a general social principle that 

current U.S. law ignores. That is, Noahide law stresses, inter alia, that Jewish society 

stands for different values than other societies. Those who would join that society, even 

partially, must be introduced to, and accept upon themselves, fundamental aspects of that 

society’s worldview. Full citizens, of course, need to accept the whole picture; partial 

citizens—and anyone allowed to live in a society for the rest of his or her natural life is at 

least a partial citizen—need to commit to the basic beliefs of that society. 

THE PARTICULARISM OF CULTURES 

That becomes relevant to other countries, including the United States, when we 

remember that every society, no matter how universalist in its rhetoric, actually espouses 

a particular worldview, both in terms of definition of the good life and of how to get 

there. Robert Cover noted twenty years ago that law always constitutes a nomos, a vision 

of an ideal world towards which that society strives.58 Stanley Fish repeatedly reminds 

his readers of how much every human being and every society is locked into its own 

assumptions about how the world should and does work.59 

58 Robert M. Cover, Foreword: Nomos and Narrative 97 HARVARD L. REV. 4 (1983-4), 4-68, reprinted 

in NARRATIVE, VIOLENCE, AND THE LAW: THE ESSAYS OF ROBERT COVER eds. M. Minow, M. Ryan, and 
A. Sarat (U. of Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1993). 
59 Fish, THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH (New York: Oxford, 1994) and THE TROUBLE WITH 

PRINCIPLE (Cambridge: Harvard, 1999) are two of the recent examples. Clifford Geertz’ THE 
INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES (New York: Basic Books, 1973) and LOCAL KNOWLEDGE (New York: 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 26-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 24 

Recognizing this necessary particularism of our-- and any-- culture can help us 

articulate a vision both of citizenship and of alienage. Citizens are members of a society 

dedicated to a set of ideals and a worldview of how to best actualize them. Of course, in 

countries like the U.S. where citizenship is granted by birth, society needs to educate its 

children about those ideals as well, but the goal of that education is to inculcate whatever 

the society sees as its central values and processes. 

That self-definition needs to be adjusted frequently, as societies change over time. 

The United States today would not define itself exactly as the Founding Fathers would 

have, so that we could not simply expect prospective citizens to read the Founders’ 

writings in readying themselves for citizenship. But American society does differ from 

the rest of world, and the extent of a person’s acceptance of and participation in those 

differences should determine his or her acceptance in that society. 

It is not my intent here to articulate or promote a view of those defining ideals, 

since more qualified people have already done so, from many perspectives, and I have no 

reason to think that my own vision is more persuasive than that of others. What seems 

unequivocal, though, is that the United States, as a society, stands for important and 

significant ideals, and that part of citizenship is embracing those ideals, certainly 

theoretically, and, where possible, actively. 

Those ideals, I should add, are not completely defined by adherence to the 

Constitution and to the laws of this country. I can be a racist while not acting on it in any 

illegal ways, but in so doing I am not in fact a good citizen of this country, which has, 

finally, made an aversion to racism a basic principle of its society. The set of ideals I am 

Basic Books, 1983) also points out that the complex interaction of all the various parts of society, the thick 
description of its culture, work together to articulate a particular vision. See, too, Alasdair MacIntyre, 
WHOSE JUSTICE? WHICH RATIONALITY? (Notre Dame: U. of Notre Dame, 1988). 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 27-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 25 

speaking of here includes the Constitution—in its broad understanding, recognizing that 

some elements of its interpretation are still quite contentious—the laws of this country, 

and the underlying worldview and principles—the ones shared by the vast majority of the 

society as a whole-- that inform those laws. 

Two responses to this claim might be that a) the U.S. makes an ideal of giving its 

citizens the freedom not to care about the welfare of the society and b) that, empirically, 

Americans do not share any common set of ideals. To the first, I concede that part of our 

vision of freedom is to allow actions and thoughts that we vigorously oppose, but that 

does not mean that we condone holding those views, or see those who hold them as 

benign elements of society. Part of our vision of a tolerant society—itself perhaps one of 

our central current views of what America is-- is that we do not penalize action or 

inaction just because we find it distasteful. Our allowing citizens to remain ignorant of 

this society’s goals does not indicate approval of their so doing. 

That the bonds of American society have frayed in recent years is also readily 

conceded; part of the goal of this article is to call for a conscious national reconsideration 

and rearticulating of the general principles that bind the vast majority of us together.60 

Whether those ideals are electoral democracy, individualism, libertarianism, equality of 

all peoples, or some combination of those and other ideals I have left off the list,61 a 

60 I am careful to discuss the “vast majority” because I agree with Stanley Fish that no principle will 

cover all of this country; even in a tolerant mood, however, I think society’s needs for self-definition should 
mean that what ninety percent of a society accepts as absolutely fundamental can legitimately be made a 
part of citizenship 
61 I think an important contribution to this discussion is the idea of super-statutes suggested by William 

N. Eskridge, Jr. and John Ferejohn, Super-Statutes, 50 DUKE L. J. (2000-2001), 1215-1276. In their 
definition, super-statutes are those that (1215) “successfully penetrate public normative and institutional 
culture in a deep way,” and see them as (1216) “foundational principles against which their rights and 
obligations are set.” An awareness and conscious acceptance of just such foundational principles is what I 
am arguing for, both for citizens and for lawful permanent residents. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 28-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 26 

vigorous debate about how to properly articulate the fundamental beliefs of this country 

would go far to reminding Americans of how much they share in common, regardless of 

their beliefs about abortion, homosexuality, or other hot-button issues of the day. 

Coming to some consensus about what we mean by citizenship would inherently 

allow us to improve education of our citizens towards that citizenship,62 and to make 

citizenship more than just membership in a club, or a set of rights and obligations.63 The 

full rights and responsibilities of being an American would devolve to those who accept 

and adhere to the American worldview, and who agree to work to further the prosperity 

of the society that adopts that worldview.xxiv 

A THIN CREED FOR ALIENS 

My main concern here, though, is with aliens. Recognizing the nomos aspect of 

law, we can better identify what separates Americans from non-citizens. At this time, 

resident aliens, who have been granted the right to live in this country for the rest of their 

lives, are not required to commit to fundamental American ideals; they must swear 

adherence to the Constitution, they must commit to observing the laws of this country, 

but they need not agree or accept any of our fundamental principles or worldview. While 

certain formally identified ideologies have been seen to be so inimical to that of the 

United States, such as membership in a Communist party, that it could exclude someone 

62 As discussed by Amy Gutmann, DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION, (Princeton: Princeton U., 1999). 

63 As noted by Cover, but more recently by Eskridge, supra note 8. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 29-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 27 

from permanent residence, a person who held that ideology without formal affiliation 

would never be asked to declare his or her belief in the principles of this country.64 

To give a stark example: A person who firmly believed in the importance of a 

strong monarchy or was opposed to the Bill of Rights could come to this country, agree 

to abide by our laws, and then work to appeal or amend that or any other aspect of this 

country’s workings without having violated any of his or her commitments in coming to 

our shores. While I am all in favor of the free speech principles that allow people to 

promote their various agendas, I think we all ought to recognize the difference between 

advocating for ideas that are “un-American” and ones that are not yet accepted by 

Americans. 

Furthermore, when admitting people to this country—an inflow we constantly 

need to regulate—it seems unarguable that we should prefer, and perhaps limit, 

immigrants to this country to those who are willing to commit, in principle as well as in 

practice, to our most fundamental ideas of the best way to foster a healthy society. 

This lacuna in the law becomes all the more remarkable when we recognize the 

truth of Alexander Aleinikoff’s claim naturalization is relatively routine once immigrants 

are accepted as LPR’s,.65 If securing a permanent visa is what determines whether a non- 

American lives in this country for the rest of his or her life (and becomes a citizen a few 

64 The law does require such commitments of nonimmigrants who seek adjustment of status after 

arriving in the U.S., INA § 245. Those who get their visas abroad, either for family reunification, 
employment, diversity, or asylum reasons are not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, required to 
commit to any version of American ideals. The rules for becoming a citizen are available in many sources. 
A simple summary of those rules can be found in the INS’ Guide to Naturalization, available in pdf format 
at http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/services/natz/English.pdf. For a more technical description, there 
are any number of legal handbooks and casebooks. I used Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook, 
2000-2001: Vol. I Immigration Basics R. Auerbach, ed. in chief, (American Immigration Lawyers Assoc., 
Washington, DC). 
65 T. Alexander Aleinikoff, supra note 3, 15. Others, including Linda Bosniak, Universal Citizenship 

and the Problem of Alienage 94 NORTHWESTERN U. L. REV. 3 (Spring 2000), 963 and Peter J. Spiro, supra 
note 3, dispute the ease of naturalization, noting especially the barrier presented by language requirements. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 30-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 28 

years later, should he or she choose to do so), that should be the point at which we insure 

that this person in fact sympathizes with the American Project or Creed or Dream. 

Of course, we cannot expect foreigners to immediately accept all the facets of that 

project. Luckily, as Michael Walzer points out, worldviews can be expressed in thicker 

and thinner forms.66 The Noahide laws, we have shown, were a thinner form of the thick 

Jewish worldview, dealing only with the most central issues and in a much more 

attenuated form than in the system as a whole. Translated to American terms, LPR’s 

could be required, upon arrival (or before leaving their home countries) to commit to 

some modest version of that American Creed, but enough of it that they are committing 

to actually joining American society and its worldview to a minimal extent.67 

LANGUAGE, RIGHTS, DUAL CITIZENSHIP: OTHER ISSUES FOR LPR’S 

Aside from suggesting that America needs to articulate its worldview clearly, both 

for its citizens and for those who would at least partially join, the Noahide model 

promotes a particular view of language requirements, aliens’ rights, dual citizenship, and 

the “transitional” model of alienage suggested by Hiroshi Motomura. 

The requirement for citizens to demonstrate proficiency in English has come 

under attack in some articles, on the grounds that prospective citizens can understand and 

accept their responsibilities in other languages as well. Remembering that a legal system 

represents a worldview strongly suggests including language proficiency in citizenship 

66 Michael Walzer, THICK AND THIN (Notre Dame: U. of Notre Dame, 1994). 

67 I recognize, as Noah Pickus points out, supra note 2, p. 123, that people can lie; nonetheless, 

demanding a commitment of people is a strong educational tool for the majority. While some will simply 
utter the words without taking them seriously, many (citizens as well) will internalize the values thus 
articulated as part of their conduct of themselves in American society. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 31-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 29 

requirements. Language shapes how people think and express themselves;68 once we 

recognize that law inherently inculcates a worldview, it makes sense to require citizens to 

be able to think and express themselves in the language of the system. 

Rights, Noahide law points out, come in three versions. There are the rights of 

human beings by virtue of their humanity, rights of partial members of society-- as 

recognition of partial common cause-- and rights of citizens, which express the fraternity 

and mutual fructification that comes with sharing a particular worldview.69 

Rights in America ought to work the same way. Some minimal rights of welfare 

should extend to all those present in society (regardless of citizenship status), simply 

because they are human beings in our midst. Those who come to join society partially, 

by accepting permanent residence, would have access to a broader, but not complete, set 

of rights.70 The differentiation is not for its own sake, but as part of reminding ourselves 

and others that the nomos of America is what allows the society to flourish, and the full 

benefits of that flourishing properly devolve only to those who are sworn to promoting 

the country’s continued welfare. 

The articulation of the American creed will also help answer dual citizenship 

questions. There are numerous countries in the world which, while not holding to the 

same nomos as the United States, are nonetheless close enough to predict few times of 

conflict for citizens of both. Other countries’ worldviews present much more significant 

problems for citizens’ ability to serve both countries fully at the same time. Rather than 

68 This has been pointed out numerous times; I most recently saw it in Marian Sigman and Lisa Capps, 

CHILDREN WITH AUTISM: A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1997). 
69 As articulated well by Hollinger, supra note 2. Hollinger calls for also developing a national 

narrative to express our core ideals. 
70 Differentiating those rights would again need to be a political process; I think we would want to try to 

distinguish between privileges and rights; LPRs would get the latter but not the former. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 32-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 30 

deciding on dual citizenship as a general policy, the Noahide example suggests that 

political decisions would need to be made about each country separately, to see whether 

its worldview corresponds well enough to the American one to expect that citizens could 

reasonably identify with both countries at the same time.71 

Finally, the Noahide example suggests that Hiroshi Motomura’s convincing call 

for immediately granting certain rights so as to foster LPRs’ transition to citizenship72 

should be encased in some other rubric. When immigrants arrive in this country, they 

might choose whether they intended to become citizens after the waiting period or not. 

Those who asserted their intent to naturalize could be given a wider basket of benefits 

immediately, as Motomura suggested, fostering their transition. Of course, if they failed 

to naturalize after some set period of time, they would revert to being ordinary LPRs, 

with the more limited rights and benefits involved. 

Noahide law in the Jewish system thus highlights one model of how to deal with 

outsiders who wish to come into a nation’s midst, having nothing to do with whether that 

nation is bound by belief in a common religion or just a common view of how the good 

life operates. To the extent that immigrants intend to remain outsiders, the host society 

nonetheless has to insure that they understand and respect the central and crucial values 

of that society. In doing so, the aliens become partial members with access to some of 

the benefits of that membership. 

71 Early readers of this piece wondered what would happen to a citizen of such a country—Communist 

Russia, for example—who did not want to renounce that citizenship in the hopes that the home country 
would one day change to be more similar to the United States. To the extent that the LPR wished to 
maintain ties with that home country, I argue that he or she would have to remain an LPR and not a citizen. 
72 See Motomura, supra note 3, 200. 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 33-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 31 

Putting such a system into place—the practical lesson I would recommend 

drawing from our study of the Noahide system-- requires clearly articulating this 

country’s central values, or at least engaging in a political process to decide what form 

those values take at the present historical moment. That statement of values can 

strengthen citizenship, both birthright and naturalized, making it more than a set of rights 

or membership in a club, turning it into a commitment and an obligation to participate in 

fostering the good health of the society that articulates this particular view of the world. 

Aside from the thick creed to be used by citizens, adapting the ideas of the 

Noahide system would promote developing a thinner version of that creed as well. 

Outsiders would be expected to commit to that version, as the price of entry into a society 

whose workings differ—greatly or minimally—from the workings of their home society. 

The point of demanding this of permanent residents is not to set up a barrier to 

entry into American society. Indeed, I see no reason why those who hope to naturalize 

need to wait a full five years from entry. To the extent that they understand what 

America is and means, and can present reasonable evidence of the sincerity of their 

attachment to this country and an understanding of ideals entailed in that attachment, I 

see no reason that five years should be the magic time period.73 The point of demanding 

this is so that we all, citizens and not, understand what it means to be an American, and 

take seriously membership in that society, whether as a citizen or as an LPR, in order, as 

our founding phrase goes, to form a more perfect Union. 

73 Those fleeing oppression, for example, can commit to America relatively soon after arrival; assuming 

they have been absorbed into the society to a reasonable extent, they could be naturalized earlier. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 34-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 32 

ENDNOTES 

i The issue of positive requirements for Noahides is fairly complex; we will raise some ideas about 

that infra. Similarly too complex to discuss here is the question of how Jews expected non-Jews to learn of 
these responsibilities, although I hope to address it elsewhere. J. David Bleich, CONTEMPORARY HALAKHIC 
PROBLEMS II (New York: KTAV, 1983) and Michael Broyde, “The Obligation of Jews to Seek Obervance 
of Noahide Laws by Gentiles: A Theoretical Review” TIKKUN OLAM: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN JEWISH 
THOUGHT AND LAW eds. David Shatz, Chaim I. Waxman, and Nathan J. Diament (Northvale, NJ: Jason 
Aronson, 1997), 103-144 have argued that Jewish law does not obligate Jews to teach these laws to non- 
Jews, although some sources required giving information when requested. 

Broyde, 123-4, discusses Maimonides’ statement, LAWS OF KINGS 8:10, which seems to require 
coercing observance of the Noahide laws. I agree with the view that Maimonides only meant that to apply 
within the Land of Israel or any territories conquered by the Jewish nation, since he does not assume any 
general obligation for Jews to wage war to convert non-Jews to the Noahide system, see LAWS OF KINGS 
5;1. 8;10 should be read as saying that Jews are required to secure adherence to the Noahide laws from any 
non-Jews who come under their control. 
ii At least for Talmudic Jews and their successors. I hope to show elsewhere that Jews thought of 

pre-Sinaitic Noahide law, meaning the Noahide law incumbent on non-Jews before the giving of the Law at 
Sinai, as intuitive; with the codification of Jewish law at Sinai, Noahide law was changed as well. 
iii Perhaps because it goes most directly to judgments about the justice of a particular society, these 

laws have been discussed more than all the others, making brevity on this issue almost impossible to 
achieve. One central question worth mentioning is the Talmud’s assumption that the seven Noahide 
commandments include only prohibitions; how the commandment to set up courts or law qualifies as a 
prohibition is unclear. Maimonides’ version, which says that all members of a non-Jewish society are 
liable for any public violation of the Noahide laws that they do not try to stop, seems to see it as a 
prohibition against sitting silent when these laws are being breached. Nahmanides, however, sees dinin as 
a commandment to set up a system of civil law; the capital punishment would accrue to those judges who 
neglected to combat violations that they were supposed to judge. 
iv Two sources in particular are cited as support for the natural law view. First, bERUVIN 100b 

notes that in the absence of revelation, human beings could nonetheless have learned certain lessons from 
animals—modesty from the cat, theft from the ant, incest from the dove, and sexual etiquette from the 
rooster. Those who see the Noahides as natural law, of course, go a good deal farther than that. The 
second source, bYOMA 67b, interprets the Bible’s distinction between laws and statutes. Laws, the Talmud 
says, are those rules that should have been written even had they not been. The Talmud then gives five 
examples, all of them Noahide laws, suggesting that the Talmud saw these as intuitive rules necessary even 
in the absence of revelation. Here, natural law claimants need to explain the missing other two, as well as 
the details of the law we will mention below. 
v Many textual versions of that comment have Maimonides denying that such a person is even 

wise, but that is not our issue. For one discussion, see Jacob I. Dienstag, Natural Law in Maimonidean 
Thought and Scholarship 6J EWISH LAW ANNUAL (1987), 64-77. 
viSome support for Fox’ position actually comes from a medieval thinker ordinarily mentioned as 

among those who accepts the existence of a natural law. Proponents of the idea that natural law was part of 
medieval Jewish thought point to several thinkers who speak of laws open to human reason, beginning with 
Saadya Gaon in the tenth century. Joseph Albo in the fifteenth was the first to use the actual Hebrew term 
for natural law, dat tiv`it, as one of his three categories of law. He says, BOOK OF PRINCIPLES, I;7, that laws 
are either natural, by which he means they are applicable to all people everywhere, conventional, meaning 
that they vary to accommodate the different social, physical, economic, and political conditions among 
societies, or religious, commanded by God through a prophet. 

In a different discussion, I;25, Albo considers whether religious law would have to be universal as 
well. Were religious law legislated from God’s perspective, it would have to be, since God is one and the 
same throughout the world. The variations among peoples and societies, however, leave room for more 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 35-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 33 

than one divine law. Those laws could not differ on fundamental matters, but they could take into account 
the different audiences to whom they were being addressed. As an example, Albo points to the differences 
between Noahide law and Sinaitic; although both are religious laws, they address different groups of people 
and therefore differ in their particulars. 

The comparison shows that Albo considered Noahide law to be a religious rather than a natural 
law. He also recognized the possibility that laws that are universal might still not be natural; they might be 
those subsections of God’s law that God chose to apply universally. Albo thus does not identify natural 
law with the Noahide law; since the Noahide law is also universal, it tends to render the concept of natural 
law fairly insignificant in Jewish thought. 
vii Even if we assume that these rules are general and intuitive in their basic form but particularist 

in their details, we will have achieved the position taken in the text: while Jews might have seen themselves 
as universalistic in their prescriptions for non-Jews, they necessarily incorporated their own worldview in 
those rules, so that non-Jews would have to learn and understand important Jewish ideas to be able to thrive 
in a Jewish commonwealth. See Maimonides, LAWS OF KINGS 10;1, who stresses their obligation to learn 
Noahide laws, and his assuming that a Noahide who violated one of those laws even out of ignorance 
would be nonetheless capitally liable. 
viii As has been argued by Suzanne Last Stone, supra note 28, 1159 and passim. She contrasted Noahide 

law, a system that develops a moral political life with Sinaitic law, which seeks to develop a covenantal community 
with God. In her more recent The Jewish Tradition and Civil Society, ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF CIVIL 
SOCIETY eds. S. Chambers and W. Kymlicka (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 2002), p. 154, she characterizes the 
Noahide laws as “the moral order given by God to humanity…consisting of seven basic human obligations…and to 
establish a system of justice. The nations of the world thus also potentially constitute societies of moral significance 
whose basic purpose is to establish justice in the social sphere…” We can easily imagine, however, working polities 
that do not treat theft or even murder as a capital crime, let alone incest. The other laws as well, as we will show 
infra, do not only combine to develop a moral society, but one that develops at least a minimal relationship with 
God. 
ix This view of corporate responsibility for immorality in one’s midst goes much further than 

current theories. Maimonides’ ruling also seems to assume that the people of Shechem would not have 
been taking their lives into their hands by protesting their prince’s actions, since he and most authorities do 
not envision a Noahide requirement to be killed rather than transgress one of their laws, see J. David 
Bleich, 7 JEWISH LAW ANNUAL (1988), 13, n. 22. 
x Nahmanides assumes that violation of any of the laws promulgated under this rubric would also 

incur the death penalty. If so, however, it is unclear why gezel, theft, was singled out as one of the Noahide 
laws. This might suggest that at least the laws included in dinin were open to lighter punishments as well. 
See the next note for a discussion of the possibility that capital punishment is not obligatory. 
xi The strictness of Noahide law, both in terms of punishment and evidentiary requirements, is 

another nonintuitive aspect of dinin. Each of these crimes (including theft of a minimal amount of money) 
incurs capital liability. Several scholars, traditional and academic, have argued that capital punishment for 
these crimes was not required, just permitted. R. Aaron Soloveitchik, In the Matter of the Noahides 
(Hebrew) 19 BEIT YITSHAK (5747/1987), 336, makes that claim; he further labels as cruel any society that 
punishes offenders more harshly than necessary. Similarly, Arnold Enker, Aspects of Interaction Between 
the Torah Law, the King’s Law, and the Noahide Law in Jewish Criminal Law” 12 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 
3-4 (Feb.-March, 1991), 1153, argues that the term used for Noahide culpability translates as “ is killed,” as 
opposed to “is liable for death,” which specifically means should be given the death penalty. In a slightly 
different expression of the same fundamental idea, R. Joab Joshua Weingarten (1847-1922) RESPONSA 
HELKAT YOAV Appendix 14, suggested that if non-Jews made their own laws on interpersonal issues— 
although he cites theft and burglary as examples, when they are in the original seven Noahide laws—they 
would be allowed to institute a lower level of punishment, since their established law becomes a kind of 
communal foregoing of their right to kill offenders. 

I find the arguments unconvincing, for several reasons. First, J. David Bleich, CONTEMPORARY 
HALAKHIC PROBLEMS II (New York: KTAV, 1983), p. 345 points out that Maimonides clearly required the 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

----------------------- Page 36-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 34 

killing of offenders, as otherwise he could not have justified the brothers’ eradication of the town of 
Shechem. Unless the townspeople were capitally liable for their failure to execute their prince, Shechem, 
for abducting Dinah, the brothers’ conduct is unjustifiable. Second, the argument would presumably apply 
to all the Noahide laws, but there is no good reason, from a Jewish perspective, to punish murder, idolatry, 
or incest with anything less than death. 

R. Weingarten’s argument regarding burglary or, even better, fraud, is more plausible. Perhaps 
those laws that are legislated as part of the obligation of dinin according to Nahmanides could be open to 
communal agreement to set a lower level of punishment. The capital crime would be the failure to set up a 
legal system at all, with pieces of the system punished to different extents. In terms of the other 
prohibitions—including direct stealing—I do not see what gives the community the power to neglect giving 
the punishment the Talmud assumes. 

Evidence requirements for non-Jewish are also not intuitive, as the Talmud allows (or requires) 
killing a non-Jew even on the basis of one reliable witness’ testimony, even before one judge, see 
bSANHEDRIN 57b. Maimonides seems to assume no need for a formal court proceeding, as he accepts 
Simeon and Levi’s killing of Shechem as execution of judgment, but TOSAFOT AVODAH ZARAH 64b, s.v. 
Eizehu ger does not. 
xii The law of bailments, for example, may be purely functional, avoiding disagreements about the 

parties’ various responsibilities, but they go well beyond a minimal standard of what a society needs in 
order to function. Nahmanides, Isserles, and others’ assuming that non-Jews were required to set up a more 
extensive system of civil law inherently forces those societies to confront questions of the kinds of bonds 
they expected among their citizens. This in turn would forge a sense of group identity as opposed to seeing 
themselves as a group of individuals who happen to live in close proximity to each other. 
xiii Even Maimonides, who thought that the existence of a single God was a logically demonstrable 

proposition, recognized the difficulty in intuiting it on one’s own. In his view, LAWS OF IDOL WORSHIP 
1;3, Abraham spent thirty-seven years struggling with the issue before deciding that there was only one 
God. 
xiv It is in that sense that Maimonides speaks of the rationality of Biblical law in the end of the 

Guide as well; he means that he can supply reasons that a rational person can appreciate, but not necessarily 
intuit or feel compelled to follow once the reasons are presented. 
xv The concern of Noahide incest laws with maternal lineage—so that intercourse with a maternal 

half-sister is prohibited, but not with a paternal one— is largely unexplained in the Talmud. Since Noahide 
law did recognize paternal lineage in other areas, most notably inheritance, see bKIDDUSHIN 17b, 
Maimonides, LAWS OF INHERITANCE 6;9, SHULHAN ARUKH HOSHEN MISHPAT 283; 1, we need to explain 
why maternal lineage became the focus here. I believe that the greater physical connection to a sister 
through the mother explains the incest prohibition. A sexuality that insisted that people move away from 
their original family in finding partners might reasonably prohibit all siblings that came physically out of 
the same body, while ignoring the genetic bond that extends from the father. Incidentallly, other medieval 
authorities defined the non-Jewish incest prohibitions differently. For one example, see R. Meir Abulafia’s 
YAD RAMAH, SANHEDRIN 57b-58b. 
xvi See LAWS OF KINGS 9;9, based on bAVODAH ZARAH 72a. Maimonides includes all forms of 

theft in this category, including withholding wages. 
xvii This is the implication of bSANHEDRIN 58b, which derives the prohibition from GENESIS 8;22’s 

reference to never ceasing productivity, “day or night.” Like with the study of Torah discussed in footnote 
49, this prohibition is not as restrictive as it sounds. Hatam Sofer (R. Moses Sofer, 1762-1839), in his 
novellae on the tractate, noted that vacations and leisure activities are also part of productivity when they 
are for the purpose of rejuvenating oneself, as, presumably, are charitable, volunteer, and family activities. 
xviii 92b. The version of this statement found in JERUSALEM TALMUD, AVODAH ZARAH 2;1 says 

that they will accept these thirty in the future. In addition, there is no consensus about what those thirty are; 
R. Samuel b. Hofni Gaon had one list in his Biblical commentary, GENESIS 34:12, published by A. 
Greenbaum (Jerusalem: Mossad haRav Kook), 52-58. R. Menahem Azariah of Fano, TEN ARTICLES, 

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/174 

----------------------- Page 37-----------------------

Involuntary Particularism Gidon Rothstein 35 

ARTICLE ON INVESTIGATING THE LAW III;21, has a different one. Their lists, incidentally, do not emphasize 
the idea of self-initiated legislation that I have in the text; however, their lists also try to subsume the 
discussion in HULLIN into discussions elsewhere-- either Scripture or the Talmud—while the examples that 
the Talmud gives in HULLIN do not easily fit those categories. 
xix The three laws non-Jews did keep were not writing marriage contracts for men, not selling 

human flesh in public, and honoring Torah. The first two are ways of mitigating apparently widespread 
violations of some of the Noahide laws themselves. The question of marriage and marriage contracts 
among men only arises when a society has already foregone a prohibition on homosexuality itself, and is 
testing how far that permissiveness will go. So, too, restricting the marketing of human flesh indicates a 
society that has long trampled the boundary restricting the eating of flesh to that of dead animals. 

These two examples suggest that the “laws” that the Talmud envisioned the Noahides accepting 
were ways to avoid complete disregard for commandments they had already ceased observing. The 
reference to their respecting Torah might be construed the same way—while they did not actually observe 
the rules the Torah set up for them, they still respected the document, a remnant of the original ideal that 
the Torah had expected of them. The Talmud’s assertion that even there, in the attempt to retain something 
of Noahide law, the non-Jews only succeeded at keeping up with three of the thirty, gives some sense of the 
Talmud’s attitude towards the non-Jews of their time. 
xx The comment appears as an explanation of ZECHARIAH 11;13’s reference to thirty pieces of 

silver. This, apparently, led most medieval commentators to dismiss this statement as part of a midrashic 
attempt to reconcile various parts of Scripture, meaning they did not have to deal with it in practical terms. 
xxi Many authorities, starting with R. Nissim of Kairouan in the tenth century, asserted that non- 

Jews were obligated in any logical commandment; he gives the example of honoring one’s mother and 
father. A full discussion of that issue is beyond our focus here. In addition, with modern society’s 
realization of the limitations of appeals to intuition, the value of this category has become severely limited, 
as indeed our analysis itself suggests. 
xxii Maimonides, LAWS OF CIRCUMCISION 3;7 and Responsum 148. Maimonides is citing a source 

that I have not been able to identify, but his comment, 3;8, that the foreskin is disgusting, and his 
assumption, GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED III;49, that circumcision serves to reduce sexual desire, make 
circumcision an almost intuitive practice for those who wish to maintain a healthy control over their 
sexuality. In that context, it makes sense to leave this option open to non-Jews as well. 
xxiii R. Yosef Caro, in his glosses to LAWS OF CIRCUMCISION 3;7, assumed that Maimonides only 

allowed circumcision for the sake of conversion; Radbaz, (R. David ibn Abu Zimra, 1479-1573, Spain, 
Israel, and Egypt), writing about LAWS OF KINGS 10;10, excluded non-Jews from commandments that 
require holiness and purity, such as wearing phylacteries (tefillin); R. Moses Feinstein (1895-1986), 
RESPONSA IGGEROT MOSHE YOREH DE’AH 2;7 only allowed non-Jews to keep commandments relating 
to donations to the Temple, giving charity, and so on, but nothing particular to Jews. On the other hand, in 
addition to Maimonides, R. Abraham Gumbiner (1637-83), MAGEN AVRAHAM 304;12 and BEUR 
HALAKHAH (R. Israel Meir Kagan, 1839-1933) to the same text assumed that a non-Jew could accept 
various commandments in the course of becoming a ger toshav and, in so doing, render them obligatory 
upon himself for the rest of his life. 
xxiv Some commentators, such as Peter J. Spiro, footnote 3, point out that we expect naturalizing 

citizens to know more than birth citizens; if true, I see that as a flaw in our educational systems rather than 
our conception of citizenship. From my perspective, it would be perfectly reasonable to require birth- 
citizens to demonstrate an awareness of, and allegiance to, the thicker version of American principles in 
order to maintain full citizenship rights. 

Hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press 

_______

Ex:6:3: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. 

Mat. 8:11: And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

http://www.henrymakow.com/lucifers_chosen_people.html

Is Lucifer the god of Judaism?

April 7, 2010

Anti-Christ, Satanic Noahide and they are as gods Hoax upon mankind

Rosenthal debunks the commonly accepted lie that, "the Jews are Israelites, and thus God's chosen people".

The seed of Abraham are they who are by faith in Christ, spiritual Israel, see Galatians 3

Rosenthal said in part: 'Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer -- so I wasn't lying -- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive.'" (www.macquirelatory.com/Wallace Interview 1967.htm)

Lucifer's goal is to "be like the most High" (Isa 14:14) and to usurp the worship of God (Mat 4:9).

Lucifer's purpose is to deceive the whole world (Rev 12:9) by transforming himself into an angel of light (2Co 11:4). This is best exemplified by the Freemasons. Their motto of "making good men better" produces a far more favorable public image than the more accurate alternative: "how to become demon-possessed in 33-easy-steps." The Jewish and Masonic religions both worship the same god.

BRIGHT LIGHT

In most Jewish synagogues, a bright burning flame represents their god. The Hebrew word for Lucifer is "Hillel" (Strong's Concordance  #H1966) meaning "bright light." Curiously, this is the name chosen for the (CHABAD) Jewish student organization. The Jewish six-pointed star is the highest symbol in the occult and goes under various names--the Star of Moloch/Saturn/Remphan. The Hebrew symbol חי worn around the necks of many Jews ostensibly symbolizes "life" (lachaim). The word literally translates to a "living thing" or "beast" (H2416); this symbol is an idol for The Beast.

The Mark of the Beast, Moshiach ben Satan the coming false Christ of the chews Talmudic anti-Christ religion

The Jewish name for god is represented by the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHVH) translated as Yahweh, or Jehovah. The significance of God's name is repeatedly emphasized throughout the scriptures.

When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah) is revealed. "Yah" (#H3050) means "god". "Hovah" (#H1942) translates to "eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness."

Jehovah is the god of wickedness, Satan.

However, Jews claim that this name (YHVH) is not to be spoken aloud, despite God's command to declare His name throughout the earth (Exo 9:16).

UTTERING GOD'S NAME

Judaism very subtly corrupts otherwise good commandments by adopting a false practice. By this prohibition against uttering God's name, the Jews subtly suggest they know god's name and that it is secret knowledge that can only be had if you take up the Cabala. Masonry also uses this ploy to entice.

Christian churches teach Jewish doctrine which prevents God's name from being known and/or glorified.

The Jews have plenty of other names for Satan that they use openly. They are mostly titles that translate to Lord (which is what Baal means). All the major pagan gods' names are names for Satan (see "The Two Babylons" by Hislop). Satan is the author of confusion and goes by many names. As long as you are praying to someone or something other than the true god , Satan has succeeded.

The name Yahweh is reserved for Cabalistic practice. Cabalism is a mystery religion not intended for the mainstream. The promise of secret knowledge is used as bait to get followers i.e. cult members who will pay money.

The mainstream Jews, like the mainstream Catholics, are left in the dark regarding the Satanism that goes on among their leaders behind closed doors. The name Yahweh is very prominent in Witchcraft and the name Jehovah is very prominent in Masonry and Catholicism, so if Yahweh or Jehovah was spoken by the Jews, it would openly attach them to these other groups. This might result in some serious questions from the Jews of the congregation.

The Black Magician and Satanist invokes demons by name. In the Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey provides an extensive list of "infernal names" that, when summoned, provide the practitioner with super human abilities namely intelligence, power, skills in manipulation, enhanced creativity, material wealth, and the satisfaction of diverse lusts.

PRAYER

Jewish prayers are conducted in Yiddish, a composite language far from the intended pronunciation of the original Hebrew (A.C. Hitchcock, "The Synagogue of Satan," 1). The prayers in modern synagogues are nothing more than disguised demonic invocations. They are hypnotic spells, similar to the Enochian language of the Church of Satan. Jews are invoking demons named adonai, elohim, el shaddai, et al in their rituals.

see new and improved anti-Christ Judeo Churchinsanity

Vain repetitions and head-bobbing during Jewish prayers aid the entrance into a trance state. Large numbers of atheistic Jews engage in the pseudo-religious worship of status and knowledge. As Bill Cooper writes, "The WORSHIP (a lot different from STUDY) of knowledge, science, or technology is Satanism in its purest form, and its god is Lucifer" ("Behold A Pale Horse," 70). Judaism fills its members with the same Satanic powers as the Church of Satan and Freemasonry.

CABALISM

The foundation of Cabalism is identical to Satanism: the reversal of the roles of God and Satan. It is the pursuit of hidden (occult) knowledge which allows one to achieve god-like abilities by calling on the so-called names of god. These are the names of fallen angels/demons/spirit guides who are the gatekeepers to occult knowledge (Gen 6:4, Jubilees, Enoch). While not all Jews actively practice Cabala, they all accept the highest Cabalistic name as their god--Yahweh (Jehovah.)

The infamous Cabalist and Satanist Aleister Crowley writes, "There are thus 72 'Angels'...these [names] are derived from the "Great Name of God"...The "Name" is Tetragrammaton: I.H.V.H., commonly called Jehovah. He is the Supreme Lord of...the whole Universe ("The Book of Thoth," 43).

"Of the 54 sacred names in the Jewish kabbalah, the primary one is YHWH" (R. Hathaway "Sacred Name of God? Or Blasphemy," remnantradio.org/Archives/articles/sacred_name.htm).

The Jewish creed, the Shema, states: "our Lord is One," so why do they invoke these other names?

DEMONOLOGY

The secret of the ancient Egyptians, and their modern disciples, the Freemasons, is the art of demonology for gaining power--mainly through the devil, Jehovah. In the Royal Arch degree, the Freemason " acknowledge[s] that the devil, in the guise of Jahbuhlun, is his sacred Lord"--the name Jahbulun being a "composite of Jahweh, Baal, and Osiris." He chants "Jah-buh-lun, Jah-buh-lun, Jah-buh-lun, Je-hov-ah" (Texe Marrs, Codex Magica, Ch. 4). Albert Pike discusses the Cabalistic/Masonic significance of IAHOVAH in great length in Morals & Dogma (66, 213, 401, 467, 519)

The name YHVH was injected into the text of the Old Testament by the Pharisees and others who practiced Babylonian Satanism (the precursor to Cabalism and Talmudism). An agreement was forged between the Jewish Masoretes and the Catholic Church c. 1000 A.D. to change the name of God in the Hebrew Old Testament to the pagan name Yahweh/Jehovah via the tetragrammaton (remnantradio.org/Archives/articles/sacred_name.htm).

This explains Rosenthal's saying, "We are amazed by the Christians' stupidity in receiving our teachings and propagating them as their own."

In Henry Ford's words, "The Christian cannot read his Bible except through Jewish spectacles, and, therefore, reads it wrong." ("The International Jew," Vol. IV, 238).

GOD'S REAL NAME

The demonic disdain for humanity exhibited by the Luciferian Jew, Harold Rosenthal, typifies the end result of a lethal amalgamation: Jewish religious ritual combined with the worship of knowledge and self. The Jews as a people, by rejecting God and/or accepting Jehovah, have been given over "to a reprobate mind...Being filled with all unrighteousness..." (Rom 1:28-31).

Of course, Mr. Rosenthal was a member of an elite, openly Satanic minority among the Jewish people. Everyday Jews do not know that the god of their faith is in fact Satan hiding behind a mystical name. It is of no consequence to Satan whether he is worshiped deliberately or through subtle lies and deceptions (Gen 3).

The wise Solomon asks, "what is [God's] name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Pro 30:4). God's name is  (I AM). This is the name given to Moses along with the Law. "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you...this is my memorial unto all generations."(Ex 3:14-15). "I AM the Lord thy God...thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exo 32:4-5).

_______

Lk:18:24: And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Spiritual Sodom and Egypt

Described by developers as “the peak of Jerusalem’s luxury life,” a sign at the entrance to the complex reads, “Holyland Park – a private neighborhood for people like you.”

Equipped with automatic glass doors and keypad entry systems, the lobbies of the Holyland buildings also include marble floors, flowing fountains of water and assorted replicas of fine artwork on the walls.

And although the corruption case against the Holy Land’s proprietors and their associates led the nightly news on Wednesday, residents of the opulent complex were mostly mum when it came to the details.

“I heard it on the news tonight, but we obviously knew nothing about these allegations,” a middle-aged resident who was walking outside one of the buildings told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

“I moved here with my wife about a year ago, and it’s been lovely,” he added. “It’s a quiet area, the view is spectacular, and we always wanted to live in a place like this.”

While the man, who declined to give his name, said that he didn’t expect any fallout from the legal proceedings to affect daily life at the complex, he said the allegations surrounding the Holyland’s owners were “shameful, if they are true.”

Other residents told the Post that many of the buildings’ residents were French and American olim and that despite a recent upswing in sales, many of the apartments were still empty.

In February, reports surfaced that Holyland Park Ltd., the development company behind the residential project, had not met its sales target for the housing complex, which is set to include some 1000 units when completed.

The reports were based on filings by Kardan Israel Ltd., which owns 30 percent of the development through its subsidiary Kardan Real Estate Initiative and Development Ltd.

In a park across the street from the complex on Wednesday night, next to the Ramat Sharet neighborhood, two teenage girls, Inbal and Noa, said that residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the Holyland development resented the complex as it had “destroyed the view.”

“We used to be able to see all of Jerusalem from our homes,” said Inbal. “But they destroyed the view,” she added, gesturing at the hulking buildings across the road.

“Everyone hates them,” Noa said of the large buildings. “People always complain about the huge buildings that went up here. It used to be nothing but trees and grass.”

Still, the girls spoke of the buildings’ residents as movie stars, and lightly fawned over the opportunities they had to go inside.

“I have a friend who lives there,” said Inbal. “And I babysat for a family there once. Everyone who lives there is a millionaire, they’re not just ordinary people.”

Mt:6:19: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Mt:6:20: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:21: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.