One World Religion

the 

written in 2003

"World Church of Noahidism"

of the One world Order, Olam Ha Ba of the One World Despot

of the "Chosen" Master Race, who say in "Their Laws" they are gods.

Tractate Sanhedrin 

of the Books of satan's Talmud Bavli, the Oral tradtition of Mishnah Torah of the Illuminated whited sepulchres of dead men's bones, Chabad Lubavitch

Read them your selves, then condemn me all you desire.

The Social Laws Of Talmud Bavli, of the Sofiet Bolshevik's of Chabad Lubavitch Pharasites, the Illuminated elders of the synagogues of Satan, i.e, Universal Noahidism

The One World Religion of the One World Order of the False Messiah, Moshaich ben Satan

Penned by the scribes and the Pharisees after the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. Judaism IS NOT THE ROOT of Christianity

The set up for this One World Religion of their One World Order is accomplished. The Coup D' Etat 2000 appointment of their man, the Shull and bonesman, who admits that Jesus is his greatest Philosopher, Yet will never publicly tell the Public, that Jesus Christ is the Only Savior over all mankind, the man who compromised, and said, "Billy Ghraham and his mommy, told him that Jesus is not the only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the jews do not need Jesus Christ the Only Everlasting and Holy Covenant, they have "Their Own Convenant".

This is Judeo-Churchizionazism at it's apostate best.

We are in the seventy weeks of Daniel's vision OF THE LAST DAYS.

The wall and the Street were begun in the week of June 13-19th

The troublous times are building a catastrophic tempo

there are wars and Homelandt Sekurity rumors of wars on invisible Terrorist, these wars designed to instill fear on the masses to forfeit their Sovereign God given rights, which the Peoples Government by the people for the people were founded, a Republic Democracy.

The Chabad Lubavitch of Talmudic Sofiet Bolshevik Ilk are pushing for their Universal Religion of Noahide to make all Gentile the slaves of the Pharastical Chabad Lubavitch and their "Lesser Brethren" the jews, which is a religion unto Baal and is not nationality. Many are in fear of the jews and are become twice the children of hell by the Leaven of these Pharasites.

The Pontifex Maximus in the Order of Nimrod, the High Priest at Rome is about to be moved for One who will seem as a Lamb of God, Goivanni Batista Ra.

This will happen before the seventy weeks are finished. He will ecumenically connect all apostate's to the vision to seat that king of Israel upon the Highest throne, showing that he is A messiah, that son of Perdition, the Moshaich ben Satan, of Talmud Bavli, the perversion of God's WORD.

Around November 2004, this beast will unleash a terror which will put the Theosophist half jew Hitler to shame, this time to Target true Christianity, "Perpetual Purim saints of Jesus Christ the Lord.

There is nowhere to hide, nowhere to run for us who know that we must "STAND FIRM".

Like soldiers, who have a good King, the King of Kings we have no fear and pledge our allegience only to him.

The Lord, will protect us. The Lord will avenge our blood.

They can only take the flesh, But we fear HIM who can destroy both flesh and soul, this is the second death, and we fear greatly the Living God the King, the Prince to the Throne of God in Heaven.

The son's of the synagogues of Satan who deny that Jesus is Lord over all, tremble at the Power the Lord of Host has given us to overcome the enemy.

Hold your ground, stand firm, for O'Death where art thou sting, Our Lord Christ Jesus is He, the Only who holds the keys to death and hell and Hell and death are defeated.

In Christ Jesus, Holy Name, Stand firm in your testimony of Jesus the Lord Almighty. 

Beware of the scribes and the Pharisees

Folio 56a

GEMARA. It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he 'blesses' the Name, by the Name.²  Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord … when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.³  How do you know that the word nokeb⁴  [used in the Hebrew] means a 'blessing'? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob]⁵  whom God hath not cursed;⁶  whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God.⁷  But perhaps it means 'to pierce,'⁸  as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob]⁹  a hole in the lid of it,¹⁰  the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?¹¹  — The Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other.¹²  But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name. But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu]¹³  by their names;¹⁴  the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God?¹⁵  — Firstly, the Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.¹⁶  An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob¹⁷  [and cursed],¹⁸  proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?¹⁹  You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed,²⁰  and not 'him that hath blasphemed and cursed', proving that one offence only is alluded to.

Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.²¹  It would have been sufficient to say], 'A man, etc:' What is taught by the expression any man?²²  The inclusion of heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.²³

Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.²⁴  — R. Isaac the smith²⁵  replied; This phrase ['any man'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name,²⁶  and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.²⁷  Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death?²⁸  Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. Whence do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included [in this law]? From the verse, Any man that curseth his God — shewing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]: this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name, is punishable by death: with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction. [but not punishable by death].

This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a heathen [son of Noah] blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name, he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death. Why so? — Because it is written, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death].²⁹  This teaches that only the stranger [i.e.. a proselyte], and the native [i.e., a natural born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the heathen is punishable even for a substitute only. But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land'? — It teaches that the stranger and citizen are stoned, but a heathen is decapitated. (Goyim Gentile) For I would think, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]: hence we are taught otherwise. Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land', on the view of the Rabbis?³⁰  — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?³¹  — The Torah employed normal human speech.³²

Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;³³  to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.³⁴

footnotes 

1. The witnesses, in giving testimony, do not state that they heard the accused say, 'May He slay himself', uttering the actual divine name, but use the word 'Jose' as a substitute for the divine name. 'Jose' is chosen as a substitute, because it contains four letters, like the actual Tetragrammaton, which must have been used by the blasphemer for him to be punished. Moreover, the numerical value of 'Jose' is the same as of Elohim [81]. According to Levy, s.v. [H], the first Jose [H] stands for Jesus ([H], son), and the second is an abbreviation of [H], Joseph, the Father, by which, however, God was to be understood. The witnesses were accordingly asked whether the accused in his blasphemy had set Jesus above God. (R. Joshua b. Karha, the author of this saying, lived at a time when Judeo-Christians ascribed more power to Jesus than to God.)
2. As in the Mishnah, 'Jose strike Jose'. 'Bless' is here a euphemism for curse, and is so in the whole of the ensuing discussion.
3. Lev. XXIV, 16. The repetition shows that the Divine Name must be cursed by the Divine Name.
4. [H]
5. [H]
6. Num. XXIII, 8.
7. Ex. XXII, 27.
8. I.e., it is a capital offence to pierce the Divine Name, written on a slip of parchment, and thus destroy it.
9. [H]
10. II Kings XII, 10.
11. Deut. XII, 3f. The interpretation is based on the juxtaposition of the two verses; v. Mak. 22a.
12. The knife passes successively from one slip to the other, but one Name does not pierce the other.
13. uceb
14. Num. 1, 17.
15. Deut. VI, 13, which is interpreted as a prohibition against the unnecessary utterance of His Name.
16. The statement, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, though implying abstention from something, is nevertheless given as a positive command, but punishment is imposed for the violation only of a direct negative precept.
17. [H]
18. Lev. XXIV, 11.
19. I.e., only he who both blasphemes, that is, utters the ineffable Name, and curses it, is executed.
20. Ibid. XXIV, 14.
21. Ibid. XXIV, 15.
22. Lit., 'A man, a man', Heb. ish ish, [H].
23. The only place where death is explicitly decreed for non-Israelites is in Gen. IX, 6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. It is a general law, applicable to all, having been given in the pre-Abrahamic era; his blood shall be shed must refer to the sword, the only death whereby blood is shed.
24. V. infra 56b. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. Gen. II, 16. Every word or phrase in this verse is separately interpreted, the Lord teaching the prohibition of blasphemy to a Noachide.
25. In the Talmudic period the Rabbi was an honorary official; consequently, he had to have a private occupation e.g., R. Joshua, who came into conflict with R. Gamaliel, was a blacksmith, (Ber. 28a.) others translate, charcoal-burner.
26. I.e., even if only a substitute was employed in blasphemy, the death penalty is incurred.
27. Lev. XXIV, 15
28. Ibid. 16.
29. Ibid.
30. That a heathen too must use the ineffable Name for incurring punishment.
31. This is a difficulty For R. Isaac and R. Miyasha, as they explain the opinions of the Sages. They both maintain that the culpability of a heathen is deduced from And the Lord (God commanded etc.) When employing substitutes, his culpability, in the view of R. Miyasha is deduced from as well the stranger etc.; Whilst R. Isaac denies that it is punishable at all. Hence the difficulty, why the repetition ish ish, a man, a man?
32. I.e., no particular significance attaches to the repetition, it being the usual idiom.
33. I.e., to establish courts of justice, or, perhaps, to observe social justice (Nahmanides on Gen. XXXIV, 13): Hast. Dict. (s.v. Noachian precepts) translates 'obedience to authority'.
34. These commandments may be regarded as the foundations of all human and moral progress. Judaism has both a national and a universal outlook in life. In the former sense it is particularistic, setting up a people distinct and separate from others by its peculiar religious law. But in the latter, it recognises that moral progress and its concomitant Divine love and approval are the privilege and obligation of all mankind. And hence the Talmud lays down the seven Noachian precepts, by the observance of which all mankind may attain spiritual perfection, and without which moral death must inevitably ensue. That perhaps is the idea underlying the assertion (passim) that a heathen is liable to death for the neglect of any of these. The last mentioned is particularly instructive as showing the great importance attached to the humane treatment of animals; so much so, that it is declared to be fundamental to human righteousness.

     

Sanhedrin 56b

Whence do we know this? — R. Johanan answered: The Writ saith: And the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.³  And [He] commanded, refers to [the observance of] social laws, and thus it is written, For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.⁴  The Lord — is [a prohibition against] blasphemy, and thus it is written, and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.⁵  God — is [an injunction against] idolatry, and thus it is written, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.⁶  The man — refers to bloodshed [murder], and thus it is written, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.⁷  Saying — refers to adultery, and thus it is written, They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and became another man's.⁸  Of every tree of the garden — but not of robbery.⁹  Thou mayest freely eat — but not flesh cut from a living animal.¹⁰

When R. Isaac came,¹¹  he taught a reversed interpretation. And He commanded — refers to idolatry; God [Heb. elohim] to social law. Now 'God' may rightly refer to social laws, as it is written, And the master of the house shall be brought unto elohim [i.e., the judges] (The Seventy Elders who sit on the seat of Moses) .¹²  But how can 'and He commanded' connote a prohibition of idolatry? — R. Hisda and R. Isaac b. Abdimi-one cited the verse, They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, etc.¹³  And the other cited, Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment.¹⁴  Wherein do they differ? — In respect of a heathen who made an idol but did not worship it: On the view [that the prohibition of idolatry is derived from] they have made them a molten calf, guilt is incurred as soon as the idol is made [even before it is worshipped]; but according to the opinion that it is from, because he willingly walked after the commandment, there is no liability until the heathen actually follows and worships it. Raba objected: Does any scholar maintain that a heathen is liable to punishment for making an idol even if he did not worship it? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish Court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen; but those for which a Jewish Court inflicts no capital penalty on Jewish delinquents are not forbidden to him.¹⁵  Now what does this exclude? Presumably the case of a heathen who made an idol without worshipping it?¹⁶  R. Papa answered: No. It excludes the embracing and kissing of idols.¹⁷  Of which idols do you say this? Is it of those whose normal worship is in this manner; but in that case he is surely liable to death? — Hence it excludes the embracing and kissing of idols which are not usually worshipped thus.

'Social laws.' Were then the children of Noah bidden to observe these? Surely it has been taught: The Israelites were given ten precepts at Marah, seven of which had already been accepted by the children of Noah, to which were added at Marah social laws, the Sabbath, and honouring one's parents; 'Social laws,' for it is written, There [sc. at Marah] he made for them a statute and an ordinance;¹⁸  'the Sabbath and honouring one's parents'. for it is written, As the Lord thy God commanded thee!¹⁹  — R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The addition at Marah was only in respect of an assembly, witnesses, and formal admonition.²⁰  If so, why say 'to which were added social laws'?²¹  — But Raba replied thus: The addition was only in respect of the laws of fines.²²  But even so, should it not have been said, 'additions were made in the social laws'? — But R. Aha b. Jacob answered thus: The Baraitha informs us that they were commanded to set up law courts in every district and town. But were not the sons of Noah likewise commanded to do this? Surely it has been taught: Just as the Israelites were ordered to set up law courts in every district and town, so were the sons of Noah likewise enjoined to set up law courts in every district and town! — But Raba answered thus: The author of this Baraitha [which states that social laws were added at Marah] is a Tanna of the School of Manasseh, who omitted social laws and blasphemy²³  [from the list of Noachian precepts] and substituted emasculation and the forbidden mixture [in plants, ploughing. etc.].²³  For a Tanna of the School of Manasseh taught: The sons of Noah were given seven precepts. viz., [prohibition of] idolatry, adultery, murder, robbery, flesh cut from a living animal, emasculation and forbidden mixtures. R. Judah said: Adam was prohibited idolatry only, for it is written, And the Lord God commanded Adam.²⁴  R. Judah b. Bathyra maintained: He was forbidden blasphemy too. Some add social laws. With whom does the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab agree: viz., [God said to Adam,] I am God, do not curse Me; I am God, do not exchange Me for another; I am God, let My fear be upon you?²⁵  — This agrees with the last mentioned [who adds social laws to the list].

Now, what is the standpoint of the Tanna of the School of Manasseh? If he interprets the verse, And the Lord God commanded etc. [as interpreted above], he should include these two [social laws and blasphemy] also, and if he does not, whence does he derive the prohibition of the rest? — In truth, he does not accept the interpretation of the verse, 'And the Lord God commanded etc., but maintains that each of these [which he includes] is separately stated: Idolatry and adultery.

Footnotes

1. Deut. XVIII, 10ff.
2. Therefore, since it is stated that they are being expelled as a punishment for these sins, they must first have been warned (i.e., prohibited) against them.
3. Gen. II, 16.
4. Gen. XVIII, 19. Thus 'command' relates to justice and judgment.
5. Lev. XXIV, 16 — 'The Lord' being used in connection with blasphemy.
6. Ex. XX, 3.
7. Gen. IX, 6.
8. Jer. III, 1. Thus 'saying' is used in connection with adultery.
9. Since it was necessary to authorize Adam to eat of the trees of the garden, it follows that without such authorisation — i.e., when something belongs to another — it is forbidden.
10. By interpreting thus: Thou mayest eat that which is now ready for eating, but not whilst the animal is alive. It is perhaps remarkable that a verse, the literal meaning of which is obviously permission to enjoy, should be interpreted as a series of prohibitions. Yet it is quite in keeping with the character of the Talmud: freedom to enjoy must be limited by moral and social considerations, and indeed only attains its highest value when so limited. Cf. Ab. VI, 2: No man is free but he who labours in the Torah.
11. V. p. 361, n. 5.
12. Ex. XXII, 7. The root idea of 'elohim' is power, majesty.
13. Ex. XXXII, 8.
14. Hos. V, 11, referring to idolatry; thus in both cases 'command' is used in connection with idolatry.
15. V. Mishnah 60b.
16. For which a Jew is not punished by death.
17. Teaching that these are not punishable.
18. Ex. XV, 25. Ordinance (Heb. mishpat) refers to social law.
19. Deut. V, 16. This occurs in the fifth commandment of the second Decalogue. Similar words are used in the fourth commandment: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. In both cases then there is a reference to some previous event, shewn by the use of the past tense: commanded thee. Now the second Decalogue, though spoken by Moses towards the end of his life in the plains of Moab many years after the first at Sinai, was nevertheless a repetition thereof. Therefore this reference back must have been made in the first promulgation also, and can only relate to Marah, where, as stated above, 'he made for them a statute and an ordinance', i.e., gave certain laws to the the Israelites.
20. I.e., that Justice should be meted out by an 'assembly'. viz., a Sanhedrin; that an accusation was to be attested by at least two witnesses, and that a formal warning or admonition was to be given to the accused before he committed his offence, as otherwise he was not liable to the prescribed penalty. But the sons of Noah, though bidden to observe civil laws, were not bound by these regulations.
21. Since the addition was only in the method of procedure, but not in actual content.
22. E.g., Deut. XXII, 19, 29, where a slanderer of a woman's honour is ordered to pay 100 silver shekels to her father, and a seducer of a virgin 50 silver shekels. These payments are not regarded as equitable indemnifications against loss sustained, but as fines for reprehensible acts. These laws were wanting in the civil code of the sons of Noah, and only these commands added at Marah.
23. The text employs abbreviations for these commands.
24. Which means that He commanded him to remember His Godhead, and not to reject it for a different deity.
25. 'Let my fear be upon you' is an exhortation to dispense justice uprightly, without fear of man.

The Goal, Destroy Christianity, Christ Jesus whom they reject for the "Robber"

Folio 57a

R. Joseph said, The scholars²³  stated: A heathen is executed for the violation of three precepts — Mnemonic G Sh R—²⁴ viz., adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy. R. Shesheth objected: Now bloodshed is rightly included, since it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;²⁵  but whence do we know the others? If they are derived from bloodshed,²⁶  the other four should also be included; whilst if their inclusion is taught by the extending phrase any man,²⁷  should not idolatry too be included?²⁸  But R. Shesheth said thus: The scholars stated, A heathen is executed for the violation of four precepts [including idolatry]. But is a heathen executed for idolatry? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen. This implies that they are merely forbidden, but their violation is not punished by death! — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: Their prohibition is their death sentence.²⁹

R. Huna, Rab Judah, and all the disciples of Rab maintained: A heathen is executed for the violation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], it applies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: 'With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed³⁰  or [seized] a beautiful woman,³¹  or [committed] similar offences,³²  if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean³³  against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained'?³⁴  But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, 'but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,' therefore the former clause reads, '[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.'³⁵  But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: 'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'?³⁶  — How else could that clause have been taught? Could he state, 'forbidden' … 'permitted'? Surely it has been taught; A Cuthean and a [Jewish] shepherd of small cattle [sheep, goats, etc.]³⁷  need neither be rescued [from a pit] nor may they be thrown [therein]!³⁸ 'And similar acts.' To what can this apply in the case of robbery? — R. Aha b. Jacob answered: To a worker in a vineyard [who eats of the grapes]. When so? If his is the finishing work, it is permitted?³⁹  If it is not the finishing work, is it not actual robbery?⁴⁰ — But R. Papa said: This applies to [the theft of] an article worth less than a perutah.⁴¹  But if so, why say that such robbery of a Jew by a Cuthean must not be kept: does he not forgive him?⁴²  — Though he later forgives him, he is grieved when it occurs [therefore it is prohibited] — But how can you say that such robbery by one Cuthean from another is but a 'similar act' [i.e., bordering on robbery]: since a Cuthean does not forgive,⁴³  is it not actual theft? — But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage.⁴⁴  One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted.⁴⁵  To what can 'a similar act' apply in the case of a beautiful woman? — When R. Dimi came,⁴⁶  he said in the name of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hanina: To a heathen who allotted a bondwoman to his slave [for concubinage] and then took her for himself, for this he is executed.⁴⁷

'A similar act', however, is not taught with reference to murder.⁴⁸  Abaye said: If it should be, however, that it is so taught, it would be in accordance with R. Jonathan b. Saul. For it has been taught; If one was pursuing his neighbour to slay him, and the latter could have saved himself by maiming a limb [of the pursuer, e.g., his foot], and did not thus save himself [but killed him instead],

Footnotes

1. Gen. VI, II
2. And once they were punished for these offences, they must first have been admonished against them.

Part 2: Address by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson,

^{He, has put in the heart of the President of this country ("The king's heart is in the hand of the L-rd," cf. Proverbs 21:1) the desire to proclaim and publicize to all the citizens of this country -} 

^{with the approval of the representatives of the people of the land}

1. Ibid. 'Corrupted his way' connotes immorality; cf. the way of a man with a maid. Prov. XXX, 19.
2. Deut. IV, 16.
3. How does he utilize this latter verse?
4. But is not intended to imply a prohibition.
5. Gen. IX, 6.
6. I.e., who deduces it from the verse, all the Lord commanded.
7. I.e., by the sword, v. p. 380 n. 5; but the fact of execution is taught elsewhere.
8. Ibid. 3.
9. I.e., only as that which grows wild, without any owners; but not as that which is cultivated, hence owned by someone. This proves that robbery was forbidden them.
10. V. n. 8.
11. Which was prohibited to Adam, v. infra 59b.
12. Ibid. 4. 'Flesh with the blood thereof' means flesh cut from the living animal.
13. V. n. 8.
14. V. infra 59a, b.
15. Ibid. This, of course, is a direct negation of emasculation.
16. V. p. 386, n. 8,
17. But it is not intended to convey any prohibition.
18. Ibid. VI, 20; hence different species are not to be crossed.
19. V. p. 386, n. 8.
20. It being easier to mate with the same species than with another; but no prohibition is implied thereby.
21. The term be Rab does not necessarily mean the school presided over by Rab, though it may have that meaning occasionally. In one sense, it connotes the school founded by him, but lasting many generations after his lifetime. In another, it denotes schools in general. In this very instance, the views attributed to be Rab conflict with the teaching of Rab, Rab Judah, and all his disciples (Weiss. Dor II, p. 206.)
22. [H]: a mnemonic is given to facilitate the remembering of the subjects of a discussion. Here it stands for Gilluy 'Arayoth — adultery; Shefikuth damin — murder; and birkath ha-shem — blasphemy.
23. Gen. IX, 6.
24. That as bloodshed was forbidden on pain of death, so were the others too.
25. Heb. [H]. Lev. XXIV, 15: Any man ([H]) that curseth his God shall bear his sin. Ibid. XVIII, 6: No man ([H]) shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. In both cases one referring to blasphemy, and the other to incest, the repetition of ish extends the law to embrace heathens too.
26. Lev. XX, 2: Whosoever he be (ish ish ) of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed to Moloch (i.e., engages in idol worship); he shall surely be put to death. The repetition then, here too, should extend the death penalty for idolatry to heathens.
27. I.e., in speaking of heathens, when the Tanna teaches that they are forbidden to do something, he ipso facto teaches that it is punishable by death; for only in speaking of Jews is it necessary to distinguish between prohibition and punishment.
28. Stole (ganab) refers to secret stealing, robbed (gazal), to stealing by open violence.
29. In war, v. Deut. XXI, 10-14 — a species of robbery. [This is the only possible and correct rendering of the text, contra Goldschmidt. Cf. Tosef A.Z.]
30. Acts which are not actual robbery, but partake of its nature.
31. 'Cuthean' (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).
32. [I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2; VI, 8), the offence was non-actionable. For reason, v. B. K. (Sonc. ed.) note on Mishnah 37b.]
33. But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]
34. Thus the Tanna does refer to punishment; since then he omits a reference to punishment in the clause under discussion, it shows that the heathen is not executed for robbery. In the whole of this discussion the punishment referred to is death.
35. Both are regarded as robbers the latter because they permit their charges to graze in other people's fields.
36. One need neither exert oneself to save them from death, nor may one encompass it. This, of course, is theoretical only, v. p. 388, n. 6. Not a few of these harsh utterances (where they do not reflect the old Semitic tribal law, v. p. 388. n. 7) were the natural result of Jewish persecution by the Romans, and must be understood in that light. In actual practice, these dicta were certainly never acted upon, and it is significant that a commission of Roman officers, after investigating Jewish law in its relation to Gentiles, took exception only to two laws, one relating to the damage done by a goring ox, and the other permitting a Jew the use of property stolen from a Gentile. R. Gamaliel repealed this latter law. (B.K. 38a: Sifre Deut. 344.) Hence, reverting to the discussion, the Tanna could not have stated that the murder of a Cuthean by a Jew is permissible, therefore he is forced to speak of punishment.
37. E.g., the gathering in of the grapes. Deut. XXIII, 25 is interpreted by the Rabbis as referring to work in connection with the finishing touch given to the produce.
38. Not merely bordering thereon.
39. A small coin, one-eighth of the Roman as.
40. One does not mind such a trifle, and readily forgives it.
41. Even such a trifle, v. infra 59a.
42. This only borders on a robbery, for actual robbery means depriving a person of what he already possesses
43. I.e., non-actionable.
44. R. Dimi was a Palestinian Amora of the fourth century, who travelled to and fro between, Babylon and Palestine, and was very zealous in transmitting the teachings of Palestine Scholars to his colleagues in Babylon (v. J. E. IV, 603; cf. p. 361, n. 5, supra.
45. This, though not actual robbery, is similar to it.
46. A deed is either actual murder or not. Even unwitting murder is murder, though the Almighty shewed mercy by sparing the murderer.

Sanhedrin 57b

R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars'²   Book of Aggada:³   A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require;⁴   this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen].⁵   At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given;⁶   And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness;⁷   at the hand of man:⁸   but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is R. Ishmael's reason? Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed.⁹   What is a man within another man? — An embryo in his mother's womb.¹⁰  But the first Tanna [who excludes the murder of an embryo from capital punishment] is a Tanna of the school of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation. He connects the [second] 'man' with the latter half of the sentence, and interprets thus: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, within man [i.e., within him], shall his blood be shed. Now, how can man's blood be shed, and yet be retained within him? By strangulation.

R. Hamnuna objected: Now, is not a [heathen] woman commanded [to keep the social laws]? Surely it is written, For I know him, that he will command his sons and his household [which includes the womenfolk] after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to exercise charity, and judgment?¹¹  — He raised the objection, and he answered it himself: he would command 'his sons' to exercise judgment; 'his daughters' to perform charity.

R. Awia the elder said to R. Papa: Let us say that a heathen woman who committed murder must not be executed, since it is written, at the hand of every man [who committed murder] etc. implying,¹²  'but not at the hand of woman'? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: Whoso sheddeth man's blood implies whosoever it be [even a woman]. Let us say that a heathen woman who committed adultery is not executed, since it is written, therefore shall a man forsake [his father and mother, and cleave to his wife], implying¹²  that a man [must cleave], but not a woman? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: The verse, And they shall be as one flesh, reassimilated them to each other [making the law of fidelity applicable to both].

Our Rabbis taught: [A man, a man shall not approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.¹³  It would have been sufficient to state,] A man shall not approach etc. What is taught by the repetition, A man, a man? — The extension of the law to heathens, that they too are forbidden incest [including adultery]. Now is this deduced from this verse; is it rather not deduced from a different text, viz., [And the lord God commanded…] saying, which refers to adultery?¹⁴  — The latter text refers to adultery with a woman of their own [i.e., with a heathen married woman]; the former to adultery with one of ours [i.e., a Jewish married woman], for the second clause teaches: If he committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law. With regard to what is this?¹⁵  — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: With regard to an assembly, witnesses and formal admonition.¹⁶  Is a Jewess then of less account?¹⁷  But R. Johanan answered thus: It is with regard to a betrothed Jewish maiden,¹⁸  whose violation by heathen law is not a capital offence;¹⁹  hence they are judged by Jewish law.

But if their offence was against a fully married woman, are they judged according to their law? Surely it has been taught: 'If a heathen committed adultery with a [Jewish] betrothed maiden, he is stoned; with a fully married woman, he is strangled.' Now if we judged them according to the law pertaining to them, should he not be decapitated? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: By a 'married woman' this Baraitha means one whose huppah ceremony²⁰  has been performed, but without the marriage being consummated. Since by their law her violation is not a capital offence, they are judged by ours. For R. Hanina taught: They recognise the inviolability of a woman whose union has been consummated, but not if she merely entered the huppah without the union having been consummated. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: All prohibited [sexual] relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens, but those for which a Jewish Beth din (Temple)  does not impose death are permitted to heathens; this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages maintain: There are many relationships²¹  for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death, which are nevertheless forbidden to a Gentile. If a heathen committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law; if with a heathen woman, he is judged according to heathen law. The only difference that this makes is with respect to a betrothed maiden.²²  But should not the Tanna include a woman whose huppah ceremony has been performed without the marriage being consummated? — The teacher of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the college of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation, and by both codes [Jewish and heathen] this last-mentioned offence is punished by strangulation.

Now, is R. Meir of the opinion that all relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens? Surely it has been taught: A proselyte,

1. Yet this cannot be regarded as real murder, and hence may be called 'a similar act'. But the sages dispute this, and maintain that he is not executed at all.
2. V. p. 387, n, 7. It may also mean the School of Rab (Bacher. Agad. Bab. Amor. p. 2).
3. Aggadah (or Haggadah, from nagad, to declare), means the whole non-legal portion of Jewish learning. Here however, an actual law is cited from the Book of Aggadah. In the T. J. and Midrashim, many statements cited in the T. B. as being from the Book of Aggadah of the schools, are those cited under the name of Noachian precepts. Hence it is possible that the reference is to a collection of laws relating to Gentiles, and in order to distinguish it from specifically Jewish laws, it was called the Book of Aggadah (Weiss, Dor, III, p. 158).
4. Gen. IX, 5.
5. The interpretation is based on the use of the singular, 'I' will require.
6. This is based on the extending word 'every'.
7. This is based on the singular.
8. Not the same phrase in Heb. as the preceding one.
9. Lit. rendering of Gen. IX, 6.
10. This law was directed against the Roman practice of prenatal murder. Weiss, Dor, II, 22.
11. Ibid. XVIII, 19. Why then should a woman's testimony be inadmissible?
12. According to Rab Judah's exegesis.
13. Lit. rendering of Lev. XVIII, 6.
14. V. p. 383.
15. Since by the Noachian Law also he is liable to death.
16. He must be tried by a full Sanhedrin; he cannot be convicted on the testimony of less than two witnesses, and he must have been formally admonished before committing the offence.
17. I.e., is he dealt with more leniently because his offence was against a Jewess? For when his offence is against a heathen, these are unnecessary.
18. V. p. 333, n. 3; p. 337, n. 5.
19. As they do not regard her as married until the actual consumation of the nuptials.
20. V. p. 333, n. 3.
21. The Gaon of Wilna deletes 'many': Maimonides likewise does not include it in his text. Actually, the dispute of the Sages and R. Meir is only in reference to a half sister by one's mother.
22. Tosef. 'A.Z. IX. Since heathen law does not recognise this as a capital offence, he is judged by our law. This statement supports R. Johanan's contention

If they, the Goyim do not establish "Our" us, the "Chosen" Talmudic Babylonian Satanic Universal Noahide Laws, then they must die, as according to our g-d the "Robber"

Vayishlach
Human Personality
By Avi Polak

In this week’s Torah portion we read about the rape and abduction of Dina and the consequences suffered by the people of Shekhem. Rabbi Y. Nachshoni’s commen-tary (Studies in the Weekly Portions), can illuminate for us some events at home and around the world and the psychological reasons behind them. “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore (from the circumci-sion), that the two sons of Ya’acov, Shimon and Levi, Dina’s brothers, took each man his sword, and came upon the city (Shekhem) with confidence, and slew all the males”. (1) Why should all of society be punished for one man’s wrongdoing? Wasn’t the House of Ya’acov brought up as a house of mercy and compassion? What did the people of Shekhem do to deserve the death penalty?Let us analyze this story to understand what happened to cause such an abrupt and fatal ending.Malbim on our passage gives three reasons justifying Shimon and Levi’s action.a) The community was jealous of Ya’acov’s wealth and planned to kill him and his family in order to acquire their wealth. (The action was defensive.)
b) Shekhem (the leader) committed a publicized abduction and rape of Dina. The people of Shekhem completely disregarded what he did and did not punish him. (The action was offensive.)
c) The community actually defended the perpetrators when Yaacov’s sons de-manded Dina’s Return. (The action was both defensive and offensive.)Rambam gives a halakhik explanation for what happened to the people of Shekhem. The world is divided in to two separate populaces, the Jews and B’nei Noach, the rest of the world. The B’nei Noach have only seven obligatory commandments, the Noahide Laws, compared to 613 commandments that the Jews have to observe. Al-though the Noahide Laws consist of only seven commandments, they are of such 
significance that any violation of them is punishable by death. (2)After Shekhem kidnapped Dina, according to the Noahide Laws, he was liable for the death penalty. The rest of his community deserved the same punishment due to the fact that they had no judicial system. These offenses are two separate command-ments of the Noahide Laws.
Ramban disagrees with Rambam. The judiciary systems were meant for settling business disputes. Furthermore, the community of Shekhem could not have been liable for death for this reason. Punishment is only meted out for a prohibitory com-mandment (lo ta’aseh) and not for a positive commandment (‘aseh). Ramban states that they deserved death for a different reason. Their sin was idol worship. (3)Chatam Sofer points out that a Ben Noach who transgresses a positive command-ment, he deserves the death penalty even though he is not executed for it. (4) His interpretation of Rambam is, that since the people of Shekhem deserved to die, Shimon and Levi were not held accountable for the murders.Chemdat Yisrael returns us to the original explanation. Rambam clearly states that the community of Shekhem were not just killed. Shimon and Levi had a legal obliga-tion to administer the death penalty: It is very good to have a society with laws, but if there is no one to enforce them, the laws themselves are worthless. Even though, theoretically, they accepted upon themselves the Noahide Laws, because of their failure to appoint anyone to enforce them, they all, as a community, deserved the death penalty. As we see in the Talmud, establishing a judicial system and ways to enforce it are part of the same commandment. (5) Already Rambam observed: “A person is created such that he is drawn—in his per-sonality traits and his actions—after is fellows and associates.” (6) In the words of 
modern psychologists:“The individual lives in a social setting. From his first breath he is in contact with other individuals. For a while he is dependent on them for the preservation of 
his life. Later he is dependent upon them for the molding of his personality and character - for their ways become his ways and their life his. As we see the individual taking on the ways of his fellows and his eventual conforming to their preferences, we might be able to account for what we see in terms of laws and principles of individual psychology. The group does affect the behavior of the individual. The society functions as an organized entity. As it does so, it has its 
way with the individual. It teaches him, sets standards for him, defines the limits within which his behavior must be contained. But at a more general level of analysis it does this also through the definition and enforcement of social roles. The group, in order to survive and function, defines and enforces standards of proper and improper behavior.” (7)
Last year’s riots in Los Angeles is one such example. The riots began as a result of corruption in the judicial system and continued because of the lack of law enforce-ment. Another example is the recent lynch in Ramallah. As a rule, murder in any so-ciety is not tolerated and looked down upon with disgust. We see today, in various instances around the world, what are the psychological effects when no judiciary system is enforced. A corrupt enforcement agency reinforces an even more corrupt society. It leads to a total disregard for the establishment and whatever is identified with it. 
In memory of all the soldiers who were killed for Clal Yisrael.

Thus we should behead all the disobedient goyim chattel?

SOURCES
1. Genesis 34:25
2. Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14
3. Genesis 35:2
4. Chatam Sofer, Responsa VI 14
5. Tractate Sanhedrin 56 
6. Hilkhot De’ot 6,1
6. Psychology, A Scientific Study of Man, Fillmore H. Sanford, 531-536 


Avi Polak
Jr. Editor - Dvar Torah U’Mada, Jerusalem College of Technology, Machon-Lev

It is a very real and a very present danger. The Scholars of the world are arguing and strategising for the enforcement of the One World religion unto Satan, their Universal Noahide Laws of the scribes and the Pharisees. They seek to murder the followers of Christ Jesus, Just as they sought to kill Jesus. Thus...

Jn:7:1: 

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n183.shtml

On the subject of Shechem. I would raise the following question. According to the opinion of (I think) the Rambam that the extermination of Shechem was justified because the inhabitants of Shechem were culpable for not enforcing the law against the rape of minor child still under the custody of her father (apparently the rape of an unmarried adult is not necessarily a per se violation of the seven Noahide laws for which they would have been culpable) are all the citizens of the United States culpable for not preventing abortions which are a violation of the seven Noahide laws? Would one be allowed, under this reasoning, to kill American citizens, either individually or collectively? Just to avoid any misunderstanding, let me say explicitly that we know that that can't be right. The question is does that question disprove, as I think it does, the opinion that the extermination of Shechem was justififed, or is there some way to distinguish between the two cases? David Glasner

http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5763/shoftim.html

The societal obligation of establishing a judicial system is one of the seven Noahide laws. It is a responsibility incumbent upon every nation and every society. The opening Mitzvah in this week's Parsha states, "Establish for yourselves judges and enforcers in all your cities." Is this different than the general Noahide obligation for creating a judicial system or is it the same? If it is different, how is it different? If it is the same, why did G-d command the Jews separately from the other nations?

There are three components to a judicial system. 1. Establish laws for the proper functioning of society. 2. Appoint judges who will judge with wisdom and integrity. 3. Empower a police force with the ability to enforce the laws of that society.

Whether Jewish or non-Jewish, the three components of a judicial system are necessary. There is however one significant difference between the Jewish and the non-Jewish judicial systems. The non-Jewish nations are responsible for making laws and enforcing them. Their laws must support the basic tenets of the Seven Noahide laws but the rest of the system is up to them

You had better damn well see why the jews always bring upon themselves opposition. It is a threat that NO True AMERICAN Christian can tolerate.

So the Bushka Regime of Satan and his Order of Skull and Bones must enfore the laws of their g-d unto all the WORLD

http://lawsofnoah.com/law7.htm

http://www.rb.org.il/noahide/directory/essay2.htm

Moses was commanded to enforce the Noachide laws and severely punish those who did not keep it.

Duke University

ELON, Menachem: "The Legal System of Jewish Law," 17 New York Univ. J. of International Law and Politics (1985), 221 - 243. [also in Golding] ELON, Menachem: "The Ethiopian Jews: a Case Study in the Functioning of the Jewish Legal System," 19 New York Univ. J. of International Law and Politics (1987), 535 - 563. ENKER, Arnold: "Aspects of Interaction between the Torah Law, the King's Law, and the Noahide Law in Jewish Criminal Law," 12 Cardozo L. R. (1991), 1137-1156. ENKER, Arnold: "Lex Talionis: The 'Plain Meaning' of the Text," 2 S'vara (1991), 52-55.

SHILO, Shmuel: "On One Aspect of Law and Morals in Jewish Law: Lifnim Mishurat HaDin," 13 Israel Law Review (1978), 359 - 390. [also in Golding] SHILO, Shmuel: "Kofin Al Midat S'dom: Jewish Law's Concept of the Abuse of Rights," 15 Israel Law Rev. (1980), 49 - 78. STONE, Suzanne Last: "Siniatic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism in Jewish Law," 12 Cardozo Law Rev. (1991), 1157 - 1214. WEINRIB, Ernest: "Rescue and Restitution," 1 S'vara (1990), 59 - 65. [also in Golding]

By law, made by the People's representatives, enforced by the Jewdicial, backed by Congress, signed by the Executive

http://216.97.108.57/webdata/uploads/1001000242_FileName_dmddratchcopyright.doc

• Biblical Rights of Kings Theory: The Bible recognizes that rulers have certain powers and authority.  These are outlined by the prophet Samuel, I Samuel 8:11-13, in response to the peoples request for a king.11  A  These powers are afforded both Jewish and non-Jewish authorities.12 (Coming Moshiach)
• Noahide Law Theory: One of the seven Noahide laws13 is the obligation of dinim, i.e., for non-Jewish societies to set up and enforce a system of justice.14   Therefore, rulers have biblical warrant to establish laws.15 (See www.samliquidation.com/the_enforcers.htm)
• Economic Reallocation Theory: Jewish law recognizes the principle of hefker Bet Din hefker, i.e., the Jewish court has the authority to confiscate personal property and render it ownerless.  The Bet Din, in its role as a governmental authority, holds this power and thus, all governmental authorities may exercise this power.16
• War Casualty Theory: Based on the verse My vineyard, which is mine, is before me.  Thou, O Solomon, shall have the thousand, and those that guard the fruit thereof, two hundred, (Song of Songs 8:12) the Talmud states, A government that [by going to war] causes one out of six to be killed is not punished.17  

   ("Purim Saddam)

  1. This verse recognizes the legal authority of a state to wage war, thus granting it legitimate governmental authority in this and in other areas.18
   
  

        One Midrash suggests that while both the Jewish and Noahide systems are divine in origin, the Jewish people were given the details of judicial procedure and non-Jews were not.22  Ran suggests that the Jewish obligation is to render just and true judgment, for even if such judgment were in itself not required for the functioning of society and filled no immediate need, by virtue of such just judgment, Divine grace will be visited upon our people.  In contradistinction, the non-Jewish obligation is functional: the only value of just adjudication is the proper functioning of society.23 
  

  So the jews must remove the Ten Commandm,ents before their Exod-US

        

  You will find that although Mosaic Law and Noahide Law differ somewhat in their details, their general principles are the same, coming, as they do, from the same source.  Moreover, the two exist concurrently; whilst the Jewish people possessed the Mosaic Law, the other nations possessed the Noahide law…  There is no doubt that the other nations could achieve human success through Noahide law, since it [too] is divine, though not the same degree of success as the Jewish people, whose existence is based upon the Mosaic law.  Our rabbis have said, the righteous of the nations have a place in the World to Come.24 
  

        http://www.law.duke.edu/curriculum/courseHomepages/Spring2003/563_01/syllabus.html

   

  XII. Jewish Public Law and Other Legal Systems

       Rakover, "The 'Law' and the Noahides."
       Enker, "Aspects of Interaction between the Torah Law, the King's Law, and the Noahide Law in Jewish Criminal Law."
       Shilo, Shmuel: "Maimonides on 'Dina de-Malkhuta Dina' (The Law of the State is Law)"
       Kirschenbaum, "The Role of Punishment in Jewish Criminal Law: a Chapter in Rabbinic Penological Thought."
       Cohen, 195 -206
       Stone, Suzanne Last: "Siniatic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism in Jewish Law"

  XIII

[PDF]Symposium on the Norms and Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention, ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... against the view that every state has a right to enforce natural law ... of prohibitory
precepts, approximated in codes like the seven “Noahide laws” identified ...
hypatia.ss.uci.edu/gpacs/TerryNardin01.pdf - Similar pages

Rabbinical Court Document
... must appear to be the guardians of the covenant of Noah?' Under the Noahide covenant
if ... all the parties and that this Court has no temporal power to enforce it ...
www.texasrepublic.com/sanhedrin.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

Matthew 12:

25: And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27: And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28: But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29: Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Examines the ethical issues surrounding use of the boycott as a weapon of economic warfare, in terms of the 'halakha' (system of moral and religious precepts) laid down by the Noahide Code. Details some defects exposed by application of the precepts to the cases of Iraq and Yugoslavia, for example in relation to the supply of oil: "the point is not that soldiers, like other people, need to keep warm, but rather that the same substance that keeps people warm is also used for driving tanks... it seems wrong to let the Serbian military use their own people as hostages to the point of compelling us to supply them with the means of continuing their crimes against the Bosnians".
Director, Center for Halakha, ethics and medicine, Shalom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem. A useful analysis of the problem of complicity that arises in cases of 'trading with the enemy' (or with middlemen known or suspected of so trading). It also canvasses the question whether the sovereignty of wrong-doing states affects the legitimacy of intervention differently, according to whether military intervention or economic warfare (by means of sanction or boycott) is in issue.

Category Codes: N1, A4.10
Keywords: BOYCOTT, SANCTION

______________

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/responseTerrorism.pdf

George Bush, appointed by Schneerson

to trigger

WTC, Homelandt Sekurity, Patriot Akt II & 

 "Purim Saddam" "Purim Palestine""Purim Saints" or obey Universal Noahidism, in the master "Race" Olam Ha Ba. The almost Perfect deception. 

With careful study and understanding, of the coup d' etat which occured in America when the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as per direction of the Chabad Lubavitch rebbe, Schneerson the seventh Tzadik of the generation, who his followers say, is the eighth, the "Revealed" messiah of the Jews, it will be easily discerned what is indeed happening after the WTC, and the "War on Terror" that the pimp of the whore, the United States of Greater Israel is waging on all nations and on all peoples who are opposed the the "One World Order" and the Universal Relgion of Noahidism of the Olam Ha Ba.

I pray that prudent Christians of the "Truth" type, the saints who will stand firm in spite of the fear mongering and the false accusations, understand and tell many, and lead many into Righteousness of the Only Righteous, Christ Jesus, the Lord over All. Creation of Terror on American shores, benefited Israel more that all the nations on earth, in their "Palestinian Problem" and ethnic cleansing. It also established a precedent to control the World, and to enforce the New World Religion of Talmud Bavli's Universal obedient Noahide Religion unto satan, the "Robber" they have made their god. The two opposing tribes, Judah and Dan are fighting spuriously for the seat of the Throne of total despotism for all the globe. By peace, and sekurity, they shall soon begin to murder opposer's to this Occultic rule, wonderfully. If you attempt to save your lives in fear of the jews, and reject Christ Jesus and deny that he is Lord over all mankind, you will only prolong your flesh for four to five years at the most, for Jesus Christ is coming with great wrath, and terrible jealousy, and all who worship after this beast, the son of perdition, the false Messiah, will be cast into the Pit of fire and will gnash and gnaw their teeth forever.

Keep in mind as you read, that Trotsky and Lenin were jews sent out from New York City, to Russia in 1917, to begin the long planned precess of experimentation of this Despotic Talmudic Rule over the masses. Millions of Christian and non Christian Gentiles were slain at the hands of these Chassidim of Talmud Bavli. Talmudism is Judaism is communism is socialism is Unversal Noahidism of the occultism of satan. Mystery Babylon in the order of Nimrod and One World Order. To be enforced by the useful idionts of the Freemason Noachite's in their global temples and courts of "Justice". Solomon the apostate, fell for their system of worship, these are the lackey's of Lucifer. 

Does Ariel Sharon (Arik Sheinerman) consult his Illuminated rabbi?

* Critiquing in Blue Font

- 1 I. Introduction The ultimate difficulty in considering the legality (or illegality) of governmental responses to terrorism under Jewish law is the inherent nature of Jewish Law as a system of duties. Unlike a system of rights, such as those that dominate the secular democracies of our world, a system of duties seems fraught with danger. We can imagine the difficulty. How would our world change if the United States Constitution prescribed a duty to speak freely, a duty to bear arms, or a duty to protect our privacy? How would an individual deal with a situation where on one hand they had a duty to speak freely and on the other hand they had a duty not to defame another? The individual, as well as the state, would have much greater difficulty in deciding the correct course of an action when it was placed on a continuum of conflicting duties instead of listed in the simple matter as being legal or illegal. By ascribing to all individuals a system of duties, ( Universal Noahide Laws, HJR 104, Public Law 102-14- 1991)  rather than rights, the concept of choice is itself almost alien. What is a right in a secular law system? The term itself connotes a capability, a permissible means one has at their disposal to achieve a chosen end. A duty, however, seems to remove individuals from the realm of choice and lead them down a path toward requirements, obligations, and responsibilities. Thus, for every action, and inaction, there must be by definition some penalty for not fulfilling that duty. While rights tend to be divided in two distinct categories, those rights of individuals and rights of the State, duties are more varied. One’s own obligations could vary depending on status, class, ability, intelligence, age, and authority. So too, in changing circumstances, the duties may arise one instant and disappear the next. The other difficulty is the conflict between positive and negative duties mandated by Jewish Law. Some duties state affirmatively that one must act in a specified manner. Other duties state that certain actions may not be taken. Of course, these positive and negative obligations sometimes conflict. In response, one must understand which obligation controls, and whether the controlling duty is one that must be taken, or is merely permissible. Only by understanding the interrelation of these conflicting duties can it be understood whether Jewish Law will permit, or require, a desired course of action. The question thus becomes one of understanding how, in the context of a government responding to terrorism, the Israeli government has a duty to act or not to act, and that the actions they take are obligations under Jewish Law. So how can this difficulty be reconciled? In response to suicide bombings, sniper shootings, and car bombs, a secular government has a right to react. By analyzing these same responses under Jewish Law, though, the Israeli government has a duty to act. The choices they make will either fulfill their legal duty or violate their duty. In response to these acts of terror thrust upon the citizenry by Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli government has acted. They have undertaken a complex system of penalizing terrorists and attempting to preclude the commission of future terrorist acts. By assassinating terrorist leaders, deporting terrorists and their families, and destroying

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 4

- 2 homes of suicide bombers, the Israeli government is engaged in an extensive array of legally questionable activity. The Israeli Supreme Court has decreed that all of these actions are legally permissible under Israeli law. Clearly, the Torah

 (Oral Torah Mishnah and the commentaries of the rabbi's, Gemara, which make of none effect the Written Word of God)  

does not speak directly on the subject of terrorism. For that matter, few if any commentators have discussed the legality of these actions under Jewish Law. However, in the Talmud, (Talmud Babylon)commentators including Maimonides, Nahmanides, Ritva, and Ran et. al. have laid the groundwork to analyze these problems. 

who they call, master or rabbi of the Illuminated Elders of zion

By discussing Jewish Law responses and obligations in regard to homicide, capital punishment, destruction of property, banishment, and the role of State governments, (not Israel alone....but  Nations)  the responses to terrorism under Jewish law may be studied. The goal of this paper is not to pass judgment on the morality of these actions but to identify how, under Jewish law, these actions may be justified. Rather than identifying whether the actions of the Israeli government would necessarily be the correct course of action under Jewish Law, the aim of this paper is to show how one can justify the actions of the Israeli government based on existing law. A. Background of Terrorist Attacks and Responses in Israel A brief history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is necessary to understand the context of the terrorist attacks and responses thereto. Beginning in 1948, Israel has been at odds with the Arab world. The newly formed United Nations passed resolution 194, commonly known as the UN partition plan, which divided Israel into two halves, one reserved for the Arabs living in Israel (later identifying themselves as Palestinians) and the other for the Jewish people. However, immediately upon the resolution passing, the Arab countries decreed that they will "drive Israel into the Sea." The Arab countries asked that all Arabs living in Israel leave the area or join their brethren and fight off the "Zionist Scourge." The Arabs did leave, either heading for Jordan or Egypt or joining five Arab nations, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in their quest to destroy the Jewish people. In a miraculous victory, the Jewish people won the war of Independence and held the land not only reserved for the Jewish nation, but also much of the land originally reserved for the Arabs. Following this defeat, the Arab nations vowed to strike again and continued throughout the next eight years to engage in various small attacks on the Jewish people. These 3,000 cross border attacks resulted in the deaths of 922 people. Thereafter, Egypt led a coalition organized by Nasser to once again destroy the Jewish people. This came to be known as the Suez War. Once again, Israel defeated their attackers. The next 11 years continued to be deadly. Hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist attacks including murders, bombings, illegal landmines, and sabotage led to hundreds more dead and thousands more wounded. It was during this time that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was formed (the precursor to the Palestinian Authority). The PLO’s first terrorist attack was an attempt to bomb the National Water Carrier on January 1, 1965. It should be noted that almost all of the terrorist attacks were those against

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 5

- 3 civilians. Rarely were Israeli troops targeted by Arab attackers. These attacks led to furthering of animosity and eventually led to the Six Day War.In May-June 1967, Israeli-Arab relations began to worsen. Egypt led the charge once again. They blocked the straits of Tiran, preventing any Israeli commerce from entering or leaving the country. They removed the UN peacekeeping forces from the Sinai desert, and mounted troops along Israel’s border. The tension began to mount and Israel was in dire straits, their economy stifled and random attacks occurring daily. Finally, Israel could take the blows to their economy and military no more and launched a strike to destroy those that prevented the functioning of the country. In a single day, Israel destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian air forces. Six days later, Israel had not only defeated their attackers but had also captured Judea (the West Bank) from Jordan, Samaria (Gaza) from Egypt, as well as the whole of the Sinai desert. In response, the United Nations passed Resolution 242, decreeing that Israel will negotiate some agreement with the Arab peoples that would give back some of the land taken in return for peace. Various drafters agree that the resolution called for removal of Israeli troops from territories captured but nowhere states that Israel must withdrawal from all the territories. The Arab nations, however, disagree. Since that resolution, the Arab nations attacked once again on Yom Kippur 1973. Israel once again repelled their attackers. However, since that time, the Palestinians began to receive more public recognition as an entity separate from the Arab world. They engaged in numerous terrorist attacks to make themselves known to the world including hijacking planes in Europe, murdering members of the Israeli Olympic team in 1972 in Munich, and hijacking the Achilles Lauro cruise ship killing an American Jew on board.

(U.S Liberty attacked by Israel murdering  34 US Military personell, blamed on Arabs, 1967)

Yet, the more deadly the attacks became, the more support the Palestinians received for their cause. This support led to the United States led 1979 Camp David Peace Accords which traded the Sinai desert and $3 billion dollars a year from the United States to Egypt in exchange for an agreement not to attack Israel and a relinquishment of the rights to the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians, however, grew in power. Yasir Arafat led the organization to national prominence and even caused them to receive recognition first in the UN, then by the United States, and finally by Israel. 

(Arafat appointed by Israeli zionist and American zionist, CIA)

Various peace agreements have been reached to stop the thousands of yearly terrorist attacks planned by Arafat and the Palestinians yet all of them have failed and the terrorist attacks still continue. Even after Jordan relinquished all rights to the West Bank in 1996, the Palestinians remain diligent in their quest to have Israel return all of the territories captured from Jordan and Egypt to the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. In 1998, Ehud Barak offered 95% of the land in Judea and Samaria to Arafat in exchange for peace. 

A talmudic zionist Chabad Lubavitch no no

From this page to page 27 is a one sided justification to build the plot and a case for Global despotism of the Master Race, "Chosen"

I am going to skip to page 24.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 24

- 22 This introduction to the Jewish ideas on the sanctity of life identifies the context in which a discussion on collateral damage must be discussed. 

Excellent example of the Terminology to be used by the testing of the water of "Terrorism" in the US, used by Timoty McVeigh, "Collateral Damage"

The idea that we should inflict the minimum necessary harm led to Maimonides’ comment that "it was permitted to only surround a city on three sides so that they might flee from the beleaguered city."133Even in wartime, the Jewish people did not want innocent people to be accidentally killed, therefore, a means of escape must be provided. Ranban too agrees that life is of overriding importance requiring that one have mercy on one’s enemies as they would have mercy on one’s own.134In response to these sages, more recent commentators have extended these thoughts to the issue of collateral damage. 

Rabbi Michael Broyde noted that "Jewish law would allow the unintentional killing of civilians as a necessary (but undesired byproduct) of the moral license of war."135Rabbi Bleich agrees with this sentiment. He asserts that "no . . . Rabbinic source takes cognizance of the likelihood of causing civilian problems in the course of hostilities legitimately undertaken as posing a Halachic or moral problem."136In the context of war, it would seem that inadvertent civilian deaths would be permissible when the goals themselves of war are legitimate. Israel then has Halachic sanction for collateral damage sustained during the course of normal wartime responses. In the realm of hand to hand combat and responses to actual attacks, Israel’s inadvertent civilian deaths caused are morally, and legally, permissible.

Yet, they do not allow the Palestinian's in the time of war the luxury of "Collateral Damage"?

 When situations such as the recent fighting in Jenin are considered, this is viewed as legitimate: 

The war criminal Arik Sheinerman (Ariel Sharon mass murdered tens of innocent women and children

On April 2, 2002, in response to multiple suicide bomb attacks and knowledge of terrorist planning and preparation, The IDF entered Jenin in order to round up militant terrorists. Jenin, the home of top Islamic Jihad officers, was a haven of terrorist activity. The IDF had specific targets in mind, top Islamic Jihad terrorists known to have planned and committed numerous atrocities, killing many Israelis. Seeking merely to take captive the terrorists, Israel knew at least some violence was likely. It turned out that even the mild hopes of minimal violence would turn out to be wishful thinking. Violent fighting broke out between the Palestinian militants and the IDF troops. Many of the residents of Jenin fled, while others opted to stay. The IDF stopped no civilian from leaving the territory, in fact they encouraged them to do so. However, in the nine days of fighting, 22 civilians who stayed were killed when used as human shields by Palestinian terrorists or caught in the crossfire of the gunfire between terrorists and IDF troops.137In the case of Jenin, and similar instances, Israel followed the law as laid down by Maimonides, permitting and encouraging civilians to flee the field of battle. Yet, for those who stayed, knowing the circumstances, and that fighting is ongoing, they are no longer considered innocents under Jewish Law, but have changed their status to that of combatants.138Warning of impending attacks, using even bullhorns and public displays

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 25

- 23 to encourage civilians to leave dangerous areas are just part of the responsibility that Israel has undertaken in their quest to eliminate civilian casualties.

Just as they did with Rachel Corrie? Was she considered to be "Collateral Damage"?

Again, the US tested the preverbial Terrorist water and mass murdered "Collateral Damage" David Koresh (Cyrus) to see what the reaction of Noahide enforcement would be from the American People. Hardly even buzz of anger from the US Sheeple. So then they will go a forward step in their experiment to the masses.

 However, would we distinguish between these civilians, killed in the hand to hand combat, from those who are killed because of their proximity to a terrorist assassinated by guided missiles, targeted bombs, and other similar means? On its face, these deaths would seem to be distinguishable. The Jewish tradition discusses the field of battle. After all, those who remain in the field of battle are "classified as combatants because the opportunity to leave is continuously present."

Those who stand firm for their Sovereign rights given by the Creator...."Collateral Damage" of the Olam ha Ba

139It would seem then that one who is killed by the mere circumstance of being nearby to a terrorist target would fall outside of the realm of permissible collateral damage. However, that is not the case when dealt with from the perspective of this war. 

The commentators (rabbi's of Talmud Bavli) discussing the field of battle only dealt with traditional war fought on the battlefield. It is not so clear when we are dealing with a war that cannot be fought in an organized manner. We have defined the field of battle in this war as being unconfined, unbounded, and unknown to the public. 

see Busk's address to the Nation "Purim Saddam" the US war on Terror, when in fact Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the WTC attack. This attack was well cordinated by the "Experiment" to enforce global Noahidism.

The streets and homes themselves are military targets because of their occupants. After all, it is from there they do all of their planning, and some of their attacking. By judging the terrorist actions to be an act of war, the terrorists, wherever they are, are deemed on the extended battlefield.

140The occupants with them, with few exceptions, have been associates of these terrorists who knew full well the dangers and the possibility that an attack could come at any moment. Even in the case of Saleh Shehada141, the civilians killed, including children, were members of his own family.

The three year old had a chance to flee, using his very own discretion, by his on mobility

142Yet it was known that he traveled with his family in order to make himself less of a target. In fact, he was known to never sleep in the same place for more than a single night. So were those members of Shehada’s family in the line of fire? Not only would we consider them to be in the field of battle but it was Shehada himself who had put them there. He attempted to use his own family as a human shield.

Yeah, right

 Just as the Jewish people would have sanction to kill a commander fighting in the plains of Jericho even if his family was standing alongside him, Israel had moral sanction, when other methods proved futile, to kill him despite the inevitable civilian casualties that would, and did result. 

in the name of peace, destroy wonderfully

Because the civilians killed are in the field of battle, has Israel abided by the Halachic limitations on permissible collateral damage? While Israel has an obligation to limit collateral damage, the deaths that due result in lawful fighting are permissible under the Halacha. While some specific instances could prove questionable or even show liability, we must judge Israel’s actions on the whole to determine if any breach of Halacha sanction has occurred. We do know that Israel has encouraged civilians to leave the field of battle, encouraged the Palestinian people to stay away from known and wanted terrorists, and have used many safeguards to prevent civilian casualties. While the Palestinian people have some cause to complain over the approximately 400 civilians killed, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is below the number of Jewish civilians killed, many of the civilians were killed during traditional fighting, many Palestinian civilians killed have been later found to be terrorists themselves (or children and

this is an absolute distortion of casualty fact. Palestinian civilian's are slain three to one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 26

- 24 teenagers attacking Israeli troops), (Throwing rocks at Tanks) and the remainder are justified in order to save further lives. (Precog Justice)  Judging actions against terrorism to be an act of war proves to be a difficult task. The Intifada has many components, some which mimic traditional battlefield encounters while others seem far removed from any classic definition of war.143For that reason it is difficult at best to understand responding to terrorism solely as an act of war. 

Perpetual unlimited war against opposition

While that Talmud (Book of Satan, of the Pharisees)  provides invaluable advice on how to approach these problems, the sages can in no way have foreseen how warfare, and terrorism, would be waged in the 20th century. It is my contention that many of the facets of this conflict may be correctly viewed, and justified, under the laws of war. These would include the legitimacy of acting at all, engaging in assassinations of military leaders, and having Halakhic sanction to permit a minimal amount of collateral damage. In comparison, other actions taken by the government, including deportations, certain killing of terrorists, and destruction of property in many circumstances are not correctly viewed as acts of war, nor can they be justified as such. Therefore, only by further analyzing this conflict using other aspects of the Halacha can Israel’s actions against terrorism be fully justified. 

III. Responding to Terrorism as a Criminal Act By responding to terrorism under criminal law, Israel would be forced to treat terrorists in a similar manner that they do other criminals. Some of the components of terrorism including the political purpose, the organization, and the intent to put fear in the populace must be functionally disregarded and the State must instead apply the rule of law to these terrorists.144However, justifying government actions in response to these activities requires an analysis of analogous acts that the sages have discussed throughout the centuries. To discuss responses to terrorism under criminal law, this paper will analyze the following: 

(1) Is terrorism a criminal act; 

(2) How should Palestinian terrorists be punished under the criminal law and what law should apply to them; 

(3) What is the court’s jurisdiction to impose criminal law; and 

(4) Can the government responses to terrorism, assuming they are criminal acts, be justified. 

A. Is Terrorism a Criminal Act? Are acts of terrorism, and responses thereto, correctly treated under the criminal laws defined in the Talmud? 

The making of obedient Goy Noahides

The specific actions taken by terrorists have been traditionally treated under the criminal law. From random murders and bombings to stone throwing, the acts of terrorism undertaken by the Palestinians facially appear to be criminal acts. Because the acts themselves are taken not under the authority (at least not publicly stated authority) of a state, and the members are not a member of any recognized military force, criminal law would seem to be the correct measure with which to judge these acts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 27

- 25 The key difference between criminal and military actions is the distinction between public and private acts. Because the terrorist actions do not have explicit public sanction, they would be viewed as criminal acts.

 This seems even more true when the terrorists are actually citizens of the country they are attacking. 

In the case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, this distinction is less clear because the Palestinians are not citizens of the state of Israel. 

Because you can only be a citizen of Israel if you are a "Chosen" Master Race of superior beings, jews.

The terrorist actions taken may be viewed as private acts, although this is not as clear as it would seem. If we placed terrorist acts on a continuum between acts of war and criminal acts, it would seem that acts of terrorism would fall in the middle. The question is then whether terrorist acts would be more akin to the criminal acts than to acts of war; it would not be difficult to see them as such.

 In the same vein that terrorist acts have been viewed to be quasi-military acts,145we could also see them as quasi-criminal acts and thus viewed under the criminal laws of the Halacha.

The key questions in analyzing terrorist acts under criminal law involve the rules that govern criminal acts as opposed to the rules that govern the State’s response to criminality. So when is something a crime? In the Halacha, crimes are identified explicitly. These crimes have been extended through Talmudic interpretations and the application of common law in the Jewish Law system. From laws governing murder to commercial transactions, the Halacha delineates what constitutes a crime in Jewish Law. Most of the crimes in American law parallel their counterpart in Jewish law.

Setting up the Supreme Talmudic Courts in America

 There is, however, a larger emphasis on civil law and restitution that would entail many of the crimes that are described in American law to be punishable by restitution and civil penalties rather than penal sanction. Furthermore, unlike a secular system, the laws of obligation in Jewish law specifically prohibit certain acts and prescribe a duty to engage in others. The affirmative act/omission dichotomy dominates how Jewish law treats criminal acts. For the purposes of this discussion, describing terrorist acts, the acts for which terrorists are complicit are crimes under the Halacha. Murder, stone throwing, planting bombs, abetting murder, etc. would all be individual crimes under the Halacha. Therefore, the individual acts that terrorists engage in are criminal acts and Israeli government responses may be treated as responses to those acts. B. Punishing Terrorists Under Criminal Law One of the difficulties in analyzing terrorist actions under the Halacha is that Halachic law does not apply to non-Jews. 

But soon will

While we must gauge Israel’s actions under Jewish law, how do we handle Palestinian actions? Throughout history, Jews have treated gentiles (non-Jews) under a different standard of law.

All the way back when they controlled the Roman Empire, and beyond to Babylon, see the setting up of Haman.

146In order to determine how we can correctly assess the culpability as well as appropriate sanctions for terrorism under criminal law, I will discuss (1) What is the correct law that applies to Palestinian Terrorists; (2) What are the Palestinian obligations under that set of laws; and (3) Whether Israel has the ability, and/or the obligation to impose punishment on Palestinians. 1. Law Applicable to Palestinian Terrorists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 28

- 26 What Law is applicable to Palestinian terrorists? Jews are judged under the Halacha. The Torah states: "Judges and officers shall you make in all your gates . . . and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment."147Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven Gerondi (Ran) commented that Israel, unlike other nations, is required to "render just and true judgment" and only then will "divine grace will be visited upon our people."148This comment illustrates that Jews are judged under a different standard than are other peoples. As Rabbi Bleich notes, Judaism posits a parallel legal code that is binding on all humanity, the Noahide Code. 

So here we are, at last.....the reason for 911, the Olam Ha Ba and the "Revealing" of their King Despot of the World 

149The Noahide code describes the seven commandments that were binding on the sons of Noah: the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, sexual offenses, bloodshed, theft, and eating the flesh of a living animal as well as the affirmative obligation of dinim, to establish courts.150Rabbi Bleich notes that these laws are applicable to all mankind.

151While these laws differ from obligations under Jewish law, Rabbi Kook states that while the Halacha as administered to Jews is based on the Torah,

the Noahide laws are based on "fundamental human honesty.

Not based on anything but the Criteria the Master Race, the Chosen, who were chose for Salvation, but who chose the "Robber" establish for mankind.

"152Some commentators have expanded on the Noahide laws inferring greater requirements than just the facial prohibitions. Nahmanides found that many of the Halachic laws including those as pertaining to extortion, commercial transactions, rape and seduction, overreaching, and personal injuries among others also apply to the "descendents of Noah."153He notes that these obligations are inherent because human society, even prior to the Revelation at Sinai, followed many established legal norms.

Law of Hammurabi

154Despite the expansion of the Noahide code as it pertains to non-Jews, it has been noted that the Noahide code is less restrictive than the Halacha. 

Only Decapitation penalty, for breaking any one of the Talmudic Noahide Laws as set forth by your representatives in Washington the District of Isis, 1991,. HJR 104, Public Law 102-14

In criminal law, punishment may be imposed by a court using testimony from a single witness and the court may be composed of a single judge.

155Rabbi Kook asserts that the laws don’t follow the same stringent standards of the Halacha because they "are rooted in common decency, an affinity for justice . . . in everyday matters, an abhorrence of blatant evil . . . common to all men on earth" 

and not in the holiness of the Torah.

156In sum, the laws of Noah provide that apply to non-Jews are the natural law inherent in mankind.

Note the Judge Roy Moore "Get Rid of the Ten Commandment" Uniform code request to the Supreme Talmudic Court....the "Natural Laws" included on the monument

157The Torah views that all men must be governed by some laws. While less restrictive, the Noahide law still provides a way to ensure that non-Jews may be governed and punished in a Jewish legal system. The common sense appro