AMEN enjoy the XMAS  and New Yeark Holidays

In early colonial America, Test Laws (or Religious Tests) were primarily designed as instruments of social and political control. While not always framed as an "oligarchy" in the modern sense, these laws effectively concentrated power within a small elite group by excluding "outsiders" based on religion, wealth, and status.
Strategic Exclusion of Outsiders
The primary function of these laws was to ensure that only individuals who shared the dominant religious and political values of the ruling class could hold office:
Religious Homogeneity: Test Acts, such as the Test Act of 1673, required officeholders to take oaths of supremacy and receive communion in the established Church of England. This effectively barred Roman Catholics, Jews, and non-conforming Protestants (like Quakers) from political power in nearly all colonies.
Protecting the "Stake in Society": Beyond religion, power was restricted to those with a "stake in society"—typically white, male property owners. This created an elite class of voters and officials, leaving out a significant portion of the population, including the poor, women, and enslaved people.

Warning aainst extreme viewpoints in the name of Religion:
Observation the effect of Exhile on Jewish Communites:
As for the extreme Torah anti Zionists They still kling to belief that the Three Oaths are still binding that only bt living in exhile under goym government can you be Pure jewish until the anioted one…They have a nostalgic memory of torah Jewish Communites in Europe; however they willfilly  forget that a bargin is only as good as when both parties fulfillit; when one party refuses to abide by terms the contract is null and void; lstly the very extreme who march with the PLO; Fatahl Hezboolah; Hamas against Israel  they are makding themselves de facto accessories to all jewish blood split and anguish of victiums of those who suffer at the Palestinas hands thus making a mockery of their claim to be the only True Torah guardians,

As for the extreme far left secularist:  they theink that because their ancestors founded the kibbutz movement that they are heirs to policial Pwer in Israel..They can read the Torah but wont live by it.
Instead they have three goals in mind: Keep a monolopy on Political Pwer by making concessions to the Palestians   [making Israel a two stte entity in which arabs who in turn will be so grateful for being uplifted out of barbarism they been the main voting bloc of supprt} and waging war on the Torah religious parties: such as desruptin  orthdaox Prayer mmeting in which men and women are separate so they wont be distracted in prayer [the seculars clim to do this for women rights0 refusing to pass secular laws based on Halakha which is the glue so to speak has kept Jews as  a community even in exhile; trying to hijack the Rabbi responbily of checking meat is actually kosher; forcebly drafting Jewish religious scholars into the IDF without their consent and despite the lesson of what happened to Asa of Judah was punished; in short they try to remove the uniqueness of Israel as a Torah based theocracy to a nation just like any other nation

Irony: Both groups have failed to bridge the gap between their ideologies. The religious faction could have demonstrated to the secularists that living a Torah life is not easy but not impossible, while a Moderate secularists could have shown the religious that Jews could live normally and farm the land outside of hostile non-Jewish (goyim) rule

Consequence of ideological extremes:

The irony of anti-Zionist Torah life: A life lived fully by the Torah in the diaspora is still incomplete because certain commandments (mitzvot) can only be fulfilled in the Land of Israel.
The failure of secularism: Secular Jewish movements, with their focus on nationalism and universal brotherhood, fail to provide a sufficient answer to the profound question of why it is important to remain part of the Jewish people of the Book  after generations of persecution, a question which can only be answered by a a Torah-oriented lifestyle.

Rabbinic thought generally rejects the concept of "hero worship" in favor of honoring individuals only as a means of honoring God and the Torah. Rabbinic explanations for what might be described as "misguided hero worship" tend to view it as a form of idolatry or a failure to recognize the fallibility of all human beings, including the greatest leaders.
Core Rabbinic Views
Honoring God vs. Honoring Flesh and Blood: The primary explanation is that while one may respect a wise or pious person, the honor is only valid if it is a means of honoring God, whose wisdom is reflected in that individual. True worship is reserved solely for God; elevating a person to a semi-divine status is seen as idolatrous.
Rejection of Idolatry: Judaism strictly prohibits idolatry (Avodah Zarah). The worship of any human being is considered a fundamental transgression. The founders of idol worship in ancient times were even seen as wise men who made a mistake, indicating how easily this error can occur.
All Humans Are Fallible: The Torah is candid about the faults and moral complexities of all its figures, including major prophets and sages like Moses and Abraham. This ensures that no person is placed on a pedestal as a demigod. Recognizing that everyone is human prevents the potential for misguided, unconditional admiration that ignores flaws.
Human Fallibility: Judaism emphasizes that even its greatest leaders, such as Moses and David, were human and had flaws, which the Torah candidly records. This transparency serves to prevent people from viewing leaders as perfect and thus discouraging hero worship. No human, no matter how great, is worthy of unwavering trust or praise that belongs only to the Divine.
Honoring God's Wisdom: When individuals are honored in Judaism (such as rabbis or teachers), it is not because "flesh and blood deserves honor," but because their study and devotion reflect the beauty of the Torah and the wisdom of God. The honor is directed toward the divine principles they embody, not the person themselves as an ultimate source of truth.
The Yetzer Hara (Evil Inclination): Rabbinic literature identifies the yetzer hara (the evil inclination) as a fundamental force that drives humans toward sin, particularly idolatry. Misguided hero worship could be seen as a manifestation of this inclination, seeking an immediate, tangible source of spiritual gratification or leadership in a human instead of a direct, intimate relationship with God.
The Need for Tangible Connection: Some interpretations suggest that humans have a strong drive for spirituality but may struggle to connect with an abstract, infinite God. This can lead them to seek more immediate and tangible objects of worship, such as human leaders, or the "golden calf" in the biblical narrative.
Pride and Ego: The elevation of individuals, both by their followers and by themselves, can lead to personal and institutional pride (hubris). The person being worshipped can become so full of themselves that there is no room left for Godliness, leading to their downfall.
Ego and Downfall: An inflated ego often leads to personal defeat. Rabbinic texts emphasize humility and teach that placing a human on an unassailable pedestal often results in disappointment and a spiritual emptiness when their inevitable failures are revealed.
Potential for Misguidance
The potential for misguided worship is a known risk. The focus is always on the mitzvot (commandments) and the ethical life rather than the personality of a leader. Disagreement exists within different Jewish communities about what constitutes appropriate respect versus hero worship, as seen in discussions around certain Hasidic rebbes, for example. However, the normative rabbinic stance emphasizes that no one individual should be viewed as an intermediary to God

Rabbanic literature, particularly the concept of Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's name) and its inverse, Chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name), directly addresses the profound impact of a Jewish person's actions on the perception of the Divine by both Jews and non-Jews. The understanding is that because the Jewish people were chosen to be a "light unto the nations" (Isaiah 42:6), their behavior reflects directly upon God's honor and the validity of His Torah in the eyes of the world
Kiddush Hashem (Sanctification of God's Name)
Actions that inspire non-Jews to respect God, the Jewish people, and their faith are considered Kiddush Hashem.
Integrity under Duress: The example provided of a Jew who remains steadfast in their faith despite persecution and does not compromise their principles is a classic demonstration of Kiddush Hashem. This conduct leads non-Jews to acknowledge the strength and truth of the belief, saying, "Despite everything, he believes in his God!"
Source: The commandment derives from the biblical verse, "You shall not profane My holy name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the people of Israel" (Leviticus 22:32). Rabbinic literature interprets this broadly, applying it to all areas of life, not just ritual.
Chillul Hashem (Desecration of G-d's Name)
The user's negative examples (using the Torah cynically for cruel rule, slandering others, promoting injustice) fall under the category of Chillul Hashem.
Definition: Chillul Hashem is any action by a Jew that causes others to lose respect for G-d, the Torah, or the Jewish people. It happens when Jewish people act dishonorably, unethically, or unjustly, especially in a manner that makes others question the power or goodness of G-d and His teachings. The actions you describe could lead non-Jews to say, "if His G-d is so powerful, how can He be, when those of His people do injustice?"

The overarching principle in Rabbinic thought is that Jews have a special status and a greater responsibility to G-d and humanity. They are tasked with representing G-d's moral law to the world, and their actions are seen as a reflection of His will and power.

11-11-2025  Veterans day

And the birth of the USMC was at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia 10 Noveomber 1775

[The image, even if proven to be from the 1st century, would still require an act of faith to be accepted as a miraculous imprint of the resurrected Christ]

centuries ago in church counsils there was a debate about Christ human/devine natures...if the Shroud of Turin had been avaible it would have answered that question without debate?

It is highly unlikely the Shroud of Turin would have resolved the early Church's debates about Christ's human/divine natures, because the debates were fundamentally theological and philosophical, not matters of physical evidence

Here's why the shroud wouldn't have definitively answered those questions:
Theological vs. Physical Evidence: The Church Councils (such as Nicaea in 325 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD) were primarily concerned with defining abstract concepts like the relationship between Jesus and God the Father, and how his human and divine natures could coexist without confusion or separation. These are metaphysical questions about the nature of God, which physical artifacts, no matter how extraordinary, cannot resolve.
Focus of the Debates: The debates centered on scriptural interpretation and precise theological language (e.g., homoousios - "of the same substance") rather than empirical evidence of the crucifixion. The goal was to establish orthodox doctrine to counter teachings considered heretical, such as Arianism (which denied Christ's co-eternality with the Father) or Monophysitism (which claimed Christ had only one, divine, nature).

The debates:
Council of Nicaea I (325 AD): Debated Arianism and the nature of Jesus as the Son of God, resulting in the Nicene Creed which affirmed His divinity as being of the same substance as God the Father.
Council of Ephesus (431 AD): Addressed the nature of Christ, particularly Nestorianism.
Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): Defined the orthodox understanding that Christ has two distinct natures, human and divine, united in one person (hypostasis), without confusion or separation.
Because the shroud was unknown to the Church Fathers and bishops of the first millennium, it could not have been used as evidence in their deliberations.

Theological Interpretation: The Church itself takes no official position on the shroud's authenticity as a relic, instead treating it as an "icon" for devotion and a reminder of Christ's suffering. The image, even if proven to be from the 1st century, would still require an act of faith to be accepted as a miraculous imprint of the resurrected Christ, rather than simply the image of a crucified man.

Mention of Jesus Christ by Roman Historians

Tacitus  Annals of Rome Part 15 Chapter 44
 Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men,loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a mement, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things  horrible or shameful in the world collect or find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures,vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car.  Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.

Note:
Pontius Pilate served as the Roman prefect (often referred to as procurator) of Judea from A.D. 26 to 36
Gospel of Luke, which states that John the Baptist began preaching in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar".Calculation: Tiberius was declared emperor in AD 14. Counting fifteen years forward from this point leads to the year AD 29.Sequence of Events: Luke's Gospel continues by stating that Jesus was baptized later that year, when he was "about 30 years old," and his ministry and subsequent crucifixion followed shortly after Actual Date of Crucifixion: Modern historical and biblical scholars generally agree that Jesus was crucified in either AD 30 or AD 33, not AD 29. The year AD 33 is slightly favored by some scholars due to astronomical and calendar data regarding the Passover moon and political factors related to Pontius Pilate and his patron Sejanus.Shorter Ministry Model: Some scholars interpret the Gospels, particularly the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), as suggesting a ministry of about one year, or at most two years. Counting two years forward from the likely start of Jesus's ministry (around AD 28, based on Luke's "fifteenth year of Tiberius" in the Syrian calendar system), places the crucifixion in AD 30.Passover Date Calculation: Astronomical studies analyzing when the 14th of Nisan (Passover eve, when Jesus was crucified according to John's Gospel) fell on a Friday during Pontius Pilate's governorship (AD 26–36) identify April 7, AD 30 (Julian date) as a strong possibility.Josephus's Temple Reference: The Jewish historian Josephus states the Temple was in its 46th year of construction when Jesus began his ministry (John 2:20). Dating the temple's construction start to 19 BC places the 46th year around AD 27/28, a date that fits a two-year ministry model ending in AD 30.Extrabiblical Darkness Accounts: Some Roman historians, such as Phlegon, mentioned an unusual darkness during the 18th year of Tiberius's reign (which aligns with AD 30/31), which some link to the crucifixion event
The burning of Christians under Nero began shortly after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 AD, with specific persecutions often noted around July 24, 64 AD

Josephus
The Testimonium Flavianum: The Greek text of Josephus's Antiquities contains a passage about Jesus, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, which most scholars believe has been altered by Christian copyists, even if an original, neutral core reference to Jesus and his followers existed.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
                                - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63


The Slavonic Version The Testimonium Flavianum: : This version, which surfaced in the West in the early 20th century after being discovered in Russia, contains a significantly different and more detailed account of Jesus, including a vivid description of his martyrdom at the hands of scribes and Pharisees.

1. At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. 2. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man. 3. His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. 4. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. 5. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel.6. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command.7. Some said of him, that our first Lawgiver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts. 8. But others supposed [less definitely] that he is sent by God.9. Now he opposed himself in much to the Law and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom. 10. Yet, on the other hand, he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime; but by word solely he effected everything.11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. 12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city. 14. And there also he avouched his cures p. 107 to the people. 15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants (Knechten) a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude.16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us. 17. But that one scorned it.18. And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: "We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans. 19. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined." 20. And they went and told it to Pilate.21. And he sent and had many of the people cut down. 22. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free. 23. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife.24. And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works. 25. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all.26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. 27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. 28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.



Seutionius  The Lives of the Twelve Caears

Claudius
Chapter 25 Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome


Nero
Chapter 16  Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. [i.e after The Great Fire in Rome see Tacitus  Annals of Rome Part 15 Chapter 44 above]

Tacitus Fragments part 2
It is said that Titus first called a council and deliberated whether he should destroy such a mighty temple. For some thought that a consecrated shrine, which was famous beyond all other works of men, ought not to be razed, arguing that its preservation would bear witness to the moderation of Rome, while its destruction would for ever brand her cruelty. Yet others, including Titus himself, opposed, holding the destruction of this temple to be a prime necessity in order to wipe out more completely the religion of the Jews and the Christians; for they urged that these religions, although hostile to each other, nevertheless sprang from the same sources; the Christians had grown out of the Jews: if the root were destroyed, the stock would easily perish.

The Burning of the second temple in Jerusalem took place in 9th of the Hebrew month of Av,   70 CE

Veil of Veronica {See Wikipedia}
Sudarium_of_Oviedo  A hankerchief is thought to be the cloth that was wrapped around the head of Jesus Christ after he died. {See Wikipedia]
The Shroud of Turin  Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ after he died. See Catholic Answers trial-of-the-shroud-of-turin

To Beleive youmust have Faith

Our Lady appeared in Guadalupe in December 1531, with apparitions to Saint Juan Diego occurring on the 9th, 10th, and 12th.

Our Lady appeared to Saint Bernadette Soubirous 18 times in Lourdes, France, starting on February 11, 1858, and ending on July 16, 1858

Our Lady first appeared in Fátima, Portugal, on May 13, 1917, to three shepherd children: Lúcia dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto. These apparitions continued once a month on the 13th day until October 1917

One common denemenator is all the persons to whom Our LAdy appeared was on the low class social scale.
*Juan Diego was a servant
*Bernadette Soubirous family was so poor that had to live in a old jail
*Lúcia dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto. were shepherds...

Yet such was their faith  despite their low social status they were chosen to be witness


While the Vatican has affirmed the spiritual fruits of Medjugorje, including conversions and renewed faith, and has allowed pilgrimages, it has not declared the alleged apparitions to be supernatural. The messages are largely consistent with Catholic doctrine and other Marian apparitions, but certain specific messages raise questions or appear misleading.
Consistency with other Marian apparitions
The core themes of the Medjugorje messages are consistent with the themes of other Marian apparitions, particularly Fatima.
Call to peace: Our Lady of Medjugorje reportedly introduced herself as the "Queen of Peace," a title that aligns with Marian apparitions that have brought messages of peace. The call for peace and reconciliation, both with God and among people, is a prominent theme.
Conversion and repentance: Like other apparitions, the Medjugorje messages emphasize the need for conversion, prayer, and penance to turn away from sin.
Prayer and fasting: Messages from Medjugorje emphasize the importance of prayer, including the Rosary, and fasting on bread and water. These practices are common to Christian tradition and are often highlighted in Marian apparitions.
Sacramental life: The messages encourage a return to the sacraments, especially monthly confession and the Eucharist.
The Church's current position
In May 2019, Pope Francis authorized official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, and in September 2024, the Holy See issued a nihil obstat for the devotion.
The Vatican has not confirmed the supernatural nature of the apparitions.
The nihil obstat allows for public acts of devotion, authorizing the faithful to receive positive encouragement for their Christian life through the spiritual proposal of Medjugorje.
The DDF advises pilgrims to focus on their encounter with Mary as the "Queen of Peace" rather than meeting with the alleged visionaries.
New messages and previously unpublished past messages require the approval of the apostolic visitor before publication.

[warns against subordinating the value of an individual life to a national-political project.]

One of the most important Jewish sayings: If You save one life its as if you saved the world. Now keeping this in mind analyze the mindset of the persons who make thesetwo speachs in 1938: Vladimir Jabotinsky:For three years I keep addressing you, Jews of Poland, the Crown of World Jewry. I keep warning you time and again that the catastrophe is approaching. My hair has turned white and I grew old during all those years, because my heart is bleeding for you, dear brethren and sisters, for not seeing that the volcano is about to erupt and spit the fire of destruction. I foresee a terrible vision; there is no much time left to save your life. I know: you are too preoccupied and busy with your daily concerns to see it. Listen to my words on the very last moment: For heaven’s sake! Save your lives, every one of you, as long as there is time – and time is short! And another thing I would like to tell you on this day, the Ninth of Ab: Those who will run away from this catastrophe will have the privilege to live and see this festive moment of great Jewish Joy – the rebirth and revival of a Jewish State. I do not know if I will live to see it, but my son will! I believe in this as strongly as I believe that tomorrow the sun will rise. It is my strongest belief/.

David Ben-gurion speech "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel".

Vladimir Jabotinsky and David Ben-Gurion were prominent Zionist leaders in the 1930s, and their speeches reflect fundamentally different mindsets regarding the value of Jewish lives in the face of the impending catastrophe in Europe. Jabotinsky's appeal prioritized saving individual Jewish lives immediately, while Ben-Gurion's controversial statement subordinated individual salvation to the long-term, collective goal of securing a Jewish state.
The Jewish saying, "Whoever saves a single life is considered to have saved the world," comes from the Talmud and emphasizes the infinite value of each individual human l


In 1938, Zionist leaders Vladimir Jabotinsky and David Ben-Gurion held starkly different views on rescuing European Jews. Their respective speeches reflect contrasting mindsets rooted in their competing visions for the Jewish people and the future Jewish state. While Jabotinsky prioritized saving individual lives through immediate emigration, Ben-Gurion prioritized building the Jewish state, even if it meant sacrificing the lives of some in the process.
Both speeches, delivered in the shadow of rising Nazi persecution, must be analyzed in the context of the Jewish Talmudic dictum Pikuach Nefesh ("Whoever saves a single life is considered by scripture to have saved the world"). The contrasting ways they interpreted and acted upon this principle highlight the deep ideological rift within the Zionist movement at the time.
Vladimir Jabotinsky: The prophet of catastrophe
Jabotinsky's speech on the Ninth of Av (a day of mourning for the destruction of the First and Second Temples) reflects a mindset of urgency, despair, and individual responsibility.
Prioritizing immediate survival: He saw a "catastrophe is approaching" and was consumed by a desperate need to save lives,urging Jews to "Save your lives, every one of you, as long as there is time". This is a direct appeal to the principle of Pikuach Nefesh on a mass scale, prioritizing the physical preservation of individual Jews above all else.
Emphasis on individual agency: He called on every individual to act for their own rescue, rather than relying solely on collective political action. His message was a pragmatic and emotional plea for escape, not a strategic calculation for the collective good.
The state as a sanctuary: While he framed the future Jewish state as the ultimate destination for those who escape, its establishment was a long-term goal, secondary to the immediate act of survival. The state is presented as a reward, not as a tool that justifies immediate sacrifice.
Prophetic urgency: His language is that of a prophet seeing a terrible vision, a bleeding heart, and white hair, suggesting a deep personal distress and an overriding moral imperative to warn his people. He was focused on the lives at immediate risk, not on long-term national projects.
Jabotinsky, a leader of the Revisionist Zionist movement, had a mindset rooted in urgency and the moral imperative of immediate rescue.
Focus on the individual: Jabotinsky's speech is a passionate, direct plea for every single Jew in Poland to "Save your lives, every one of you, as long as there is time." He sees the looming "catastrophe" and believes that the immediate preservation of life is the paramount concern. This aligns with the spirit of the Talmudic saying.
A prophet of impending doom: He frames his warning with prophetic urgency, stating, "My heart is bleeding for you, dear brethren and sisters, for not seeing that the volcano is about to erupt". He was convinced that the situation for Jews in Eastern Europe was untenable and that a mass exodus, which he termed "Evacuation," was the only way to avert disaster.
The state as a safe haven: Jabotinsky did not see the future Jewish state as merely a political end in itself, but as a necessary safe haven for the millions of Jews he was trying to rescue. He linked the act of survival to the ultimate "great Jewish Joy—the rebirth and revival of a Jewish State". Those who flee are not just saving themselves, but also becoming the founders of the future state.
David Ben-Gurion: The architect of the state
Ben-Gurion's speech, in contrast, reveals a mindset dominated by long-term, collective national priorities, even at a devastating human cost.
Prioritizing the national project: His rationale is explicitly framed around the "historical reckoning of the people of Israel," not the immediate number of lives saved. The imperative to establish a Jewish state (Eretz Yisrael) outweighs the fate of individual children, making the collective future the supreme moral priority.
Instrumental view of rescue: For Ben-Gurion, rescue was a tool for state-building. Rescuing children to be part of the future Jewish state was fundamentally different from rescuing them to be assimilated elsewhere. He viewed the emigration of Jews to non-Zionist destinations like England as a loss for the Zionist project, even if it saved more lives.
Devaluation of individual over collective: His words directly contradict the spirit of Pikuach Nefesh by suggesting that the value of the Jewish collective is greater than the sum of its individual parts. He essentially argues that the children's lives are more significant when they contribute to the nation, rather than existing simply as individuals.
Pragmatic and cold calculation: The speech is a dispassionate, strategic calculation focused on a demographic and historical outcome. It lacks the emotional, visceral urgency of Jabotinsky's appeal. It reveals a mindset focused on the ends (a Jewish state) justifying the means (sacrificing individual lives).
Ben-Gurion, the head of the mainstream Labor Zionist movement and later Israel's first Prime Minister, operated from a different ideological framework that prioritized the collective Jewish destiny.
Focus on the collective: In his statement, Ben-Gurion explicitly chooses the collective "historical reckoning of the people of Israel" over the individual lives of German children. His mindset was focused on building a strong, self-sufficient state in Palestine as the ultimate and only long-term defense against antisemitism. This goal outweighed the immediate needs of some individuals.
The "realist" perspective: While chilling, Ben-Gurion's calculation can be seen as a form of political realism. He saw the creation of a Jewish state as the only way to ensure the long-term survival of the Jewish people. From this perspective, the loss of some lives was a tragic price to pay for the ultimate preservation of the nation.
The state as an existential project: Ben-Gurion's mindset was shaped by the idea that Zionism was an all-encompassing, transformative, and even revolutionary project. He believed that the national rebirth in the Land of Israel was the highest goal. This focus on the collective, national project stands in stark contrast to the Talmudic principle of the infinite value of a single life.


Comparison and analysis
Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion's speeches highlight a central, and deeply painful, ideological clash within Zionism.
Individual vs. collective salvation: Jabotinsky embodies the Talmudic ideal of saving individual lives, one by one, to save the world. His appeal is emotional and urgent. Ben-Gurion, in his controversial statement, represents a utilitarian and nationalistic perspective that places the collective fate of the Jewish people above the lives of some individuals.
Short-term rescue vs. long-term solution: Jabotinsky advocated for immediate evacuation as a short-term survival strategy. Ben-Gurion viewed the immediate crisis through the lens of a long-term, nation-building project. For Ben-Gurion, a Jewish state was not just an end goal, but a tool that could eventually ensure no Jew would ever need rescuing by the kindness of others.
The ultimate tragedy: Both men failed in their 1938 goals. Jabotinsky's warning went largely unheeded, and British immigration quotas severely limited the flow of immigrants to Palestine. Ben-Gurion's desire for a rapid, mass settlement was also thwarted by political realities. Both men, tragically, witnessed the systematic destruction of millions of European Jews during the Holocaust, reinforcing Jabotinsky's warnings and adding a horrific weight to Ben-Gurion's calculus.

Mindsets and the principle of Pikuach Nefesh
The contrast between the two speeches highlights the deep conflict between the particularist Zionist political imperative and the universal Jewish ethical precept of saving life.
Jabotinsky's mindset operates within the traditional interpretation of Pikuach Nefesh, viewing each individual life as an entire world. His focus is on the sanctity of life in the present, regardless of location.
Ben-Gurion's mindset represents a radical reinterpretation of Jewish values, subordinating the value of individual life to the national-political project. While still acting in the name of Jewish survival, his view expands the "world" from a single life to the historical destiny of the Jewish people, a collective entity. This reinterpretation allows for a utilitarian calculation that would be considered anathema under traditional Jewish law.
------
Yes, rabbinic literature strongly warns against subordinating the value of an individual life to a national-political project. This is based on the core principle of pikuach nefesh (saving a life), which establishes the infinite worth of each human life. The texts warn against prioritizing state power, authority, or national ideals when doing so places individual lives at risk.
The principle of pikuach nefesh
Life above all else: The doctrine of pikuach nefesh dictates that the preservation of human life overrides nearly all other religious commandments. This is derived from the verse in Leviticus 18:5, "You shall keep my laws and my rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live." The Talmudic sages interpreted this to mean, "Live by them, and do not die by them".
Infinite worth of one life: The Mishnah in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 4:5) states, "Whoever saves a single life, it is as if he saved an entire world". This foundational idea underscores the priceless value of every individual, emphasizing that no singular person should be seen as a mere instrument for the greater good of a collective cause.
Overrides most religious laws: Rabbinic literature provides specific examples of how pikuach nefesh takes precedence. For instance, the laws of Shabbat, one of the most sacred observances, can and must be violated to save a person in danger. This illustrates that even divine commandments are secondary to the preservation of human life, making political projects even more insignificant in comparison.
The principle of pikuach nefesh
Life over law: Rabbinic law states that you must violate most commandments in order to save a human life. For example, a person is obligated to break the laws of the Sabbath—such as driving or performing medical procedures—if it is necessary to save a life.
Life over ideology: The justification for this principle comes from a rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus 18:5, which states that humans should "live by" the commandments, not "die by" them. This established that the purpose of all religious observance is the promotion of life, not ideology, thereby confirming the sanctity of the individual.
Infinite value: A famous Talmudic passage in Tractate Sanhedrin declares, "Whoever saves a single life, it is as if he saved an entire world". This concept reinforces the infinite value of each individual, making it impossible to sacrifice one person for the sake of a larger group or political objective.
Warnings against state power and authority
Rabbinic texts express deep suspicion of concentrated power and advise a cautious stance toward government, as it can lead to the devaluation of human life.
Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) warns against entanglement with government: The rabbinic text Pirkei Avot (1:10) contains the warning, "Love work, hate authority, and do not become familiar with the ruling power". Rashi's commentary further explains that government officials may befriend people for selfish ends, and that holding power can corrupt.
"Hate authority": The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of Our Fathers) advises, "Love work, and hate authority, and do not become familiar with the government". According to commentaries like the Bartinuro, this warns against using government to gain authority over others.
The corrupting nature of power: The Talmud (Berachot 55a) goes so far as to state that "three things shorten a man's life," with one of them being the assumption of power. The text cites the biblical Joseph, who died before his brothers because he "held the reins of power".
Corrupting effect of power: The Talmud in Berachot (55a) states that assuming power can shorten a person's life and cites the example of the biblical Joseph, who died before his brothers because he held the reins of power. This illustrates the inherent danger that comes with holding positions of authority.
Critiques of monarchy: The prophet Samuel's warning against the institution of monarchy, as recorded in the Bible, is often cited in rabbinic literature as a lesson on the dangers of unchecked centralized power.
Prophetic critique of monarchy: This rabbinic suspicion of state power has roots in the prophetic tradition. The prophet Samuel, for example, warned the Israelites that instituting a monarchy would lead to the abuse of power and kings "tak[ing] and not giv[ing]," placing themselves and their agendas above the needs of the people.
Condemnation of nationalist excesses
Rabbinic thinkers have warned against forms of nationalism that lead to the glorification of war or the oppression of individuals in the name of a collective.
Critiques of chauvinistic nationalism: Some Jewish thinkers have distinguished between a healthy form of national identity and a dangerous, chauvinistic xenophobia. Critics of mystical nationalism, for instance, have warned that a "spirituality" that justifies war and puts the nation above the concrete reality of individuals is self-defeating.
Protecting individual identity: Some scholars highlight the danger of political recognition, which can impose state-defined identities on citizens and lead to violence and disregard for individuals. This runs counter to the rabbinic ideal of a polity defined by its local members rather than by external imperial power

Thank you for this saint of the disadvantaged....

query:why did CS Lewis' choose the title The Great Divorce?
Answer:

C.S. Lewis chose the title The Great Divorce as a direct response and counterpoint to William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Lewis used the title to symbolize the fundamental and permanent separation between Heaven and Hell, illustrating that it is impossible to have both. The "divorce" in the title refers to the ultimate separation of a soul from God when choosing a path of evil over good, emphasizing the self-imposed nature of damnation.
Here's a breakdown of the title's meaning:
Rejection of Blake's idea:
Blake's work, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, suggested a union between good and evil, or heaven and hell. Lewis's title, The Great Divorce, argues against this concept.
Self-imposed separation:
The title signifies that the separation between Heaven and Hell is a result of individual choices, particularly pride and attachment to sin. Souls in Hell actively choose to remain distant from God, creating the "divorce".
A choice between two realities:
The book's story features souls from Hell getting a "holiday" in a pastoral paradise, which is actually Heaven. They are given the choice to stay, but if they do, they must fully embrace Heaven and give up their earthly attachments.
Irreversible consequences:
For the souls in the story who reject Heaven, the separation from the joy and reality of God becomes an irreversible and fundamental "divorce".
In essence, The Great Divorce highlights the impossibility of a blended existence in the afterlife, stressing the profound choice individuals must make to embrace good or evil and the eternal consequences of that decision.

C.S. Lewis chose the title The Great Divorce to assert that a permanent and uncrossable chasm exists between Heaven and Hell, directly refuting the idea that they could ever be reconciled. His title is a direct play on William Blake's poem, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, which suggested a union of opposites.
The "great divorce" refers to several central themes in the book:
The separation of good and evil. Lewis argues that there is no compromise or "heaven with a little bit of hell in it". The book illustrates that one must fully choose one over the other; you cannot carry your pet sins into heaven.
Hell as a final choice. The narrative shows that the inhabitants of Hell, given the chance to visit Heaven, ultimately choose to turn back. Hell is not a punishment God sends people to, but a final state of self-willed separation from him. As Lewis famously wrote, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done'".
The nature of heaven and hell. In Lewis's allegory, Hell is a gray, dreary town that consists of nothingness and spiritual smallness. It is the result of people's selfishness pushing them further and further apart. In contrast, Heaven is a land of intense and overwhelming reality, so solid and real that the ghosts from Hell can barely endure it. The "divorce" is between the substantial reality of Heaven and the insubstantial nothingness of Hell.
Refutation of universalism. Lewis stated in the book's preface that he intended to combat the idea that all souls will eventually be saved. The narrative demonstrates that a soul's destination is determined by a conscious choice to accept or reject God, an act which results in the fundamental "divorce" from him.
The title also underwent some changes. Lewis originally proposed the title "Who Goes Home? or The Grand Divorce." The phrase "The Grand Divorce" was later changed to "The Great Divorce," which better captures the cosmic and absolute nature of the separation

Rabbanic lieterature explain why after David Census many Jews died?

Rabbinic literature offers several explanations for the plague that followed King David's census, focusing on his improper motives, his failure to follow proper procedure, and the danger of counting the Jewish people directly.
Improper motivation: Trusting in human strength
Many commentators argue that David's sin was a spiritual one, reflecting his misplaced priorities and pride.
Trust in numbers over God: R. Levi Gersonides (Ralbag) suggests that David's mistake was relying on the number of his soldiers rather than putting his full trust in God. This was a lapse of faith, an act of trusting in "the flesh of his forearm" instead of divine providence.
The "Evil Eye" (Ayin HaRa): A widely cited explanation, including by Rashi and the Talmud, is that directly counting the Jewish people provokes the "Evil Eye". This is rooted in the belief that being enumerated makes a person susceptible to divine judgment or misfortune. In contrast, a righteous act performed collectively offers a level of communal protection. When people are counted individually, they are judged on their own merits, leaving them vulnerable if they are lacking. Failure to follow proper procedure Other rabbinic sources contend that the problem was not the census itself, but David's failure to follow the proper procedure established in the Torah. Missing the half-shekel ransom: As commanded in Exodus 30, when Moses took a census, each person was to contribute a half-shekel as an "atonement for his soul" (\(kofernafsho\)). This payment served as a redemption price to show the people belonged to God, not the king, and was explicitly meant to prevent a plague from occurring. Commentators like Nachmanides and the historian Josephus state that David failed to collect this ransom, leading directly to the plague.The half-shekel fund was depleted: One 13th-century commentary, the Chizkuni, suggests that the silver collected during Moses's time was meant to last indefinitely. By David's time, however, it may have been lost or exhausted, resulting in the protective measure failing. Retelling in the Book of Chronicles The parallel account of the census in the Book of Chronicles emphasizes a different aspect of the sin and punishment. Satan's incitement: Unlike the Book of Samuel which says God "incited" David, 1 Chronicles 21:1 states that "Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel". Rabbinic commentators resolve this difference by explaining that God allowed Satan to incite David as a form of deserved punishment for the people's sins.
Joab's failed correction: According to Chronicles, David's army commander, Joab, did not complete the census and purposefully omitted the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. Even with this partial omission, the divine wrath was triggered because the census was not done according to the proper halakhic rules.
Who was ultimately responsible?
While David's action precipitated the event, rabbinic thought emphasizes that the Jewish people bore some responsibility for the outcome.
People's silent compliance: Some sources argue that the plague was a result of both David's sin and the people's silent compliance. Knowing the halakhic requirement of the half-shekel, the people should have refused to be counted, but they did not.
God's anger at Israel: The Book of Samuel begins by stating that "the anger of the Lord again flared up against Israel," indicating that the people were already in a state of sinfulness that made them vulnerable to punishment. David's census simply provided the catalyst for a pre-existing divine displeasure.

Rabbinic literature offers several explanations for why a plague killed 70,000 Israelites after King David's unauthorized census, recorded in 2 Samuel 24. The primary interpretations center on David's improper method and intent, as well as the inherent dangers of counting the Jewish people directly. Rashi: The Evil Eye (\(AyinhaRa\)) The renowned medieval commentator Rashi explains that directly counting the Jewish people invites the "Evil Eye" or a malevolent force, which can lead to a plague. In this interpretation, the act of precise enumeration, especially of a blessing like a large population, makes the blessing vulnerable to harm. The plague is therefore a natural consequence of this spiritual transgression. This explanation contrasts David's census with the one Moses conducted. As prescribed in Exodus 30:12, Moses counted the Israelites indirectly by having each person donate a half-shekel. The coins were counted, not the people, thereby protecting them from the Evil Eye and averting a plague. David neglected this critical step
Ramban: David's erroneous assumption Nachmanides (\(Ramban\)), another medieval commentator, suggests David made a legal error by assuming the half-shekel requirement from Exodus only applied to Moses's time. He believed that taking a direct census was not inherently forbidden for all generations. Because he proceeded without collecting the expiatory half-shekel, his act was a transgression that brought about the plague. Other rabbinic explanations The people's sin: Some texts, including the Talmud (Yoma 22b), point to a pre-existing national sin as the underlying cause of God's anger, with David's census being the triggering event. The people may have been deserving of punishment, and the census simply provided the opportunity for it to be meted out.Pride and misplaced trust: The commentators Ralbag and Radak explain that David's motivation was flawed. By counting his military-aged men, he demonstrated a misplaced trust in his own human and military strength, rather than relying solely on God for Israel's protection. His pride was a theological error for which the people suffered the consequences.
The people's complicity: Some rabbinic sources suggest the people were also culpable. Knowing the census laws, those who willingly provided their numbers to Joab, the commander carrying out the census, were complicit in the sin and therefore subject to the plague. The half-shekel was the legal and spiritual method for an authorized census, which the people failed to demand.
The incompleteness of the count: The Book of Chronicles adds another dimension, noting that Joab, David's military commander, did not finish the count or include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. Some commentators interpret this as a contributing factor to God's wrath.
The purpose of the counting prohibition
Ultimately, the rabbinic consensus is that directly counting God's people is an inappropriate exercise of human power over what rightfully belongs to God. In the covenantal relationship, Israel's strength is not a matter of human numbers but of divine blessing. The act of a human king attempting to quantify that blessing was seen as a profound violation of that trust

Jewish Rabbanic Literature warns that according to the Jewish Calender the world is in the 7th Millinium since Adam and Eve...and the coming of the Anoited one will occur in this time...that a hallmark of the Anoited ones coming is the ingathering of Jews to Israel from goy nations Jews Since 1933 from Europe..[where 6/9 Jews died in the Soah].Jews from arab countires from 1948 [90% have fled to Israel] and thirdly that the 3rd Jewish Temple will appear by the Will of the L-D; likewise there will also be the re apperance of the ark of the Covenent will be a sign to the world that every word in the Torah; the Talmud and the Oral law is True..likewise the Sanhedrin was reseatablihed after being dormat for centuries by 71 Rabbis in Israel in 2004...


The query refers to several concepts in Jewish eschatology, which is the area of theology concerned with the end of days. Many of the ideas discussed, such as the world's time frame and the role of the Messiah, are present in various forms within Jewish tradition, though different interpretations exist.
The 7th millennium
The idea that the world will exist for 6,000 years, followed by a seventh millennium of peace and rest—the Messianic Era—is a concept found in Jewish rabbinic literature, including the Talmud and the Zohar.
Some interpretations liken this seven-millennia timeline to the seven days of Creation, where the seventh day is the Sabbath. The seventh millennium is therefore seen as a great cosmic Sabbath.
The current year on the Jewish calendar, 5786 (beginning in the fall of 2025), is within the sixth millennium, approaching the seventh.
Signs of the Messiah's coming
Jewish texts detail several events that will occur in the Messianic Age, led by the Messiah. A core belief is the Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Jewish exiles from around the world back to the Land of Israel.
This ingathering is prophesied in the Torah and other biblical texts, and since the destruction of the Second Temple, it has been a constant hope and prayer. Many religious Jews see the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 and subsequent immigration waves (aliyah) as the beginning of this process, though not its full culmination.
The modern State of Israel saw a mass migration of Jews from Europe in the early 20th century and from Arab lands after 1948, aligning with the pattern of ingathering described.
The Third Temple
Orthodox Judaism holds that the Third Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem in the Messianic era. There are different views on how this will occur, including whether it will be built by the Messiah or brought down from heaven.
There is also debate among rabbinic authorities on the location and timing of the rebuilding, with most leaving it to divine providence in the Messianic Age.
The Ark of the Covenant
The final whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant are unknown. Jewish tradition suggests it was either hidden by King Josiah before the Babylonian conquest or went missing when the First Temple was destroyed.
Some rabbinic interpretations suggest that in the Messianic Era, the Ark will no longer be necessary because God's presence will rest upon the entire Jewish people. Other traditions hold that its return will be revealed in the end times.
The modern Sanhedrin
In October 2004, a group of rabbis in Israel attempted to reconstitute the Sanhedrin in Tiberias, where the original court was last assembled before its disbandment.
This body, calling itself the "nascent Sanhedrin," has been met with mixed reactions. While its organizers have made several rulings, it is not widely recognized or accepted by most of the Jewish world, including the mainstream Haredi community. The leadership of the group changed, and it has not gained the broad influence of the historic Sanhedrin.

Key aspects of Jewish rabbinic literature discuss the era of the Messiah as a time following 6,000 years of human history, corresponding to the "seventh millennium," which is viewed as a Sabbath of rest. The belief includes several signs associated with the arrival of the messianic era, including the ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, and a new Sanhedrin.
The Seventh Millennium
Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions, including the Talmud and the Zohar, divide world history into a 7,000-year cycle.
A "Sabbath" era: The first 6,000 years are considered a period of human activity and turmoil, corresponding to the six days of creation. The final, seventh millennium is envisioned as a messianic "Sabbath" of peace, rest, and spiritual bliss.
Calendar calculation: While the Jewish calendar is currently in the late 5700s, some interpretations believe the world is nearing the end of the sixth millennium. Different perspectives exist on the exact timeline for the coming of the Messiah
The ingathering of Jewish exiles
The mass return of Jews to the Land of Israel, known as kibbutz galuyyot, is a foundational concept in messianic belief.
Biblical precedent: This prophecy is rooted in the Torah, which foretells that God will gather the Jewish people from "the uttermost parts of heaven" and return them to their land.
Modern interpretation: Many religious Jews interpret the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 and the waves of aliyah (immigration to Israel) that have followed as "the first blossoming forth of our redemption," a significant sign of the coming messianic age. This includes immigration from Arab countries after 1948 and Europe, particularly following the Holocaust (referred to in the user prompt as "the Shoah")
The Third Temple
Jewish tradition holds that the Third Temple will be built in Jerusalem during the messianic era.
Messiah's role: The Messiah is expected to restore the Davidic Kingdom and build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount. For this reason, mainstream Orthodox Judaism generally waits for the Messiah to initiate the rebuilding process.
Contemporary groups: Some fringe groups have been involved in more active efforts toward the temple's rebuilding.
The Ark of the Covenant
Lost artifact: According to Jewish tradition, the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the tablets of the Ten Commandments, was hidden away before the destruction of the First Temple. Its exact location is unknown.
Messianic expectation: The tradition teaches that the Ark will be rediscovered and returned to the Temple during the messianic era, though there are different opinions on how this will occur.
The Sanhedrin
A historical governing body: The Sanhedrin was the supreme rabbinical court in ancient Israel and consisted of 71 sages.
2004 attempt: In October 2004, a group of Orthodox rabbis in Israel held a ceremony in Tiberias to re-establish a new Sanhedrin based on the legal rulings of Maimonides and Rabbi Yosef Karo. The group refers to itself as the "nascent" or "developing" Sanhedrin.
Limited recognition: This effort was largely ignored by the Haredi community and stirred debate in other religious and secular circles. Although the original Nasi (President) resigned in 2008, the court remains active on some issues, issuing rulings on matters related to Jewish law and Israel