Israeli Architects and Planners Petition Against Gaza Occupation, Call for Reconstruction

Based upon the response of my last article, the volume and diversity of reactions caused me to re-write a second part to the original document.

This 2nd Parsha of the Book of בראשית, Parshat Noach. The opening two Parshaot serve as an introduction of the Torah which formally begins with the 3rd Parsha – the introduction of Avraham the father of the chosen Cohen people. What do the opening first two Parshaot of בראשית introduce? This fundamentally basic question – it defines these two Parshaot.

Notice that the Torah introduces the Name אלהים rather than the שם השם לשמה. Herein serves as an introduction to the 7th Oral Torah middah רב חסד, which the Talmud interprets to mean as מאי נפקא מינא? The 7th Oral Torah attribute spirit distinguishes – something like as does the קידוש\הבדלה of shabbat the distinction between Av tohor time-oriented commandments from positive commandments. A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא wherein the Talmud discerns that the former Av Torah commandments require “k’vanna (an as yet undefined term which fundamentally requires definition) whereas the latter Torah mitzvot do not require k’vanna/כוונה.

The aggadic mussar story of the Book of בראשית, not at all challenged by the late 19th Century German Higher Criticism. The catastrophic events of the World Wars prompted a reevaluation of Enlightenment ideals, including the objectivity and rationality that underpinned Higher Critical methods. Scholars began to question the biases inherent in historical analysis. Post Shoah no more get out of jail free for Xtianity, with its Nazi rat-lines to prevent the execution of justice upon Nazi war criminals.

Fear of Heaven shapes the reputation of both Man in general and religious institutions in particular. The alliance between Lutheranism and Nazism during the Nazi regime in Germany presents a complex and troubling history which ultimately undermined late 19th Century German Higher Criticism. That both Catholic and Protestant Xtianity aided and assisted the Nazis. Pope Pius XII failed to even protest the Nazi slaughter of Rome’s Jews! Actions speak louder than priests or pastors screaming “Fear God”. The Nazi systematic slaughter of 75% of Western European Jewry while the Xtian church ignored oppression, theft, injustice and genocide permanently destroyed the good name of Xtianity.

Had the church condemned FDR’s decision to embrace Chamberlain’s White Paper and bar European refugees entrance to America perhaps the charge that the Xtian church lacks Fear of Heaven, would not stick to all eternity thereafter. Fear of Heaven, means protecting the Good Name reputation – just that simple. Post Shoah, Hitler and his Nazi SS mafia permanently destroyed the Good Name reputation of all branches of Xtianity; starting with German Protestant ‘Higher Criticism. Higher Criticism, which began to deconstruct traditional interpretations tied to authoritarian and nationalistic ideologies.

Perhaps the Talmud did not clarify crystal clear when Goyim abandoned all together the Brit faith and ipso facto worshipped other Gods. The בראשית aggadic mussar story therefore opens with אלהים כלל rather than the שם השם לשמה פרט. Why did HaShem accept the korban of young Hev’el and reject the Cohen First-born son Cain’s korban? The Torah revelation validate both types of korbanot! The Torah contains the רמז word ברית אש\בראשית. Just as the dispute between the two sons of Adam equally reflected in the רמז word ב’ ראשית. Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi interprets the language of kre’a shma בכל לבבך\כם based upon the Torah precedent: ב’ ראשית, two opposing Yatzirot struggle within the heart like as did Esau and Yaacov wrestled within the womb of Rivka.

Therefore, when exactly did the Goyim reject the ברית אש\בראשית? Concerning the two korbanot dedicated by the two opposing sons of Adam, Hevel’s korban accepted because his k’vanna dedicated the korban through the Torah oath (שם ומלכות) in the Name of the Creation oath brit. Cain’s korban rejected because his korban lacked k’vanna. Hence the distinction between Av tohor time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from positive תולדות commandments which do not require k’vanna. Do the תולדות follow the Avot? This defining מאי נפקא מינא detail both mesechtot Shabbat and Baba Kama ask – this very question! Clearly the distinction in the case of the two opposing “Yatzirot” of Adam: Doing mitzvot stam does not follow doing mitzvot with the k’vanna of “oath brit”.

ולשת גם הוא ילד בן ויקרא את שמו אנוש אז הוחל לקרא בשם השם.

Following the murder of Hevel, Chava the wife of Adam gave birth to a third son. This third son, who did he follow? The masoret of murdered Hevel or the masoret of Cain? Touching Enosh, the Tanna Targum Onkelos writes: בכן ביומוהי חלו בני אנשא מלצלאה בשמא דהשם. Rashi, an early major Reshon, interprets – אז הוחל. לשון חולין, לקרת את שמות האדם ואת שמות העצבים בשמו של הקדוש ברוך רבים. הוא, לעשותן אלילים ולקרותן אלהות

Recall that the HaShem permitted Adam to call the created animals names in the last p’suk prior to the third aliya to the Torah. But the first born cohen son of שת, the son born after Cain murder Hevel. The Targum employs the verb מלצלאה בשמא דהשם. They prayed to HaShem. Whereas the Rashi explanation the 2nd generation אנוש, comparable to Chava’s: ותאמר האשה אל הנחש מפרי עץ הגן נאכל ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן אמר אלהים לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בן פן תמתון. Chava added on to the original commandment as did the 2nd generation of Adam, Enosh, who started naming the stars with Divine Names. Just as the snake deceived Chava so to later down stream generations did a ירידות הדורות domino effect and stared worshipping other אלהים. This action of avoda zarah created Man created Gods in the image of Man.

Mesechta Sanhedrin asks the famous question: What caused the Flood disaster in the days of Noach? Answer ברית אש, the fire of the brit sworn oaths (שם ומלכות); the generation of Noach made false oaths! A Torah oath has the power to create through tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments מלאכים; a Torah oath fundamentally requires שם ומלכות. But only Av tumah avoda zarah assumes that man can create Gods by means of swearing a Torah oath. This tumah yatzir/Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart literally reads בראשית ברא אלהים. Attempts to create Gods יש מאין profanes ברית אש\בראשית. Herein the מאי נפקא מינא which distinguishes tohor middot from tumah middot; the Divine service of the chosen Cohen people forever separates Shabbat from Chol, זמן גרמא מצוות מן תולדות מצוות.

Its the discernment of fine distinctions which separates like from like which defines the concept of “understanding”. Upon this יסוד breathes the Divine Spirit רב חסד. This middah discerns time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from תולדות commandments which do not require k’vanna. HaShem accepted the korban of 2nd born Hevel because he dedicated the korban לשם ברית. HaShem rejected the korban of Adam’s first born son Cain, because he dedicated his korban – as a reactionary barbeque unto Heaven. A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא.

The concepts discussed this text concerning Prophetic Mussar vs. Higher Criticism – likened to strategic elements in American football, where the interplay of different philosophies and techniques shapes the game’s outcomes. The interpretation of religious texts, particularly the T’NaCH and Talmud, through the lens of Protestant Higher Criticism highlights a significant divide similar to competing teams in sports. This comparison illustrates how differing interpretations can create rival perspectives akin to the dynamics observed in competitive sports.

The ethical conflicts discussed, like the rejection of Cain’s offering, resemble the moral decisions players and coaches face during the game. Decisions made in split seconds can have far-reaching implications, just as ethical considerations shape spiritual narratives. The tensions between different interpretations of faith parallel heated rivalries in American football, where teams vie for dominance based on different strategies—some focusing on offense (like allowing emotional decisions to guide Korban choices), while others emphasize defense (like the analytical approach of Higher Criticism, showing how such a path leads to a 4th down punt or worse a fumble or interception.)

Protestant Higher Criticism perceives the T’NaCH as a historical document rather than instruction which teaches mussar as it applies to the generations. The former compare to placing an idol upon a plinth pedestal and worshipping this superior theologically created being – as a God. Both Xtianity and Islam do exactly this with their treatment and behavior toward Jesus and Muhammad. Recall when western magazines mocked Muhammad and Muslims physically attacked both institutions and persons. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” declared blasphemous by many in the Muslim community which resulted in Rushdie hiding for his life. The Salem witch trials, between February 1692 and May 1693. The Puritans, held strong beliefs in the supernatural. They viewed the world as a battleground between God and the Devil, leading to fears of witches as instruments of evil.

Both this and that absolutely insist that Jesus and Muhammad lived as historical persons. Protestant Higher Criticism denounced the Hebrew T’NaCH as a fraud. They declared that multiple authors actually wrote the Torah and say the book of Isaiah over the span of centuries. This idea that “scholarship” must interpret T’NaCH literature as physical and historical rather than as mussar rebukes equally applicable to all persons in all generations separates Traditional Judaism from Conservative and Reform Judaism which likewise views the T’NaCH as primarily historical documents.

Hence how a person interprets the T’NaCH and Talmud pits two or more sets of opposing teams. The same equally applies scholarly disputes within the Talmud itself. Publication of the Rambam’s Yad Hazakah exploded into a Jewish Civil War whose impact destroyed generations of Jews even after Napoleon freed Western European Jews from the Catholic ghetto gulags of three Centuries. The Rambam Civil War pits judicial Talmudic common law against assimilated Greek/Roman statute laws. Four part פרדס inductive logic against three part Syllogism deductive logic. Just as sports teams build their programs around acquiring the best talented players, so to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship disputed and fought over down through the millennium.

The violent reactions to perceived blasphemy, such as attacks following disrespect towards religious figures (Muhammad, Jesus), parallel heated rivalries in sports, where fans quite often react vehemently against perceived slights to their teams or athletes in both American and European football. Competing interpretations of sacred texts create a dialogue similar to rival teams focusing on their strengths and weaknesses. The debate over Talmudic interpretation—judicial common law vs. foreign legislative statute law—resembles the endless strategizing that teams engage in to outmaneuver their opponents.

The tension between interpretations of the T’NaCH and Talmud can be likened to rivalry in sports, where competing teams navigate through a complex landscape of strategies, beliefs, and interpretations. Just as sports teams flourish through their scholar-like understanding of gameplay and competition, religious communities develop their unique culture, customs, identities and philosophies around the interpretation of sacred texts—creating a dynamic and ongoing dialogue, in fact – quite similar to violent conflict between the fans in the world of sports. A rich tapestry of beliefs and practices that, while distinct, often results in far wider fan clashes inside and outside both arenas and society. Violence influences wider cultural and social dynamics across American and European societies which inherit hatred which equals the Sunni Shiite rivalry which divides Arab and Muslim civilizations.