https://youtube.com/shorts/QsVJfVFy1MQ?si=hEew7kb6IpSd-8OG
Categories: infotainment
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
https://youtube.com/shorts/QsVJfVFy1MQ?si=hEew7kb6IpSd-8OG
Categories: infotainment
Retiredकलम 
very nice .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much.
LikeLike
Planting the mussar seeds of justice within the hearts of the Jewish people as Chag Pesach approaches.
The traditional vertical court system fails to deliver true justice and equality, whereas the T’NaCH and Talmud present a transformative vision through horizontal courts that empower justices to collaborate in decision-making. The standard model of judicial systems worldwide, including Israel, operates on a vertical framework where individuals face the State, and the government funds the salaries of judges and prosecutors.
In contrast, the T’NaCH and Talmud propose a different vision of courtroom justice. My scholarship emphasizes the establishment of a court of three Torts Justices, specifically designed to address cases of physical damages. This model represents a radical shift from vertical British Star-courts to horizontal courts, akin to the American Revolution’s establishment of the jury system.
I have served as a judge on a 23-member Sanhedrin Capital Crimes exile court and later on the Great Court in Jerusalem, consisting of 71 justices for Final Appeals. Unfortunately, many of my rabbinic peers concentrated their legal education on statute-law and religious halachic ritual codifications developed during the dark days of Jewish exile in Europe and Arab lands, a period characterized by political chaos and called the ‘Dark Ages.’ The post-Shoah modern Jewish state bears little resemblance to those long-suffering societies that lived as stateless refugees, deprived of essential social and political rights.
The Talmud vision to serve as the model of common law courts when the Jews reconquered our homelands away from any Goyim attempts to dictate terms. The Talmud bases its vision of common law courts upon the earlier T’NaCH common law prophetic commands of mussar. Prophets commanded mussar to kings, fully aware that mussar a person cannot command. Not to kings nor to all generations living thereafter. Mussar, as a rebuke, compares to a seed that sprouts and grows from within the hearts and not from words which denounce wrongs made by people long since dead. The vision of prophetic mussar – plays a long game.
Confronted with defeat, I failed to convince or sway a majority of my judicial peers that the Torah Constitution mandates common law courts; wherein one justice, in the 3 man most simple Torts example, appointed as the prosecution – opposed by a second justice who argues the defense. Both required to write a brief of precedent cases, wherein that judge attempts to sway or persuade his opposing other – court justice judge – that the case-precedents contained in his “brief”, more closely resemble the case currently heard before the court. And visa-versa, the same equally applies with the judicial opposing Case/precedent brief. Only in a situation where both of these opposing justices, that they failed to persuade their opposing “other” – of the merits of their precedents – only in this dead-lock would the 3rd court Judge rule one way or the other.
The specific case where Rav Shwartz argued that the Sanhedrin should judge a judicial dispute of damages which occurred in the jurisdiction of American courts. I failed to convince Rav Shwartz that mesechta Sanhedrin Aggadita which refers to bnai noach goyim only referred to gere toshav persons living within the borders of Judea. Rav Shwartz relied upon the ruling of the Rambam. I failed to convince a majority of my Sanhedrin peers that statute law not the same as common law. An absolute disgrace for the post Shoah Sanhedrin courts to base our legal system upon Roman statute law legal systems – on par with the NT wolf dressed in wool metaphor.
Rav Shwartz focused upon the tactics of the case at hand and failed to perceive the strategic ‘Big Picture’.
Lateral common law court justices do not receive any salary from State authorities or figures. Just as kashrut police should not receive a salary from the stores they police for kashrut. A lateral common law court – similar to Israeli health insurance – court justices paid a salary from legal insurance till the people who make a damage claim dispute require a courtroom hearing. One against another wherein the guilty agrees to pay a portion of court costs – the time required for the court to resolve their damage dispute; restore trust by awarding fair compensation of damages inflicted upon the injured party.
The T’NaCH prophets vision of common law expressed through the precise medium of mussar. If compared to the metaphor of a Loom prophetic mussar contrasts with Talmudic common law “threads” which make the warp/weft woven fabric of Talmudic common law. Mishnaic common law, expressed through prior Case/Rule judicial ruling precedents. The Gemara – both within the Yerushalmi and later Bavli – employs halachot as judicial precedents. Meaning, these judicial halachic precedents משל instruct the נמשל of witnesses testifying what they personally saw in a case heard before a Sanhedrin court. Just as the ‘Front/Top\Side views of a blueprint present different picture images, so too the perspectives seen by different eye-witnesses before the court.
The statute law codification of religious ritual observance made during the Dark Ages of Jewish exile no more apply to a Sanhedrin court in post Shoah Israel than the Sanhedrin court has a judicial mandate to judge Goyim disputes in foreign lands abroad! The jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin בטול to within the borders of Israel just as the first Commandment Sinai Name בטול to the Divine Names in the first Book of בראשית wherein the Avot witnessed the vision of God in the Heavens above and the Earth below. Whereas the Sinai revelation makes, so to speak the Ari’s mysticism – Tzimtzum; תורה לא בשמים היא. Meaning the Spirit of the 1st Commandment Name – post the Yom Kippur revelation of the 13 tohor spirits/Oral Torah – that this שם השם לשמה Spirit dwells only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people.
What conditions must exist for this בטול of אל שדי in the Heavens above to השם restricted to the Yatzir Ha-Tov tohor middot within the Cohen peoples’ hearts? Only to the living and not the dead. Jews tuck their tzitzits into their pockets with visiting a grave. Mitzvot לשמה only apply with living Jews within the borders of ארץ ישראל. Jews living in foreign lands – remain in Egypt. Slaves no more free than Judea ruled by Roman appointed kings or governors.
Consequently the spirits of the 13 tohor middot which Moshe Rabbeinu heard on Yom Kippur – where HaShem made “t’shuva” and remembered that only the Avot would father the chosen Cohen seed, not Moshe, nor JeZeus, nor Muhammad. Claims of ‘Son of God’ compare to Ishmael bound upon the altar by Avraham! All substitute theological belief systems, such as the Tawhid or Trinity – equal to and no different from Goyim who style themselves as being “bnai Noach” while living in Goyim countries abroad. The revelation of the 1st Commandment שם השם לשמה made only to the 12 Tribes of Israel who came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan. Hence rabbi Akiva argues that the Wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come. World to come learns from the brit cut between the pieces wherein Avram asked what could אל שדי give his seeing he had no seed? That oath brit cut there, stands upon the oath that the Avot, starting with Avram, would father the chosen Cohen people — in the future עולם הבא.
The din of כרת, this Torah curse – the opposite of the ברכה known as ger tzeddik. Just as the latter a new creation so too the former. Hence the court has the mussar mandate of נידוי. For example: if a man profanes his קידושין oath, and refuses to return Title to the acquire נפש עולם הבא soul of his wife, the court can impose the din of כרת, based upon the precedent of the Wilderness generation who refused to rise up and conquer the land of Canaan. The נידוי din imposed upon the Wilderness generation, does it not likewise explain the din of the Shoah upon European Jewry.
This type of lateral court the vision of both the T’NaCH and Talmud, excludes by definition the T’zeddukim or the alien Goyim – imported by the Assyrian king who conquered the kingdom of the 10 Tribe republic of Israel, whose decree imposed a mass population transfer of the tribal kingdom of Israel. Who replaced a foreign peoples, from other nations – equally conquered by that same evil empire. This specific alien people who embraced the Torah, due to their great dread: “fear of lions”, planted by the Assyrian king in Shimron – historically the lands of Samaria; the NT Greek work refers to these despise foreign imported aliens – as Samaritans – whom the Jews greatly despised. Ezra’s generation (Ezra 4:1-3) rejected the “assistance” of the Shimronim to build the 2nd Temple.
Isaiah, a great prophet of the kingdom of Yechuda, referred to king Cyrus as “moshiach’. He permitted Yechudim exiles to return and rebuild our nation. But the great king, while he paid from his own national treasury the expense to build Ezra’s Temple, that king rule an empire of 127 conquered collapsed nation states like the examples of both conquered kingdoms of Yechuda and Israel. Yechuda, the name of the 4 son of Yaacov, king Cyrus labelled Yechudim as “Jews”. That name, has stuck to this very day in time.
The Book of Esther, set during the reign of King Ahasuerus, often identified with Xerxes I of Persia; about 2 generations prior to king Cyrus who permitted Jews to return from conquered Babylonian exile. The Persian empire conquered the defunct Babylonian empire – occupied the current State of Iraq today.
The Gemara – a commentary on the Mishnah. A compilation of Jewish oral laws codified by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, rather than a direct commentary on rulings of the Great Sanhedrin. While the title of ‘Great Sanhedrin’ the Romans technically maintained/permitted. That “court” compares to the ‘Great Sanhedrin’ established by Napoleon! That Gemara commentary written in Iraq, supplemented an earlier attempt to do the same thing within the borders of Judea itself. But the Yerushalmi attempt collapsed about 90 years after rabbi Yechuda made his first formal codification of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings, established prior to the Romans imposing first king Herod and later Roman governors to ruled that tiny land – which the Romans renamed as Palestine.
This latter name, the League of Nations referred to in their 1922 Palestine Mandate, which authorized Britain to restore a Jewish national home in “Palestine”, based upon the 1917 Balfour Agreement and the policy of the Great King Cyrus of the extinct Persian empire destroyed by Alexander the Great. All Arab and Muslim conquered provinces, ruled by Britain and other European great powers, who later attained their own national independence, condemned both the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate which directed England to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
All Arab Israeli wars fought starting with the 1948 Independence War, Arab and Muslim warring states fundamentally reject that dhimmi Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. Arabs argued that once lands conquered by Arabs, that those lands could not change their status. Since the Camp David Accords and later Abraham Accords more and more Arab and Muslim countries have started to recognize Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.
Since the 1948 War of National Independence, foreign state imperialism has attempted through UN Resolutions to determine the borders of the Jewish state. But Israel, once it won its national Independence ceased to exist as a ward of the UN protectorate mantle. Post ’67 UN “Star Courts” have attempted to treat Israel as a protectorate of the UN. Such Top-down decrees, serve only foreign attempts by countries like England and France to restore their deposed ‘Great Power’ status across the Middle East. Especially after Eisenhower & Stalin forced London and Paris to withdraw their attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal. Post ’67 with LBJ tied down in the Vietnam War, Britain and France attempted to restore their dominance in the balance of power in the Middle East by introducing UN Resolution 242.
Great Power interference through the UN Security Council, indicates a collective ‘Great Power’ effort to address ME conflicts … to dominate the balance of power in the ME. The UN 242 language “the right of all states to live in peace”, implies Palestine as a State! Later UN Resolutions of condemnations over settlements and occupation proves conclusively the hostile intent of ‘Great Powers’ to dominate the balance of Power in the Middle East. Absolutely no different than from the attempt in 1956 to seize the Suez Canal. These so-called defrocked great powers – they do not determine the borders of the Jewish state nor the Capital of the Jewish state anymore than Britain and France determine the borders of the US or Russia or the respective Capital cities of those Independent Nation states.
Post the Oct7th Abomination War, UN Top-down justice attempted to declare a unilateral decree which condemned Jerusalem guilty for the war-crime of genocide. The ICJ and ICC, the later Israel never validated the Rome agreement, likewise condemned the Israeli PM as a war-criminal. Despite the failure of the International Red Cross to visit Israeli hostages held in Hamas dungeons and UNRWA’s participation in the Oct 7th massacre.
LikeLiked by 1 person