Author: mosckerr

Fundamental distinctions which radically change the intent and interpretation of Torah as a political foundation/Constitution vs the religions established through Biblical and Koran counterfeits. Goyim never accept to this day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They do not thereafter dictate any Torah commandment. Not Moshiach nor who or what qualifies as a prophet. Daniel a mystic not a prophet. Oral Torah by definition interprets the k’vanna of wisdom commandments\time-oriented mitzvot.

Jewish Halacha despite Middle Ages assimilation to Greek logic philosophies – which in effect negated the Chanukkah lights – halacha contained within the Gemara “commentary” to a specific Mishna – serves as courtroom witnesses who testify based upon observance of the Mishnaic case viewed from different perspectives. Halacha after the Roman exile of Jews from Judea “converted” into religious law – with rabbinic decisors (geonim, rishonim, acharonim) who fill the function of spiritual-legal guides whose rulings regulated communal religious existence in cursed g’lut. Halacha of this much later statute law assimilated codes, copied Roman law, much like the bible influenced by the printing press.

Despite these codes, imposed by decisor “authorities” such as Rambam or Karo, halacha simply not religious law. But remains precedents by which witnesses testify a Case heard before a Sanhedrin common law courtroom, viewed from different perspectives. A living human being shares no comparison to a mirror reflection or photograph of that person stored in a vault for hundreds of years. Still another example: The Cathedral copy-cat Temple built by king Shlomo merely a “photograph” of the Torah commandment צדק צדק תרדוף – which serves as the foundation of judicial common law courtrooms mandated by the Torah written Constitution. As determined by a Torah precedent: Moshe’s establishment of 3 Cities of Refuge with their small Sanhedrin courts.

If you take the time to learn the Hebrew T’NaCH you will see the day vs night difference between the Hebrew T’NaCH which the Xtian bible has replaced. For example: how a person organizes ideas changes what that person understands. Take the “Order” of – GOD vs dog. The Xtian bible translations did just that with their institution of Chapter & Verse organization which replaced the Hebrew sugya/sub-chapter Order. Something akin to Grover Cleveland’s decision to abandon all original US President advice from Washington – Madison – father of the US Constitution – inclusive of Andrew Jacksons’ free banking rejection of European Central Banking.

Yes, today even the Hebrew T’NaCH also modified through printers – to include Xtian chapter and verses! But within the Torah scrolls & Hebrew T’NaCH, remain odd gap/spaces scattered throughout all that literature. Starting with the 5 Books of the Torah scrolls read on shabbat and organized around an internal פ & ס. These two Hebrew letters refer to “sugyah” – sub-chapter and “Parech” – chapter. The printed Hebrew T’NaCH – originally likewise organized in hand written manuscripts prior to the printing press movable type 1455 invention – employ easily observable gaps which separate one sub-chapter from another. The printing press invention directly impacted the 1611 KJB together with the Catholic Bibles. Just as did the chapter system, developed early in the 13th century by Archbishop Stephen Langton 1205-1227. The verse system introduced in the 16th century – Santes Pagnino produced a versed Latin Bible in 1551.

The Catholic bibles based upon Latin translations. They include deuterocanonical books whom Ezra and other post destruction of the 2nd Temple, Tannaim Era survivors excluded from the Hebrew T’NaCH literature. King Cyrus of Persia, whom the prophetic Book Isaiah refers to as “moshiach”, permitted Jews to return back to Judea after our 70 year Babylonian exile ordeal. The Catholic/Protestant 30 Years War terminated in 1648. Martin Luther moved the Catholic deuterocanonical books to an “Apocrypha” section in his 1534 German bible.

William Tyndale executed in 1536. Convicted of Lutheran heresy—mainly for his Protestant theological writings (e.g., justification by faith, denial of transubstantiation) and related polemics; his English Bible translation viewed as a direct challenge Lutheran Church authority. Strangled at the stake, then his body was burned. The Lutheran church sided with Hitlers’ Nazism. Nonetheless his translations omitted some deuterocanonical books prior to his betrayal and State murder. John Calvin treated them as separate and apart from “Scripture”. The 1611 King James Bible reflects that Protestant tradition and relied heavily on Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible.

A substantial portion of German society—including many Protestants and Catholics—backed or accommodated the Nazi regime, especially in the 1930s, motivated by nationalism, anti‑communism, fear, and the regime’s social/order promises. Major church bodies made compromises (e.g., the Protestant Reich Church movement, concordats and local accommodations by Catholic bishops). Anti‑Jewish violence did not end in 1945—notable examples like the 1946 Kielce pogrom in Poland show continued lethal antisemitism and communal breakdown after the war. Moral accountability for mass support remains a valid and widely held judgment against all biblical translations, based upon the language of the gospels themselves: “by their fruits you shall know them”. Where was Jesus during Xtian war crimes throughout history from the Crusades to the blood libels to pogroms to mass expulsions to ghetto gulags etc?

War Report: A כלל of war: never put your enemy into a corner because if they feel they have no chance of escape then they fight like lions. This delay promotes conflict between opposing leadership positions within the Mullah regime. For example one party apologized for Iran firing missiles into neighboring countries – opposed by other leaders firing missiles at US Allies in the region.

The revelation of the Torah at Sinai – a two part revelation.

Process (how Sinai unfolded) – Two-stage revelation: God spoke the first two “dibrot” aloud; after that Israel asked Moses to receive the rest and transmit it (Exodus narrative as read by rabbinic tradition). Oral transmission of the 13 tohor רוח הקודש spirit interpretation of the first commandment שם השם as the בטול idea of תורה לא בשמים היא revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Legal common law middot such as introduced by Hillel and other Tannaim serves as the יסוד by which the generations interpret the k’vanna of the revelation of the 13 Tohor Oral Torah middot at Horev.

The Torah does not invalidate the existence of other Gods; not the Gods of Egypt, Canaan, nor the Gods in later NaCH prophetic mussar. NaCH prophets do mock Gods limited to wood & stone. The Book of satire Kings mocks king Shlomo “as the wisest of all men” for his ignoring the mussar of the prophet Natan who commanded king David not to copy architectural constructs of how Goyim worship their Gods through Cathedral-like constructions. Rather the model of the Mishkan understood by the precedent of Moshe Rabbeinu’s last mitzva before he passed from this Earth – the Small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts which define all the cities of refuge.

The 2nd stage of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai followed the sin of the Golden Calf – substitute theology which declared that אלהים (who occupies both the Heavens and the Earth) brought Israel out of Egypt. This substitute theology denies the בטול revelation of the שם השם לשמה – לא בשמים היא revelation that the רוח הקודש Oral Torah spirits live within the Yatzir Ha’Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people when and only when we rule the oath brit land inheritance. The Torah revelation consists of two parts: Blessing/Life vs. Curse\Death-G’lut. Based upon the language of the 1st Sinai commandment “Egypt” לאו דוקא; all Goyim lands of g’lut – Jews live – just as no Sanhedrin or Yovel freedom for them so too no other Torah commandments apply other than to do t’shuva and remember – Israel came out of Egypt to conquer and rule Canaan with Sanhedrin courtroom common law justice.

No where, for example, does the Torah address the God worshipped in India and Asian countries. The brit of Gilgal/order of Rashi tefillen contrasts with the brit of Sh’Cem\order of Rabbeinu Tam tefillen. The oath sworn at Gilgal: just as HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt, so too HaShem will judge the Gods of Canaan. Just as Moshe a prophet so too Yehoshua a Torah prophet. Monotheism as a theology violates the 2nd Sinai commandment because if the Islamic Tawhid accurate then the 2nd commandment in vain. But the chicken always precedes the egg; Muhammad did not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, his replacement theology substitutes Allah like as did the Golden Calf did with אלהים and the NT does with some “Father” in Heaven.

Monotheism, especially as framed by the נדוי Rambam assimilates to the foreign idea of ONE UNIVERSAL GOD. This false avoda zara assimilation validates Jews davening inside Mosques! It declares the Aggada of mesechta Sanhedrin touching the 7 mitzvot applicable to gere toshav to all “bnai noach Goyim in all lands! Mesechta Avoda Zara and in many other places throughout Sha’s teach that only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the שם השם לשמה by definition בטול, limited and restricted to the status of a local tribal god and not the foreign align Universal ONE God theology of alien foreign religious belief systems.

In like manner the mitzva of Moshiach not limited to some God/Man in the past as Xtian avoda zara attempts to dictate. Rather Torah common law stands upon the יסוד which requires בניני אבות-precedents. The NT worship of avoda zarah – other Gods – rejects the revelation of Oral Torah common law. It rejects Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach despite the Talmud reference to Pinchas as משיח מלחמה or the NaCH reference to king Cyrus as משיח.

Goyim, by definition reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai\Horev, therefore Goyim worship other Gods. Impossible for Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah to thereafter dictate Torah mitzvot such as does the NT attempt with its false messiah paradigm and as does the Koran with its false definition of prophets sent to all Goyim paradigm. King Shlomo no different than his son at Sh’Cem. Just as Shlomo began his avoda zara “Civil War” curse imposed by the Natan curse following the David Bat Sheva injustice shown to her husband; Aaron dedicated by Moshe as Moshiach to sanctify through korbanot the dedication to rule the land of Canaan with judicial Sanhedrin common law justice. So too Rechavam ignored the elder advisors of king Shlomo just as young king Shlomo initiated building a Temple Cathedral avoda zara rather than establish the Federal Sanhedrin courts as the case of the two prostitutes proves.

What are the “process, principles, and core teachings of Sinai”? The Talmud teaches – never a thing known as “10 commandments”. Rather following the first two commandments Israel demanded that Moshe rise up and receive the rest of the Torah. Mesechta Baba Kama refers to the relationship between the revelation of the first two commandments to the rest of the Torah to … a mountain hanging by a hair metaphor.

Any superficial reading of the Torah clearly presents in the 2nd and 5th Books of the Torah 10 commandments. However, משנה תורה, the 2nd name of the Book of D’varim – understood as meaning “Common law”. Common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. Just as a superficial reading of the Torah reads בראשית before שמות, ויקרא, במדבר, ודברים. Yet the common law Talmud instructs that Torah has no 1st 2nd 3rd etc order. The Book of בראשית inclusive of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – which came after Israel left Egyptian slavery. The Torah commandment clear: Remember Egypt. Herein explains why the Torah repeats the so called 10 commandments … they serve as judicial precedents to remember the judicial injustice of Egypt.

Interpreting T’NaCH prophetic mussar.

Tehillem סט:יט-לו does not serve as a close בנין אב to learn the k’vanna of Isaiah נג:ג-ה or סג:ז-ט because suffering/ridicule etc refers to themes—suffering, communal dishonor, enemies’ triumph, pleas for vindication, and hope for restoration—which echo Israel’s experience of g’lut and t’shuva.  Based upon the model of HaShem doing t’shuva and remembering the oaths sworn to the Avot that they, and only they, would father the chosen Cohen people; not Moshe or any other would replace – the most essential brit sworn only to the Avot.  

These p’sukim, they amplify Jeremiah 33:24–26; Ezekiel 36:22–28.  Furthermore Isaiah 41:8–9; 49:3; 52:4–6 serve as witness that the intent of “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53 implies a national and not an individual context.   The theme – HaShem making t’shuva by remembering the Avot and restoring Israel – as taught in the mussar of Ezekiel 16:60; Leviticus 26:42.  All three major prophetic books together with minor prophets like Micah and Hosea teach this  common foundational mussar — which portrays Israel’s suffering as the curse side of the blessing/curse oath Sinai brit.
____________________________________________________________


[“God does teshuva” → theologically inaccurate in mainstream Judaism. ] The Xtian God does not do t’shuva b/c God cannot repent. But the local god of Sinai ALL about forever doing t’shuva b/c this requires remembering the oath sworn specifically to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they and they alone would father the chosen Cohen people.

To cut a Torah brit requires swearing a Torah oath. Covenant does not mean Torah oath. Covenant the “sign of a new religion”. Both bible and koran religious books. Torah: the Written Constitution of the Cohen Bnei Brit Republic which specifically mandates a Sanhedrin common law court system. No Sanhedrin court system has jurisdiction outside the borders of an Independent Cohen nation wherein the Cohen people rule the land – cut through a Torah oath – as the eternal inheritance of the Chosen Cohen People.

[ “God does teshuva” → not standard or textually precise] Moshe caused HaShem “”to remember”” the oath sworn to the Avot. That’s straight from the language of the Torah and the basis of t’shuva required for Yom Kippur and the dedication of all korbanot time oriented commandments which most definitely require k’vanna based upon the precedent that HaShem chose the korban of Hevel and rejected the korban of Cain-despite him being the born first-born son. The korban of Cain – offered without k’vanna, Cain did not remember the oath sworn to Adam that he would father the chosen Cohen people. בראשית links this oath brit of the chosen Cohen people through Noach → Avram. Just as Adam the father of all Humanity → Avram the father of a multitude of nations. Just as the Torah brit alliance applicable only to the “chosen Cohen seed of Adam – specifically through the seed of through Seth.

Seth too had three sons. Just as the seed of Cain excluded from being the “brit chosen Cohen people” so too the seed of Ham, son of Noach.

Just as 10 generations separated Adam → Noach. So too 10 generations separated Noach → Avram.
Just as the Sinai oath brit alliance cut only with the 12 Tribes of Israel — excluded specifically both “first born” children of Yishmael Avraham and Esau Yitzak — Isaiah 53 “nationalizes” the suffering servant to g’lut Israel forced to remember the sworn oath brit alliance in order to do t’shuva. The fundamental distinction which amplifies the Sinai oath brit from the creation of Adam through a sworn oath brit, (both Adam and Noach and Avram in the Book of בראשית would father a “multitude of nations/Goyim”, but not till the revelation of the Torah at Sinai/Horev would HaShem understood through בטול which restricted the Horev revelation of 13 Tohor רוח הקודש-spirits which fundamentally reject the Golden Calf word translation אלהים, because the Tzimtzum (A Ari kabbalah chiddush which describes the Creation metaphor as a wisdom time-oriented commandment → based upon “Talmud which means ‘learning'” the k’vanna of the 7 days of Creation which the Torah calls “Shabbat”. The Siddur itself “learns” shabbat as the entire week, not limited to a single day – יום ראשון בשבת → יום שני בשבת וכו.

The primary source for the six‑days/one‑day structure in the בראשית creation story introduces first and foremost the difference between Torah wisdom commandments from positive and negative secondary-toldot commandments through the משל of 6 days מלאכה and one day לא תעשה מלאכה — metaphor which requires its נמשל which the other Books of the Torah “interpret” the הבדלה required which separates time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna.

The בראשית creation motif as a paradigmatic משל that establishes a fundamental הבדלה: six days of מלאכה versus one day of not‑doing (שבת) that functions as the archetype for distinguishing time‑oriented, kavanah‑dependent mitzvot (the “wisdom/time” commandments) from ordinary positive/negative mitzvot. Textual anchors for that reading: Bereishit 2:2–3; the Shabbat formula in Ex. 20:8–11 and Ex. 31:13–17 (Shabbat as the “ot”/sign); and the Torah’s tefillin passages (Ex. 13:9,16) and later rabbinic rulings that treat Shabbat’s sign as superseding the weekday sign. That hermeneutic — reading creation as a organizational/systemic dimension that generates halakhic and liturgical הבדלה — defensible within classical and medieval exegetical streams, for example Ashkenazi Siddurim write יום ראשון בשבת, יום שני בשבת יום שלשי בשבת וכו.

Texts that support this framing include Bereishit 2:2–3, the Shabbat commandments (Ex. 20:8–11; 31:13–17), the Torah passages about signs/ot (e.g., Ex. 13), and the rabbinic rulings about tefillin and Shabbat; many liturgical formulations and some sidduric insertions reflect that theological/halakhic logic. Hence all this stands upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and the masoret of פרדס inductive reasoning logic as the definition of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, inclusive of the 7 middot of Hillel, 10 middot of Akiva, 13 middot of Yishmael and 32 middot of Ha’Galilee.

Bibliography that supports this interpretation: B’HaG — readings where it aligns with Rosh against Rambam on the primacy of Shabbat’s sign and the liturgical implications located in Menachot/Exodus. Rashi — comments on Menachot 36b (on the status of tefillin and the “ot” of Shabbat) and on Genesis 2:2–3 regarding שבת as creator’s rest. Tosafot — glosses on Menachot 36b and Eruvin 96a (discussing tefillin, the sign/ot, and Shabbat/weekday distinction) where the dialectic with Rashi and geonic positions – developed. Rif (Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi) — Hilchot Tefillin and related halachot in his compendium across tractates Menachot, Eruvin, and Shabbat. Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher) — his halachot and responsa treating tefillin and Shabbat; Menachot/Eruvin and his Hilchot Tefillin rulings, where he explicitly challenges Rambam’s formulations about signs and practice.

Peshat commentators (Ibn Ezra, Radak) — treat creation‑Shabbat as literal/grammatical, not primarily as a systematic hermeneutic for kavanah‑dependent vs. non‑kavanah mitzvot. Ramban/Nachmanides — while he gives theological weight to Shabbat, he develops different juridical/theological grounds (prophetic/mystical elements) rather than making the creation motif the sole organizing rule for kavanah‑dependence. Halakhic codifiers (Tur/Shulchan Aruch and standard poskim) — legislate practical rulings (e.g., tefillin on weekdays, not on Shabbat) from Talmudic precedent and exegesis, not by adopting a general rule that creation’s six/one model systematically classifies all mitzvot by kavanah requirement. These many example dispute the interpretation learned above.

Mainstream Jewish theology treats HaShem as not subject to sin, so saying “HaShem does teshuva” requires deeper investigation. Biblical translations whose language replaces “repentance” (נחם) read as God changing a course in relation to creation’s unfolding precisely fits in with Xtian and Muslim replacement theologies. Phrases like נחם, interpreted only as anthropomorphisms or as relational shifts in response to human behavior—not as literal repentance implying moral change in God. Translating נחם straightforwardly as “repentance” (in the sense of God changing morally) aligns more easily with Xtian and Muslim theological frameworks that recast divine mutability; such renderings therefore reflect distinct doctrinal anti-Israel prejudices which graft Goyim unto the Jewish root or assume that prophets sent to all Goyim – who never accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

The Mishnah warns, any human attempt to define God—who is above, below, or beyond human grasp—risks presumptuousness; better that such a person to have never been born, than to project arrogate knowledge of the Divine essence which makes a בטול הבדלה which separates Divine Names such as אלהים, אל שדי as found in בראשית from the first commandment שם השם לשמה which limits to לא בשמים היא-Yatzir Ha-Tov לבבך\כם of kre’a shma-Shekinah. Rendering נחם simply as “repentance” (in the sense that God changes morally) affixed to substitute theologies of Xtian and Muslim theological worship of other Gods/2nd Sinai commandment. The worship of these other Gods permits divine mutability. Translating נחם as literal repentance defines substitute theologies whose worship permits divine mutability.

The Torah repeatedly frames divine action in oath-brit memory language (e.g., God “remembering” the Avot) — this is central to readings of Yom Kippur, korbanot, and the role of human teshuva combined through all the 13 tohor middot Spirits/רוח הקודש. Mainstream tradition locates efficacy in human teshuva + ritual/korban + divine covenantal remembrance (expressed via the 13 Attributes – Oral Torah revelation of רוח הקודש at Horev – and related doctrines), rather than literal divine moral repentance. Kabbalistic/midrashic streams elaborate purified רוח הקודש frameworks that connect the 13 middot, kavanah, and sacrificial/time‑bound efficacy.

The unique Av tuma avoda zara of both Xtianity and Islam.

The Torah describes Molech as a specific form of Avoda Zarah. The manner of worship of worshipping that God, passing children “through fire”, as a ritual act to that deity. Halacha does not treat “any religion that includes suffering, death, or sacrifice” as Molech. Actual ritual human sacrifice – a physical act performed as a cultic offering.

Xtianity worships JeZeus as the son of God and part of the Nicene decreed Trinity. This theology depicts the brutal murder of JeZeus by way of torture, brutality, and slow death on the cross as a “Sacrifice to atone for Original Sin which condemns all Mankind to Hell”. Clearly the church never identified the Gospel “Father” with Moloch or any other specific “other God”.

Xtianity does not practice human sacrifice, but it does practice hate toward “Christ-killers” throughout its entire history as the dominant religion of European societies – Universally – almost all European Xtain countries practice dogmatic hatred against Jews through the worship of blood libels, pogroms, taxation without representation, ghetto gulags and WWII Shoah.

Molech worship, defined by a very specific ritual. Obviously Xtianity does not fit this model exactly for any person to affix the “Father” to JeZeus son of God. Halacha never equates Xtianity with Molech, that’s a known historical fact. The Talmud analysis of avoda zara does not address the mythological Gods of Mt. Olympus; any more than it does the theological dogma known as the Nicene Creed of the Trinity, or the Muslim tawhid creed of strict monotheism.

The church imposed a Devil hatred worship, akin to the bi-polar Good/Evil Gods of Zoasterism – toward Jews. Both Priests and Pastors promoted this Satan hatred as their worship of their God. This does not affix Xtianity as a Zoasterism faith, anymore than its worship of the cult of JeZeus sacrifice upon the Cross qualifies as the worship of the God of Moloch!

Medieval Xtian theology emphasizes a moral dualism (God vs. Devil) and often employed demonization of Jews in preaching and polemics. As such Xtian theology cast Jews as demons of Satan and other such negative slander. This criminal “mass insanity” defines the crimes committed against the Jews of Germany during the first Crusades, and the repeated forced mass population transfers from one European country to another.

The Talmud in Baba Kama’s opening Mishna teaches of 4 Avot\archetypes of Tam (damagers without intent). The teaching style of Oral Torah require that the reader him/her self make the logical inference. Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of wisdom commandments, known as “time-oriented mitzvot”. The 3rd Book of the Torah defines korbanot as “time-oriented commandments”. Consequently if 4 archetypes of Tam damagers then logically also 4 Avot of Mu’ad (intentional damagers) – theft, oppression, incest, and bribing judges to corrupt a court ruling. Theology, politics, social scapegoating, mob slaughter of Jewish communities/Inquisition etc qualify as specific historical examples that come within the 4 Avot archetypes of mu’ad damagers.

Incest (boundary violation), a metaphor for violating the most intimate self identity of Jews; like baptizing children against the will of their parents; forced conversions, erasure of identity, spiritual violence etc. The Church – both Catholic and Protestant – branches purposely crushed despised Jewish refugee populations as an act of worship of their unnamed “Father” of JeZeus God in heaven. Xtianity’s “Father” not not Molech, not Zoroastrianism, not halachically human sacrifice. Therefore I don’t need to call your God Molech to say the church worship of their unnamed “Father” God in Heaven resembles other religions of avoda zara in multiple and many ways.

Post Shoah no exoneration. 2000+ years of Pie in the Sky – where was JeZeus during the Shoah. Where was Allah during the disastrous Arab and Muslim defeats post the victory of Jewish national Independence in ’48 and ’67? Molech: a narrowly defined avodah zarah; Xtianity does not fit that ritual model. Our Sages, of blessed memory do not map out Olympus, Nicene Trinitarianism, or Islamic tawhid by name; they give categories, not a catalog. The way you worshipped your God, and the culture you built around that worship, resembles avodah zarah in its effects and its moral structure—even if halacha doesn’t technically classify it as Molech or Zoroastrianism. Based fundamentally upon the gospel rebuke of: “By their fruits you shall know them”. Whatever you call your “Father” God, the avodah that produced those fruits cannot be called righteous. History itself judges the worship of your Gods as false.

What your theologies promote for Xtians or Muslims to believe – pie in the sky nonsense. What have both the Church and Mosque done? What did your God-jabber theology/creeds license “believers” to do? Drop your slogans and propaganda rhetoric and your emotions on your sleeve, history judges your Av tuma faith by the crimes of its fruits.