The Idle Smasher


I did a live internet show the other day (well, I was there. I didn’t participate.) It was a show by one of the Gerrings, and he usually had his Gerring buddies on talking about Gerring stuff. I figured it would be the Beany and Cecil show, since the Gerrings are all into beanies. What happened was hysterical.

The host of the show was apparently unhappy with my previous blog post, “I Get Rachel Dolezal,” and so the entire show was based around bashing my work. [For those of you who want to see the show and hear the ranting and raving for yourselves, click HERE]. Meanwhile, I’ll discuss a few points the person running the Gerring Show made.

“I think the Noahide Code has failed in the West.” [go to the 2:15 mark]. Well, of course it has failed. The rabbis want it to fail. The last thing the rabbis want is for us Noahides to get together and change society for the better. Not that they want society to be left in the horrid state it is in today, but because it was undoubtedly cause problems for the Jews living here, Jews who don’t want to disturb their comfortable lifestyle living in Edom and having to pull up stakes and move to Israel where rabbis are a dime a dozen.

Oh, sure, I can hear it now: “Why are you blaming the rabbis??” Well, the proof is in the pudding. Take the host of this show the other night. He maintains that he wants to schmooze with the Jews, study with the Jews, act like a Jew, etc. But after years of rabbinic teaching, it is painfully obvious that this person knows nothing about the Noahide Code. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

To prove that he knows very little about the Noahide Code, he proceeds to blast it by saying it is nothing more than a Bronze-Age slave law [go to the 3:20 mark]. What is funny is that his rant sounds almost exactly like Paul’s rant in Galatians chapter Four, the very rant about slaves and the law that I had posted in the previous article which he took umbrage against. Nevermind that the host totally misunderstands that this “law of slaves” only applies to Israel in the land of Israel, and was seen by the sages as a way to lift up those poor souls who grew up and lived in a Godless society.

At the 4:00 mark he goes into the “other thing” that bothers him so much: there is no positive commandment to believe in God (in the Noahide Code.) Obviously, he does not like the way the Noahide Code is set up and explained in the Talmud. Like the Christian he once was, that residual contempt for rabbinic teaching comes creeping back into Gerring theology. What he wants is “religion,” not halakha. That’s pretty much the Gerring line; lots of religion, little halakha. Like the proverbial ger tzaddik who goes into the mikvah clutching a dead insect, he just can’t seem to let go of his Christian past. The theology of the church keeps seeping into his Gerring theology. It’s like the Gerrings are addicted to religion.

Then around the 7:45 mark, he shows his ignorance about the halakha of slavery in Israel. “I’m gonna need more than a slave’s dinner! I’m gonna need more than a slave’s lifestyle!” Well, if he understood the halakha of owning a slave, he would have known that a slave must be fed and clothed and treated no different than any other member of the household. What the master eats and wears, so does the slave. Owning a slave was expensive.

At the 8:45 mark he states that we shouldn’t present the Noahide Code as the Seven Laws. He keeps harping about how there is “no spiritual growth in that (Noahide Law).” That’s right. It’s not about spirituality. That’s something an individual can do on their own.

At the 9:00 mark, he goes into another rant: “Why are we using all this Jew stuff for? What the fuck [sic] is that?”

Well, the reason we’re using all the “Jew stuff” is because they are the keepers and teachers of the Torah. The problem with these idle Gerrings is that their view of the “Jew Stuff” is very limited; Rambam, spiritual works such as R’ Luzzatto’s “Path of the Just” and things of that nature. Oh, and of course, works by Chabad rabbis such as The Divine Code to tell Noahides exactly what they can and cannot do according to the rabbis who have no authority or say so over the laws of a non-Jewish state and society. The problem with the Gerrings is that they seem unaware that there is a whole batch of other “Jew-stuff” that teaches a very different view that the narrow one they have been taught.

And he states he’s all angry. Angry about what people are saying about his cult and his rabbinic cult leaders. Well, get over it. You obviously do not understand the Noahide Law. After 20 years of listening to the rabbis, you still don’t understand it.

And there is a good reason for that: the rabbis are incapable of teaching the Noahide Law. I’ve written about this problem on my blogs more than once; it’s not my fault that it isn’t sinking in.

At around the 11:00 mark (click HERE), he compares the teaching of the Seven to Christianity. This is, of course, a total red herring. What we’re teaching isn’t about religion. We’re not teaching about salvation. We’re not teaching about spiritualism and mysticism. That’s exactly what the Gerrings are teaching. Who is like Christianity now?

24 “These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.” Galatians 4:24–26

The host then goes on a bit of a rant at the 12:00 mark about one of his pet peeves, lashon harah, or what he perceives as lashon harah. The host has, in the past, gotten his panties in a wad when his precious gerring rabbis get called out for their misinterpretations. This comes from, once again, a total failure to understand, not just the halakha, but the hashkafa of the Noahide Code. The Torah is clear that, if you see someone violating halakha, you are duty-bound to reprimand them, first in private, and if that doesn’t work, in public. And, yes, you and your gerring buddies violate halakha. Your rabbis that you follow are violating halakha. How can you be cognizant of this violation if you still do not have a clue as to what the Noahide Laws are for? At 18:40 you talk about how you’ve “never bought the Seven Laws,” and your interpretation that, under Noahide Law, it was okay to sucker-punch your mother. As I said, you are clueless. The nonsense the rabbis have been filling your head with has you all turned around.

Who am I to question the rabbis, you ask? Read my book. You state you want to learn. I suggest you start immediately.



I Get Rachel Dolezal


You remember Rachel Dolezal—the white woman who pretended to be black. She pulled the deception off so well that she actually became the head of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington, a position she had until she was “outed.” Seems that Rachel wanted to sojourn with and schmooze with Black People.

Funny, but we now have a group that might as well call themselves the Dolezalites. They too want to schmooze, but with the Jews, not the Blacks. This religious group, which can only be properly defined as a cult, calls themselves the Gerrings.

In a recent blog, one of the leaders of the Gerring Cult explained the theology of the Gerring cult [Click HERE]. In his explanation of Gerring theology, he said:

The focal point here, particularly for the Ger, is the verse in Ezekiel 37:28: And the Goyim shall know that I am the Lord (YHVH) Who sanctifies Israel, when My Sanctuary is in their midst forever.
It does not say “all the Goyim,” it says, “the Goyim,” which means some of the Goyim. These are Goyimwho observe the Seven Laws of Noah and have chosen the G-d of Jacob as their G-d, as it says (Isaiah 2:3), “Many peoples shall go and they shall say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the House of the G-d of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths.’”
This is the Ger. This is not the Noahide. And this is not the Ger Toshav. This is only the Ger. What is the difference between the Ger and the Noahide or Ger Toshav? There are four primary differences:
1. Both the Noahide and the Ger Toshav have rejected idolatry, but have not chosen the G-d of Jacob as their G-d. The Ger has rejected idolatry and has also chosen G-d as his G-d.
2. The Ger is Biblical, created by G-d and mentioned in the Torah. The Noahide and the Ger Toshav are rabbinic constructs, legal fictions.
3. The Ger was born in Geulah. The Noahide and Ger Toshav are still in Galut.
4. The Noahide and the Ger Toshav are connected to the Tree of Life through the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Ger is connected directly to the Tree of Life.

Let’s go over these points, one at a time.

#1: “Both the Noahide and the Ger Toshav have rejected idolatry, but have not chosen the G-d of Jacob as their G-d. The Ger has rejected idolatry and has also chosen G-d as his G-d.”

Well, I have no problem with that one. Since a Noahide does not have the commandment to believe in God, then the Gerring moniker is used to describe those who do “believe.” [Note: David Dryden just sent me a rather convincing argument about this. He said, “a gerring isn’t simply the one who acknowledges God. The seven laws simply leaves it open. A non-Jew (or “noahide”) can and should accept God but doesn’t have to. The Gerrings turn an option into a dogmatic statement of faith of a new religion, where, you MUST believe in God.”]

#2: “The Ger is Biblical, created by G-d and mentioned in the Torah. The Noahide and the Ger Toshav are rabbinic constructs, legal fictions.”

Oh dear. Now he’s calling “Noahide” and “Ger Toshav” rabbinic constructs and legal fiction. This is the same claim Christians use against the entire Talmud. What the author is doing is employing Sola Scriptura, the Christian theological doctrine which teaches that the Written Torah (or written Scriptures) are the sole authority. Of course, this undermines his own “authority” since what he is teaching [Gerring theology] has been classified by many other rabbis as a fictional construct.

#3: “The Ger was born in Geulah. The Noahide and Ger Toshav are still in Galut.”

For some reason, this teaching reminds me of a passage in Chapter 4 of the New Testament book of Galatians:

4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. 24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
    you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
    you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
    than of her who has a husband.”

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[f]31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Although a tad different in content, the sentiment is the same. And last but not least:

#4: “The Noahide and the Ger Toshav are connected to the Tree of Life through the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Ger is connected directly to the Tree of Life.”

This statement, along with # 3, flies directly against the logic of what the author said in point #2: “The Noahide and the Ger Toshav are rabbinic constructs, legal fictions.” Oops. Well, that certainly sounds like what points #’s 3 and 4 are, doesn’t it? Rabbinic constructs? Legal fiction? These two points certainly are not clearly spelled out in the Written Torah.

In fact, the whole Gerring theology sounds a bit too much like Pauline Christianity:

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Chatz redeemed us from the curse of the law.” [Galatians 3]

Yes, I’ve read enough of the Gerring’s rants and ravings to understand that the Gerring believes! The Gerrings go way beyond the Law! The Gerrings have faith!

According to Gerring theology, only Gerrings have “salvation” according to their interpretation of the Bible. Only Gerrings “know” God. Sounds sort of familiar, doesn’t it? I’m sorry, but wearing silly little beanies with “Gerring” stitched into them and lighting menorahs doesn’t make you any more Jewish than Rachel Dolezal putting on blackface and curling her hair makes her black. Yes, yes: you want to “schmooze” with Jews. I get it. And these Gerring rabbis have made it clear that your ability to schmooze with Jews depends on how you’re faring with Gerring. In other words, you’re either with the teaching of cult, or against it. And these rabbis won’t be your “buddies” unless you submit to their Gerring interpretations.

Get with the program. The Gerrings are a cult. There is no other way to put it. The only way to “get ger” is to get rid of it. Toss the beanies. The Jews are not supposed to schmooze with non-Jews according to “constructed rabbinic fiction,” or what the rest of us call halakha. You’re not a Jew; you’re a Noahide. Start acting like one.


What’s Bothering Picklestein?


And so, once again, a Jew is criticizing me for what I teach, this time saying I’m a hypocrite. Although I have had plenty of criticism over the years (ever since my first book, The Noahide Code, came out), this is the first time I’ve been charged with hypocrisy. I’ve had rabbis I have never heard of calling me up out of the blue (how on earth did they get my phone number?), telling me they do not like my teachings on the Noahide Law. I always had the same response: Exactly what am I teaching that is a violation of halakha? And every time—EVERY TIME, mind you—the rabbis would stutter and stammer and say, “well, erm, no, your teaching is not against halakha…we just don’t like what you’re teaching.” Yep. Not one rabbi has told me that what I teach is against halakha. And now, after years of unfairly criticizing my work and undermining what I’ve been teaching, I’m a hypocrite. Well…

war bugs

The argument started when I read about how the gerrings were celebrating Pesach. I pointed out, once again, that observing Yom Tov was no business of the Noahide, and outside the purview of the Noahide Code. Then this Jewish man, whom I had never spoken to before, chimed in, telling me that it was perfectly fine for Noahides to take on extra responsibilities that were not part of the Noahide Law, and that I obviously had inferior knowledge about the subject. He went on to explain that he had been studying Torah much longer than I have, that I had never studied in a yeshiva, and blah blah blah. I looked at his profile, and told him that my youngest son was older than he was, and explained to him that I was studying in a kollel when he was just a gleam in his daddy’s eye. His response you can read above.

I have told the story before, but I will tell it again. In June of 1988 I called Rabbi Emmanuel Feldman at Beth Jacob in Atlanta, and told him I was a Noahide and wanted to learn Torah. He put me in contact with Rabbi Deutsch at ASK, and after I explained to him my predicament (a Noahide who wanted to learn Torah) he admitted me into the Kollel. That was in 1988. By the time I had left a few years later (they told me I had learned the extent of what they thought they could teach me), the Kollels were closed to the non-Jews.
I was the first, and as far as I know, the only Noahide that has been allowed to do this. Years later, as my dissatisfaction with what the rabbis were teaching the Noahides grew, I asked a friend of mine (a rabbi who was sympathetic to my cause) to do a little undercover work for me. He did, and confirmed my suspicions. It turns out the rabbis did come to a consensus sometime in the late 1990s to limit what they would teach Noahides; to stay away from Talmud and halakha and instead feed the Noahides a steady Torah diet of kabbalah and Rambam, limiting Torah for the Noahides in order to keep them under control. Yes, Noahides are not allowed into kollels or yeshivas. I managed to slip in before the ban.
So now let’s look at the charge of hypocrisy.


I have never tried to represent myself as Jewish (except for obvious satirical purposes, i.e., Rabbi Picklestein). In fact, I have gone out of my way to preserve my goyishness. I do not wear kippahs. I do not keep kosher. I do not observe Yom Tov. I no longer “hang out” with Jews or go to shuls. I make it clear in everything I do that I am not Jewish.

But let’s talk about the real problem with hypocrisy.

I have heard, over and over, that since I’m just a dumb goy, I do not have the knowledge or training to teach Noahide Law to Noahides. I tell them that I indeed do have the knowledge and training. I have asked the rabbis, “why not teach Noahides how to make halakhic decisions for themselves?” They hem and haw and tell me that it has never been done, they don’t know how to approach it, etc. In other words, they keep coming up with excuses as to why the Noahides should not be self-sufficient, so the Noahides can remain under rabbinic control. I have pointed out that the one work that the rabbis refuse to teach Noahides is the Talmud, particularly Sanhedrin 56a–60a, the part which deals with Noahide Law. The rabbis say that the Talmud is off limits to Noahides since it has been misinterpreted in the past to create religion. I understand this argument. What I don’t understand is why the rabbis turn right around and teach religion to Noahides: prayers, keeping Shabbat, Pesach, Succos and other Yom Tov holidays, and eating kosher. It is the rabbis who are turning the Noahide Law into a religion, not me. And then they have the unmitigated audacity to criticize me for telling Noahides to quit trying to keep Jewish religious practices. What I am wanting to teach is a legal system, a philosophy; the Torah sans religion. I have been pointing out for years that there is no positive commandment for non-Jews to believe in Hashem, only the prohibition to refrain from worshiping any other god(s).

In a surprisingly well written and insightful article [CLICK HERE], Rabbi Chaim Clorfene touches on the problem of Noahides and Judaism. It seems that there is a rabbinic loophole about Noahides keeping the parts of the Torah which are for the Jews and the Jews only. But here is the part I have an issue with:

Now, perhaps this Noahide feels unfulfilled by the Seven Laws, which are seven prohibitions, and contain no rituals or traditions. The Seven Laws are really meant for governing societies more than guiding the souls of individuals or families.

What’s bothering me is that the rabbis make absolutely no provision for the many Noahides who are not interested in Judaism at all, but who are instead interested in how to “govern societies” as well as the overall philosophy of the Torah. In other words, those who are interested in a “secular” approach to the Noahide Code. This is something the rabbis are unable and unwilling to do. Yet the rabbis have stymied all attempts to let us teach the Noahide Law in this manner. For many years, I have seen countless people who are interested in this approach turned away, told that “unless you believe in Hashem and submit to rabbinic authority, you cannot become a Noahide.” Instead of presenting the Noahide Code as an all-inclusive teaching for both the spiritual and the secularist, the rabbis insist that only a very narrow demographic, those who are interested in Judaism, can be Noahides. Until the rabbis relent and let us teach the Noahide Law ourselves, teaching it outside the paradigm of Judaism, there will be war.

I would also like to point out one other issue.

Every Gentile can accept upon himself or herself belief in G-d and lead any holy Torah lifestyle he or she chooses – without converting. The Rambam calls them Hasidei Umot HaOlam, which technically means a non-Jewish Hasid, a pious person in the eyes of G-d and the Torah of Moses. Mazal tov!…And  this Hasidic Ger Toshav is included in the Torah’s commandment not to taunt the Ger (Exodus 22:20).

Thirty years ago, I went before three rabbis to proclaim myself a Noahide. I had to do this in order to get into the kollel. I met all the criteria of what these rabbis say is a “Ger.” I was the very first one to do this, as far as I know, for the nascent Noahides at the time were still immersed in studying the New Testament. So if I am a “Ger,” according to their own criteria, why are they violating halakha by taunting me? Talk about hypocrisy…






“If you think a Ger is a real thing, you might be a redneck!”

One thing that always struck me when reading the New Testament—the “followers” of the Jeezer were hicks. Rubes. Israel’s version of rednecks. Even the so-called “leaders” of the early Jeezer movement—Peter and John—were described in Acts 4:13 in the Greek as “agrammatoi idiotai,” literally “illiterate idiots.”

Christianity has always been popular with those who are on the wrong side of the Bell Curve, as well as for those who lack critical thinking skills. As Tertullian said, “I believe because it is absurd.”

Way to use logic, Tertullian. “I believe because it is absurd.” Sounds about par for Christianity.

Now, I have nothing against honest working country people. But there has always been something about Redneck Christianity that has bothered me, a mixture of arrogance and ignorance that defies all attempts at logic and reason. “Ah don’ care what yew say is in the Bible; ah’m a-gonna believe what ah want ter!”

And now there is a new cult that seems to be attracting the redneck element: the Gerrings. So, in the spirit of Jeff Foxworthy, here are a few points to ponder.

  • If you think that calling yourself Ger is better than being called a Noahideyou might be a redneck.
  • If you think wearing a knit beanie with “GER” stitched on it is part of God’s plan for Noahidesyou might be a redneck.
  • If you think using terms such as akum and nochri to describe other Noahides who you believe are inferior to you—you might be a redneck.
  • If you think keeping Jewish mitzvot which are not commanded to Noahdies (such as Shabbat and eating kosher) gets you special spiritual brownie points from Hashem—you might be a redneck.
  • If you think slavishly following rabbinic minority opinions (such as gerrings) will get you a front seat in Olam haBah, even if they go against the Noahide Law—you might be a redneck.
  • If you think that being a Jew Wanna-be puts you on a higher spiritual plane—you might be a redneck.
  • If you think that turning the Noahide Law into a Gerring religious cult is what Hashem wants—you might be a redneck.
  • If you think that the Noahide Law is meant for a narrow demographic of ex-evangelical religious types rather than it being an all-inclusive teaching for all non-Jews—you might be a redneck.






The Catch in the Rye Vid

Katz Rye Vid pic

The rabbis have been exercising their authority over Noahides for many years now, telling Noahides what they can and cannot do. And Noahides think, Gee, they’re RABBIS!! They know more about the Torah than we do! We should obey them! But there’s a catch to their authority.

Here’s the catch:

Both Raavad and Ramban were of the opinion that Israel cannot enforce the Noahide Law upon neighboring nations that Israel conquers militarily, let alone Gentile nations over which it has no control (cf. Raavad on Malachim 6:1 and Issura Beah 12:7–8; Ramban’s commentary on Bereishis 26:5, Devirim 20:1, 11; Tosafot Avoda Zara 26b). 

Basically, what both Raavad and Ramban are saying is that the rabbis have zero authority over Noahides outside of the Land of Israel. That’s right: zero authority. Zilch. And remember! “The Raavad is the halakha .”

So if the Rye-vid makes it clear that the rabbis do not have the authority to tell Noahides what to do, why are rabbis such as David Katz so hell-bent on doing just that, and using Raavad as an authority to do so?

The hubris of this attitude can be seen in a recent post by none other than Katz himself.

Rabbi Katz’s post 9/2/16

I received a comment that contained the following quote: “But, one must consider that a yeshiva student is in yeshiva specifically to learn the languages and the sources in their original context.” My response is, a) I was in yeshiva for over a decade, point is self-explanatory b) to what end is one to learn the languages and the sources in their original context? Some who are in the translating field take their Hebrew scholarship and plug it into a sub-par English domain, while others educate from the original playing field. While it has become socially acceptable to turn Torah text into vulgar essays, I have chosen to educate and inform the masses about the Hebrew Torah text in its preserved state. Artscroll is a crutch to the rookie in town, but to the Torah Scholar it is of detriment, and would be seen as shoddy scholarship if a top scholar relied on an Artscroll translation to prove a point. Not because of a crutch or social stigma, but rather because Torah scholars are able to read the cover of an Artscroll Talmud which says ‘as an aide to Torah Study’ realizing it does not say as a ‘replacement’ [theology] for Torah Study. English simply is not a replacement of Loshon Hakodesh on any level. It isn’t Holy Tongue, and it will always create a ‘miyut’ [this or that] as opposed to an encapsulation of ‘ribui’ [inclusion as opposed to exclusion] the Torah concept that says any ‘thing’ can have multiple meanings simultaneously. In closing per force, I am not of the online group seeking to simply make Torah available for an English Speaking Public, i.e. an internet mixed multitude, rather what I teach is a part of an online global Yeshiva Community to which I seek to educate with the above quoted dictum: “a yeshiva student is in yeshiva specifically to learn the languages and the sources in their original context.” Thus anyone wishing to argue on point, should then by logical right engage on the language appropriate level. To remain in an English playing field is to enter into what the rabbis call ‘Lefi Pshuto’ whereas to discuss and educate Torah in the languages and the sources in their original context is to think and speak in the realm of the true sages in a pure state i.e. one not of a vulgar backdrop. Let me be perfectly clear: I engage in the subtleties of Torah and its text, as opposed to the obvious, simple, and limited contrived English-rendered understanding derived from vulgar text. To encapsulate this ideology with a mushel, ‘one should realize that Rav Kahane speaks about ger b stam with a kavannah to a ger tzedek lefi pshuto in a context of Bava Metzia 58 in reference to do not taunt the ger, to which Rav Kahane quotes the Talmud by stating that even a Baal Teshuva under these conditions is considered a ger by halacha. Not a non-Jewish ger or even a convert, but a Jewish ger, to which the Chumash calls Jews on their own Land, Gerim [to Hashem]. This is an exclusion to all other types of Ger, namely the ger in your gates, to which Rav Kahane did not speak of in those earlier passages for the context simply did not necessitate it per force. Thus there are many types of ger, not just ger b stam, there are numerous meanings of ger toshav, ger tzedek, ger etc. Each mention of Ger has its own playing field. The convert ger has its domain, non-jewish ger such as the ger who we give the meat to has its own domain. Rav Kahane focused on ger in at least 3 playing fields as we have seen: convert, slave, and ger toshav. There are many many more levels of ger that one can discuss in a Torah discussion. I have chosen to educate about one certain type of ger, and this doesn’t cancel out any other type of ger. They all exist, and they exist simultaneously [where appropriate]. In strict English this would be nearly impossible to convey, but when keeping in mind of the original language and context, a broader, truer scope of Torah can be revealed in communicative loshon. In Rav Kahane’s clear Hebrew text this is all 100% apparent, highlighted by his pitch perfect usage in context of the famous ritva shita concerning the 3 types of non-Jews. This ideology exists in a broader ideological code employed by all Torah sages, for this sugia is integral to understanding pshat in a vast amount of Torah discussions. I understand that Rav Kahane chose to emphasise a particular ger crowd, as do I, as do all rabbis per force. This does not constitute an innate exclusion of all other sub-types of the discussion. Again, this is all too clear in the Hebrew, and it is not the role, goal, or function of an English essay to do as such. This methodology is what a rabbi learns in Yeshiva and in Kollel. And in fact, let me be even more specific: A Kollel Avreich doesn’t use Artscroll under the same terms of a yeshiva buchor – as a crutch, but rather as the reason I listed above, being that it is not accurate under the conditions necessary for deeper Talmud Torah. I represent the Kollel mindset, and perhaps it is a more clear and appropriate term when explaining exactly what my intention and focus is geared towards. The layman has no reason [or excuse] to be excused from Kollel academics in Torah. There simply hasn’t been much of a precedent set in this area of expertise globally, and as an internet theme, this could be seen as potentially ground-breaking. In closing, the message is that although lefi pshuto and simple and obvious understanding playing fields exist [a la Artscroll] one must understand that an unequal and deeper playing field of understanding [simultaneously] exists. Both are ever-present and necessary. There are those who wish to reveal and educate the simple and obvious natures of Torah text through religious reiterations of Lefi Pshuto, but it is my cheshek to reveal to Torah students the deeper aspects of Torah learning that are not simple and obvious, but rather brought to life through intense Torah study under applications of the Holy and original tongue through proper context. Shabbat Shalom.

So what exactly has Katz been doing with his “expertise” and superior wisdom and knowledge? He’s been teaching Noahides to keep Shabbat, about prayer, about kabbalah and everything except the Noahide Law. What he is teaching is Judaism. Katz, like so many other rabbis who are trying to run the Noahide movement, simply doesn’t get it. As the Rye-vid explained, the rabbis have no authority over Noahides in their own sovereign lands. The Noahide law isn’t about religion. It’s not about Judaism. It’s not supposed to be as strict or exact as Jewish law in any way, shape or form. Detailed analysis of the Hebrew is unnecessary.

The rabbis have overstepped their bounds with Noahides. They’ve gone way beyond teaching Noahides the fundamentals of the Noahide Law. The rabbis are not only filling the Noahide’s heads with stuff that doesn’t apply to Noahide Law, they are telling Noahides, with excruciating detail, how to keep it.

Screenshot 2016-09-05 at 11.24.41 PM

Click pic for more Rye-vid fun!



It Says Libby’s Libby’s Libby’s on the Label Label Label

If there is one silver lining to the dark cloud of the Trump fiasco, it is the public exposure of what Liberals truly are: mean-spirited, vindictive, hypocritical whiny brats.

The nation-wide temper-tantrum has been all over the news, from celebrity meltdowns [CLICK HERE], the angry protests and riots [CLICK HERE and HERE], and my personal favorite—the butt-hurt sexual deviants [CLICK HERE].

No, I am not a liberal. But I am not a conservative. I am neither an independent, a greenie, a socialist, nor an anarchist. I do not define myself by artificial paradigms created by political groups or institutions.

What I am is a Noahide. I go by Noahide Law. I do not fit my Torah viewpoint to accommodate preconceived political party paradigms (although I have been guilty of excessive alliteration at times.)

It is as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante’s face that the vast majority of Noahides (or pseudo-Noahides such as the gerrings) do not have a clue as to what the Noahide Laws are. This can be observed by how these Noahides approach politics, particularly the presidential election last week.

One thing I noticed on social media was the overwhelming support for Trump among the Noahide community. There are many reasons for this. One is that so many Noahides came out of Evangelical Christianity, which is politically conservative by nature (conservatives generally are looked at as supporting religion.) Another reason is that many of the rabbis have been vocal in their support for Trump. Here is why: [CLICK HERE].

Donald Trump supports Israel. That is all well and good. I support Israel also. The Tanach, on the other hand, says Do not rely on nobles, nor on a human being who holds no salvation. For Noahides who focus on faith, emunah, this seems to present a problem. And where in the Noahide Code does it say that a Noahide must support the secular state of Israel? And even if Trump does support Israel, what good will it do if he wages economic war against the poor, the orphan and the widow of our society? Do you really think Hashem is going to let slide that we inflict economic hardship on our needy as long as our top elected official waves an Israeli flag? I have written often about the need for the rabbis to quit meddling in the political affairs of sovereign Noahide states.

Here is the problem. No political party in the USA adheres to the Noahide Law. Yes, the conservatives are opposed to abortion and hedonism. This is good. But they are also for cutting social programs for the poor while offering tax cuts to the wealthy. They are opposed to environmental controls because it cuts into corporate profits. This is clearly against the Noahide Code (protecting the environment falls under the Limb of the Living law.)

Liberals support programs to help the poor, and to protect the environment. This is good. Liberals also support abortion “rights” and same-sex marriages. This is clearly wrong. The other political parties have the same problem. Some things follow the Noahide Law, some things they stand for do not. And so it goes.

Getting back to the Liberals, though, we come to the main point. Because the Liberals have made it part of their agenda to support the “rights” of the sexually deviant, they have allied themselves with a group that not just opposes Torah, but hates it with a passion [CLICK HERE]. Because the Liberals have incorporated the hedonist’s agenda into their own agenda, it has had a detrimental effect on their view of Israel. It was no accident that the Liberal’s view of Israel changed as they embraced the cause of the sexually deviant. The sexually deviance movement hates Israel for what they represent: ultimate morality. They have been painting the picture of those who believe in ultimate morality as being intolerant. But in the past nine days, they have shown that they are no more tolerant than those they disparage. This has been obvious to me for many years. Now it is obvious to everyone.


Make America Hate Again


And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth…

It has been a week after the election, and already our crepuscular Commander-in-Chief elect has revealed, if not the details, hints of the path where he is wanting to take America during the next four years.

First of all, Trump had a ninety-minute meeting with President Obama. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Trump and his team were unaware of the scope of the job of taking over the White House and even running the country, sources told the Journal.” [SLATE]

When I first heard about this, I immediately thought of a scene in Robert Redford’s 1972 film The Candidate:



Click on picture for the scene from the movie


For those unfamiliar with this thought-provoking movie, Redford plays an idealistic lawyer whose father was once Governor of California. Redford is talked into running against a long-time incumbent Senator, and although Redford has no chance of winning, his platform would introduce topics into the election (health care, environmental issues) that had long been ignored by the incumbent. As with the Trump campaign, Redford gets elected by a public that is sick and tired of the Washington Elite and who want some fresh, new blood in Congress. In the moment of his victory, as shown in the clip above, Redford realizes that his entire focus was to win the election, and that he doesn’t have a clue about what being a Senator entails.

Although The Candidate was made forty–four years ago, its timely message hits a bit too close for comfort. Trump isn’t even a lawyer; it is unclear just how much he even knows about law, or the Constitution. He certainly doesn’t have a clue as to how Washington works. The last time a President was elected and came to Washington with a particular disdain for the “business-as-usual” politics of the nation’s capital (Carter in ’76), he managed to anger the political establishment to the point where he wasn’t able to accomplish much.

However, it seems that Trump is going to rely heavily on his staff and cabinet. In light of Trump’s “Drain the Swamp” rhetoric, the names being floated around (Gingrich, Sessions, Mnuchin to name a few) imply that he isn’t going to drain the swamp at all, but simply re-stock it with conservative insiders.

Two positions have already been filled: Reince Priebus will be Trump’s Chief of Staff, and Stephen Bannon as chief strategist. Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, has no experience holding an elected office. But he’s good buddies with House Speaker Paul Ryan, who can certainly be counted on to give Priebus some pointers.

Bannon is even more disturbing: he is the executive chairman of Breitbart News, a “news” site that makes FOX look moderate. If Trump wants America to return to its core values, it is obviously the core values of the 1950s, namely racism and intolerance. Jim Crow for everyone not White and Christian. He has also been reported to be antisemitic, which could come as a big surprise to the conservative Jews who supported Trump.

The real impact of a Trump Presidency, as I have written about in a previous article, is that of economics. Trump’s supporters might get all starry-eyed about building walls to keep out Mexicans and bombing rogue Arab states out of existence, but these empty promises were just fodder to get the mindless masses to support him. Looking at the names of the people he is wanting on his team to shape policy, expect lots of tax cuts for the rich, cutting benefits for the poor, and raping the environment for the sake of corporate profits. The Federal Debt will likely explode, and for the majority of Americans who are not filthy rich, well, it’s going to be rough sailing from here on out, and I’m sure the Trump fans will blame their problems on anyone and everyone not white, Christian and conservative. For the working class America who voted Trump into office: Trump may not be the President they expected, but he will certainly be the President they deserve.