Oral Law claimed from Sinaii, but the proofs don't seem to work.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jewish people where exiled under a worse version of
themselves

Why where the Jewish people exiled to the lands of the western idolators,
who completely changed from previous idolatry (Nordic mythology in the
north, which was probably quite old, and the whole chaos in the south,
Greek mythology) to this thing which was about the Torah in many ways. I
think you where possibly punished with the same crimes you have done yourselves. The Jesus idolators add to the Torah, just like you added
to the Torah ...

The Jesus idolators add _idolatry_ for their supposed magical King (Jesus)
and the Jewish people asked for a King, by which they have deposed Hashem
as King (as Samuel is told by Hashem, at least in the translation I have
here, which is Jewish - I so happen to have a Jesus idolatry "bible" here
too, but I tore out everything that they added and threw it away (lol)).
I have to say that the things I sometimes hear about "Rebbes", praying
to Rebbes ? Isn't this idolatry ? it's getting close, isn't it. Rebbes
doing miracles ? Rebbes being super-human ? Like ... comic books, Greek Mythological demi-gods ? Like ... all the idols of the Nations ? The
Jewish people also may have been engaging in Sun idolatry again.

You see in the western idolators a people who claim that they are
doing what they are supposed to be doing, while pretending the Torah
is no longer law or this convoluted story that "the law is fulfilled"
(which never makes any sense to me, aren't prophecies to be fulfilled
while laws you have to keep and obey?), and therefore they don't have to
listen to it (what?! omg it is just simply amusing, it's a circus). The
Jewish people from their end have done a similar thing, although not as extreme, with the prosbul (phony law made by Hillel the Elder).

You have added your so-called Ora Tradition, even though Moshe Rabbeinu
said he gives you a _written law._ Even right at mount Sinai, what is
the first thing that happens after the 10 words ? Moshe Rabbeinu writes
it down, and says: a *written law.* The law eventually includes the 5
books of Moshe Rabbeinu, very carefully written and copied. This law
includes that you may neither add nor subtract from it. It also contains
the law of prophets, and hence later we see that there are prophets and
these get added as trusted sources. King David writes Psalms, these can
also be added. The prophets primarely if not almost exclusively,
complain about Israel not doing the laws written in the 5 books of Moshe Rabbeinu.

Here we see an example of why the Oral Law is an invention, and its
claim to power is void:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-oral-law-talmud-and-mishna?utm_content=cmp-true

The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its
commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some
sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written
Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an
insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the
Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy"
(Exodus 20:8). From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments,
it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet
when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to
observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire,
going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and
harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill
the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath
rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of
candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah
portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.

End quote.

It says in the Torah that the 7th day is a day of rest. That is saying a
whole lot already. Why does this source misrepresent the Torah ?

https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.35.2?lang=bi&aliyot=0

Exodus/Sjemot (35:2)

On six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have
a sabbath of complete rest, holy to [Hashem]; whoever does any work
on it shall be put to death.

End quote. What is not to understand ? It is a day of rest. What it
means is further specified, in that for example one may not plow the
field, or make fire (making fire used to be quite a job, especially if
one does not have charcoal and flints and things already set up, not to
mention the need for cutting wood). What is the problem ? There is no
problem. The law says: it is about rest. Is it enough to have subsequent
court cases if this is all we know about this law ? Yes. Can you debate
if everyone should just stay in their beds on the 7th day or not ? I
guess you can debate it, but if everyone was to stay in bed the Torah
would presumably have said just that. There is enough here to be
reasonable about it. Furthermore, we know that later trusted persons,
have created a listening to the Torah on the 7th day (if I recall), and
from this we know that this is allowed. We can be reasonable about
things, and that is already doing a lot, because human beings can work
very hard every day, or be put to work very hard every day. A day of
rest is a huge thing, even if you might still make dinner and a cup of
tea, dress yourself, wash yourself, and other minor and reasonably
unavoidable activities. You can shift the work around so that it does
not fall on the 7th day. Be reasonable and it should mean a lot.

According to the given article, we would not have a clue what it means
without the Oral Law/Tradition, but that simply is not true. However to
make matters worse, what they are saying which makes the Shabbos "holy"
isn't even what it was supposed to be about. They misrepresented what
the Torah says, as if it was about merely avoiding certain activities,
and beyond that we would be clueless. No we are not clueless: we know it
is about rest, and that is saying - basically - everything. It is a
special day, of rest.

It gets much worse however. This supposed Oral Tradition says that
lighting candles, saying certain ritual texts and reading the Torah,
that this is what makes the Shabbos what it should be. The worst part
however, is that the Rabbis like to claim that the new day starts when
it has gotten dark, and hence you see these Shabbos candles they light
on the 6th day evening as it where represent the dawn of the sun,
because the dawn of the sun is actually the new day (and for a human,
when you wake up after sleep of the night, be that before or after
dawn). They have a sort of a fake sun rise, so that they can say: it is
a new day (this is how I at least try to make sense of their rituals,
what they actually represent, regardless of their claims). It may be
that they made this candles ritual, to sell to people that it was a new
day because "new light, the dawn". So in the Rabbinical reading, the
*evening* of a day, precedes that day (!!!). First you have night but
right from the moment it got dark when almost everyone is still awake,
then night, then dawn, then day, and then sundown. In a broader sense:
the night precedes the day, but they cut off the day right at the point
of dark. Because of their precision, this allows working on the evening immediately preceding the day of rest, even though you have not yet
slept for the night. This is not a natural day. It leads to absurdities
like this: "I see you tomorrow" can mean, I see you this following
evening in about 30 minutes, for example 7:00 PM, but the moment of sun
down was just in between and that made it the next day. It is so
unnatural that it is hard to explain.

What remains of a day of rest, if you just shifted your work to after
sundown ? Nothing, in my opinion. You work 1st to 6th day from 9:00 AM
to 16:00 for example - and say for simplicity that you are a basket
weaver, you make a basket every hour for sales. It can be anything, it
doesn't matter. Then on the 7th day, you don't start working until about
7:00 PM, and you work let's say to 11:00 as hard as you can to make up
for lost time. That is if you at least keep to the law that night should
not be day, so you sleep in the night. Is tis really a holy day at this
point, a day of rest ?

Is this what you need this Oral Tradition for ?! To tell you that you
can work on the evening immediately following the 7th day ? Is that what
is is telling you, because you couldn't figure it out otherwise, because
you would be lost without this kind of guidance ? Wow, that's some
audacious claim by those who support this 'Oral Tradition/Law'. It's a
mess, but what really does it all in is still the prosbul. The prosbul
seems to undermine Rabbinical authority, to the point where it becomes
dust. It is as it where the proof that they do not know what they are
talking about (!), except those of course who rejected the prosbul (and
that may have been quite a few, or at least I hope so). The prosbul is
so offensive ... it's just over, sorry. It's just ... close the books,
walk to the oven, overturn the sack with the logs and cut a hole for
your arms and head in it, grab ash from the bottom of the oven (or mail
order your sackcloth-and-ash kit on the Internet, it may soon be in
hot demand so there is your business startup tip of the day, because not everyone still has a wood furnice), sit on the floor and wonder what
has happened with the holy Nation, the favorite of HKB'H.

It even says so in the Tanach - and you see how the arguments just keep stacking up - that at some point all knowledge was lost, and only then
the scrolls where found and the Torah came back to life. This suggests
there is no direct line back to Sinaii.

Again you see the similarity, because the Torah also says: you do not
have to go into heaven or over the sea, to have the Torah explained to
you. It is in plain text, you can read and understand it. This is
therefore also said about the 7th day rest law. You don't need help. You
don't need people who claim they went into heaven, up the mount at
Sinaii to receive a special or secret revelation and explanation, you
don't need any of that. That's what it says ! Nevertheless, the Rabbis
claim a separate authority anyway. Who else does this ? Western
idolators. Their priests are the keepers of the truth, their Pope will
make the decisions, and he will go into heaven - or so they claim - to
find the answer for the people. This is not the Torah !

Is it possible that the Oral Law contains good and bad parts ? I guess
it is possible, I don't know. Once it does contain both good and bad it
already folds, because that means it is not from heaven, and therefore
not law. This is the claim of the Rabbis, that their inventions of
so-called Oral Tradition go back to Sinaii, and therefore are as much
law as the 5 books of Moshe Rabbeinu. Where is the scroll, where is the
proof ? The proof is a supposed logical claim: you cannot read the Torah without our help, and we know the Oral Law (!). Again we see apparently
phony logic making its appearance as an authority, which also happened
with the prosbul. It was a claim to logic, and it was executed
abysmally. Even if you like logic (and I do!), what they are saying is
not logic. It's a mess masquarading as a logical and meaningful
argument.

I think anyone can create an Oral Law/Tradition of the level which seems
to exist, once you have the written Torah. It seems to be just made up
by some people. Once you have the Torah and its laws about Shabbos, you
can create more detailed interpretations about this law. While that's
probably fine or sometimes even necessary, it isn't its own law. That
isn't an authority on its own, but that is precisely what they are
claiming. They don't say: we looked carefully at the Torah, and this is
how we interpret it. They may say that too, and that's fine if they do I
guess, but they specifically say they have a second Revelation from
heaven called the Oral Law.

I can, after more careful study of the Shabbos law in Sjemot, probably
give you a whole book about what I think is reasonable to do and what
may not, and even start giving estimates of what the borders of
reasonable could be. Is it allowed to put a log on a burning fire ?
Is it allowed to chop more wood if you ran out half way on Shabbos ?
is it allowed to make tea on Shabbos ? Is it allowed to drink cold
water, and can you go to a well if you ran out of water on Shabbos ?
You can probably talk endlessly about what is allowed, reasonable,
doubtful, and so on and so forth. I think this is exactly what they did,
and then they called it a tradition, and then they claimed their
Tradition went back all the way back to Sinaii and is therefor
authoritive. This is where they seem to cross the line.

Example:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-oral-law-talmud-and-mishna?utm_content=cmp-true

Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be
incomprehensible. In the Shema's first paragraph, the Bible
instructs: "And these words which I command you this day shall
be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your
children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when
you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. And
you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for
frontlets between your eyes." "Bind them for a sign upon your hand,"
the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn't say. "And they
shall be for frontlets between your eyes." What are frontlets? The
Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah
— always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18)
— and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we
learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between
his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).

End quote. This is something I would disagree with. If they want to put
leather belts around their arm and a little box with parchment on their forehead, that may how they wish to read and interpret this text and as
such it is an interpretation like there may be others and as such it
could be legitimate, but the problem is that they claim this is
authoritive. They "know". This incidentally destroys any further debate.
Oh it's "the Oral Law", you cannot argue it, we "know".

While it is logial in a Judicial system that there are precedents so
that the people know what to expect from the Judges, that doesn't mean
laws could not be re-interpreted more correctly if they where found to
have been misinterpreted earlier. Perhaps this is where the Oral Law
starts living its own life, and became more than it should have been.

A better answer to the above mentioned issue would be in my opinion: we
do indeed not exactly know how they took the meaning of this in the very beginning. Your opinion on what they meant might be different than the
opinion of another. This becomes especially weighty once we know the
Torah was lost at some point, but also the constant corruption and
outright wars against the Torah even by Jewish Kings. Who knows how they
may have polluted the Judicial precedents ? The history seems to be
quite messy. Some Jewish Kings loved the Torah, many seem to have tried
to destroy it.

With a group as distrusted as the prosbul, any remaining trust is lost.
I would then just read it on its own merrit (which seems to be called
Karaism, and they may well be right on this principle): what is meant is
not that you actually bind anything on your forehead, but that your mind
is so occupied with the Torah, you visualise often what the laws of the
Torah are about, or the events described in the Torah, so that when you
look into the world you constantly interpret things in relation to the
Torah. The law of for example the Shabbos should be so deep in your mind
and you care so much about it, that by itself it becomes a glasses
through which you see what you see in the world. If it is Shabbos and
you see someone working hard, you don't think "Oh, that's pine wood he is chopping" or "he has a blue pants on" or "he made already quite a stack
of wood" or "I wonder how many people hear the sound" or "would that be
for trade or use" or "is that someone I saw earlier" or any other
casual thing relating to someone cutting wood, but what you see is:
someone is working hard, it is a violation of the Shabbos. It is like it
is always in your vision, it is as it where a lense through which you
see. A sign on your hand on the other hand: I don't know. It is not
allowed to write on your skin. You could again interpret it as the
former. If the Torah is like a sign on your hand, then not only is what
you see coming to you from the world seen with a constant understanding
of whether it is the Torah and how much and so on, but your hand is you
acting, and so if the Torah is like a sign upon your hand, then also
that which you seek to do will be formed through your understanding of
the Torah and your will to do the Torah. In this case though, it seems
to make a bit more sense that it is also an actual sign, for example if
you wish to remind yourself of something you might bind something to
your hand or even wear a ring of sorts. Rather than this being a
separate interpretation, it only seems to illustrate the same, but now
it is explicitly physical.

You can then wrap the argument back though, and say: if it can be a sign
unto your hand, an actual physical sign, so you remember the law, then
it can be the same for on your head. If that is what it should mean,
then why does the sign for one person need to be the same as for the other,
as is the claim in the Oral Law ? It has to be this and not that, and
without us knowing we could not do the Torah ? If I recall that I need
to do the laundry today, by putting the laundry basket in the center
of the living room, then that is a sign which works for me. More sophisticated people than me might have an agenda, into which they could write, or they
use the old favorite: knot in handkerchief. If it is "a sign" then why
would it even matter what it is, so long as it works for the person.

In that sense you could then also argue, that if a person already doesn't
need such a remembering in a physical form as literally a sign on their
head or hand, then maybe they have enough in terms of their tzittzit.

I could interpret the law that way, and it all seems to be fairly reasonable.
I guess that is the point: the Oral Law is interpretation of law, probably
long after the fact in most cases. The Torah didn't even need to specify
how to do it. It is a false argument to say: we made up a very specific
ritual for this admonition in the Torah, and then to turn it around and say: how could we have known that our very specific ritual is correct, it if wasn't known through the Oral Law straight back to Moshe Rabbeinu ? I would argue:
you don't know if it is correct, and you don't even need to know, and that
is already within the reading that it is to be taken literal at all (which
I personally am doubtful about, but ok who knows ...).

[At this point I didn't want to publish this, adding: not sure
if Oral Law is claimed to go back to Sinaii anymore (thought I
read/heard that), tired with everything already, and some of these
finer points require too much study/knowledge of the Torah (thinking
about fire making/keeping) which I don't have now. But now I thought,
all this writing, and at least it is about the Torah, and there are
some perhaps reasonable arguments that the Oral Law is not law and
the logic for its claim is not solid.]

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-oral-law-talmud-and-mishna?utm_content=cmp-true

Finally, an Oral Law was needed to mitigate certain categorical
Torah laws that would have caused grave problems if carried out
literally. The Written Law, for example, demands an "eye for an eye"
(Exodus 21:24). Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded
another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah's
wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood
as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must
be paid.

End quote.

I think an "eye for an eye" exactly means that, but of course only
if there is guilt. That they now add "by accident" seems to be a
manipulation. Incidentally, a monetary fine might be best if human
justice is imperfect, however tit for tat is the perfection of Justice.
Yes indeed, to destroy someone their eye, if they destroyed someone else
their eye on purpose. It may seem disgusting, and indeed: the criminal
act was disgusting, and now the criminal will suffer the same. It is the perfect of justice, and actually already quite friendly (!), because it
is measured justice, balanced. Crime and punishment are the same. There
are other modes of Justice, where the punishment is far worse than the immediate damage of a crime, for example.

https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.22-23?lang=bi&aliyot=0

When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant
woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the
one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband
may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning.

But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

When a slave-owning party strikes the eye of a slave, male or female,
and destroys it, that person shall let the slave go free on account
of the eye.

If the owner knocks out the tooth of a slave, male or female,
that person shall let the slave go free on account of the tooth.

End quote. How is this unclear ? What is the problem ?

What do they mean with "grave problems if carried out literally" ?
The Oral Law "explains" that it is about monetary compensation ? Because
they think it is a "grave problem" to stab some criminal their eye out,
who had done the same to someone else ? What grave problem, in a time
where the death penalty was routinely executed it seems ? They are
making it up as they go, mistaking their feelings for sensible and
solid logical argument. If someone stabbed someone else their eye out, especially if the other party was completely innocent of any wrongdoing,
then the abuser of his fellow man would be lucky to get away with his
life even.

https://torah.org/learning/basics-primer-torah-oraltorah/


As mentioned earlier, there are two “Torahs”: the Written
and the Oral. In Jewish tradition, both were given to Moses at
Mt. Sinai and during the forty years in the desert, and taught
to the whole nation. [In fact, when Judaism says “G-d gave the
Torah to Moses at Sinai” it is talking only about the Oral —
otherwise, Moses should have known about the Golden Calf, and
as for Korach’s Rebellion, Moses should have reacted “well,
we’ve been expecting you…“]

Both have been with us, according to Jewish sources, for all of
the past 3300 years. And without both, it is impossible to fully
understand traditional Jewish teaching or thought. The Written
Torah, mentiones each of the Commandments, or Mitzvos, only in
passing or by allusion. The Oral Law fills in the gaps.

Here is an example: “And you shall tie them as a sign on your
arm and for (Totafos) between your eyes.” (Deut. 6 8) This
is the source for the Mitzvah of Tefillin (phylacteries – if
that’s any clearer), but it doesn’t tell us that much.

(...)

Indeed they claim it goes back to Moshe Rabbeinu & the first generation.

Let’s see another example. “When you shall be far away from
the place that the L-rd your G-d shall choose to place His name
(i.e. when you’ll live far from Jerusalem and the Temple),
slaughter from your herd and from your flock that which the L-rd
has given you, as He has commanded you…” (Deut. 12 21)

This passage informs us that even when we will live far away
from the Temple, we will still be able to enjoy meat (for the
entire 40 years in the wilderness the Jews ate meat only from
Temple/Tabernacle offerings). Simply take an animal from your
own herd or flock and slaughter it…”as He has commanded
you.” Now, you can search the Bible from beginning to end,
but you won’t find any instructions or command concerning the
technique of animal slaughter that would justify the words “as
He has commanded you.” It’s simply not there.

End quote.

https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.12.21?lang=bi&aliyot=0

Deuteronomy 12

But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in any of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
your settlements, according to the blessing that your God [Hashem]
has granted you. The impure and the pure alike may partake of it,
as of the gazelle and the deer.

(…)

If the place where [Hashem] has chosen to establish the divine
name is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or
sheep that [Hashem] gives you, as I have instructed you; and you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
may eat to your heart’s content in your settlements.

End quote. One possible reading is that the phrase "as I have instructed
you" simply refers to not much above, where there is an almost identical
case of people slaughtering meat for eating, and where they are told
they may not eat the blood. The only difference is that the second is far
away. Hence it seems to say: the slaughtering for eating is the same.

While I don't know if this is in the end a correct reading, if you studied
the matter for 50.years, it seems to be good enough and reasonable enough,
and because "The Torah is not in heaven", and we don't have to ask anyone
to explain it to us because it is clear enough (!), it seems reasonable to
put the foot down and say: this is good enough, there is no confusion.
It seems to me: they are (also) creating confusion, so that they have a
problem to solve, and can claim an exclusive authority, right back to Moshe Rabbeinu, even though there are no credible or literally any sources,
except the actual Torah (5 books of Moshe Rabbeinu).

The case for the Oral Law being law going back to Moshe Rabbeinu, is
extremely thin. The fact that Israel became corrupt is a fact, therefore
they are still in exile. We know the history of Israel was ... "rich"
(say), with many events, both pro and against Torah.

Even the Rabbis themselves tell us that the Oral Tradition is basically
legal precedents, Rabbis arguing all kinds of cases with each other. How
can this go back to Sinaii ? In theory it could have, but the problem
is basically:

- There is corruption in Israel right now, otherwise they would have
been Redeemed already (which does not say where this corruption is).
- The Torah has been lost before, apparently entirely, and only a scroll
someone found brought it back (FWIK).
- Prosbul, which implies Rabbinical Judaism is corrupt at the highest
level (which does not mean that there is any other version of Judaism
which is better, although there could be).

What we have in total, is a claim that the Oral Tradition is necessary,
because otherwise the Torah (Tanach) would make little sense. Somehow
there is a claim floating around that the Oral Law goes back to the
first generation, without even an attempt to make that otherwise believable, except by the first point.

The Kairites have shown that they have no problem creating a separate and different version of how the Torah should be interpreted, which become precedents and then the precedents start having a legal influence.

Let's also note how humans normally behave. If there is a core law set up,
and it leads to many legal cases and procedures based upon that law, it
will soon result in a large amount of secondary material which interprets
the given laws. This happens everywhere. The Judges more or less fine
tune the law, applying it to real cases. Scholars then debate the results. Lawyers study the precedents, and so on. Why would it have been different
in the case of Israel ? Clearly it was not different, and that is not necessarily the problem. The problem seems to be that Rabbinical Judaism beliefs their interpretations of the Torah to be authorative, even though
(in my opinion) the quality of some of their rulings is not good enough.

HKB'H did not leave a "loophole" open in the Tanach, so that greedy people could "subvert the cause of the poor" (to quote Isaiah) with "iniquitous" documents like prosbuls or "evil writs" like the heter iska. The Shabbos
should be a complete day of rest, a natural day from waking up to going
back to sleep (excluding day time naps), because it is natural and there
is no reason to interpret the law differently. What rest exactly means
can (and probably should) be debated, but the Shabbos does not end when
it just got dark, so that you could quickly get back to work (at least
not that). The land should be distributed to all.

There are not "Two Torah's", which also contradicts what they said earlier. There is one Torah (or let's say, one teaching given through Moshe Rabbeinu
for Israel), and its laws have led to an interpretation of these laws by
judges and scholars and so on (as normal), explaining and interpreting.
That is not two Torah's (as above source says), it is one Torah, and its interpretation. Why did they make it "Two Torah's" ? Because they wish
to elevate their Rabbinical Authority to that of HKB'H as the law maker ?

Hence the conclusion of the original point: the Jewish people have been
exiled into a large amount of Nations, who seemed to have engaged in a
more grotesque version of their own behavior relative to the Torah.
Where the Jewish people at least still do a lot of the Torah, value it
highly, believe themselves to belong to it and have to keep it, and
their Rabbis seem to have usurped an amount of law making and authority
which did not belong to them (especially the prosbul is offensive and
easy to understand), this is still nothing compared to the Tyrannical
behavior of the Catholic church, earlier the Roman Empire. The Vatican basically makes up what suits them. They entirely changed the day from
the 7th to the first, although it is still a rythm of 7 days (thus each
7th day is the rest day). It is like the Jewish people where exiled
into an area, where some of their laws seemed to be operational, while
it was mostly just willfull dictatorship or worse. The western idolators
claim their own separate Torah, claiming it was also from heaven and
exclusive under their authority, their own "Oral Law" of sorts, more
than a little different from the 5 books of Moshe Rabbeinu.

Thus I speculate: HKB'H has exiled his Nation between peoples who made
similar mistakes as they did themselves, so that Israel could become
familiar with those mistakes, the damage they do, and then to clean
themselves from it. For this to happen, it would probably not work if
the goyim where having festivals for Thor and Wodan, or rituals
involving Zeus/Jupiter or whatever other invented gods they where using
at the time. These Nations where changed into some sort of strange
idolatrous concoction of their Imperial cult, all kinds of beliefs
and practices, plus mixed in the Torah, giving the Jewish people

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)