A third of Jews in New York voted for the anti-Israel Muslim to become mayor. Does it indicate a shameful ignorance of Islam among Jews?
I do recommend that everyone reads the slim book: "Concise Islam". Paid subscribers receive the ebook PDF at no additional cost. And also receive the "Abrogated Koran" and "Allah is a Zionist" PDFs:
Thank you! That is a fantastic, and very uniquely put, compliment. I appreciate (as always) your support! Thank you! And yeah: sovereignty=homeland is the whole issue in it's purest form, also well stated.
I am not a Jew. I have seen antisemitism directly in person, and I always call it out.
I am a member of a swimming club. The summer before last they wanted to hold a pro-Palestine event at the club. I objected. Pointing out that the club is nothing to do with politics, and it was a mistake to make it political. My position was formally adopted at the club AGM later in the year.
I have attended church thousands of times - people eating ham sandwiches in church is a rarity!
Thank you. We need more people willing to take a stand as you did. As for the church comment, it was just a hypothetical! Thank you too for supporting my Substack!
I always wondered about the whole Gog and Magog thing. It seemed to me that things would have to change radically in the world for us to end up in a situation where the entire world was against us and Edom and Yishmael were invading from both sides. But America *is* Rome. The golden eagle atop the flagpole would indicate that even if it weren't the world superpower descended directly from Rome. And while what's happening with the US isn't good, it certainly does seem to be pushing us towards the day that all the Nevi'im describe.
I totally agree. And while there have been many other eras that reflect the warnings of the nevi’im, this one seems particularly close to those warnings (as have other periods in Jewish history). But I have believed for two decades, as the Lubavitcher Rebbe taught us continuously, that we are in the era just before Moshiach.
“The kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Yaakov by diverting the inheritance of Yehudah to another tribe. Now they relied on the word of Achiyah the Shilonite, the prophet who anointed Jeroboam, who said, “And I will afflict the seed of David for this, but not forever.” But when [the ten tribes of] Israel continued to crown kings one after another from the rest of the tribes, and they did not revert to the kingdom of Yehudah, they transgressed the testament of their ancestor. Therefore, they were accordingly punished, just as Hosea said, “They have set up kings, but not from Me” (8:4).”
I get the difference between a keren and a pach. It wasn’t the kind of shemen, it was the vessel which they used.
Nonetheless according to the Rambam the punishment was for not returning the throne to Beit Dovid. Their reign was a violation of Torah law.
The Ramban says differently:
“on this,
In my opinion, the kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Jacob by diverting the inheritance of Judah to another tribe...This was also the reason for the punishment of Chashmonaim, who reigned during the Second Temple...It is also possible that [in addition to the Chashmonaim having sinned for assuming royalty when there were not from the tribe of Judah,] they sinned in ruling on account of their being priests...it was not for them to rule, but only to perform the service of God.”
According to Ramban there were two violations.
1. Assuming kingship when they were not from Yehudah
2. They were Kohanim, and therefore not supposed to assume a political role.
I stand by what I wrote.
I need to go, Shabbat starts soon AND I need to deal with the Chanukah licht.
Honestly, Josh, I don't know where in the Rambam you're quoting for, because what I cited above, from the first perek of Hilchot Melachim, says that it's 100% legitimate to have a king from another tribe. I also don't know what "the testament of their ancestor" means. I've never seen that brought as a halakhic source.
Nor did you bring anything, not from Rambam and not from Ramban, that suggested that even if what they did was untoward, it was a violation of Torah law. Are you suggesting that it's one of the 613 mitzvot enumerated by either the Rambam or Ramban? Can you provide a source for that?
And I'm asking again, what is that quote from at the beginning of your comment?
"You haven't seen that"? And? I already explained why the Ramban's position is relevant. It is from his commentary to Bereishis, two seconds of research would have told you that.I am getting a serious ba'al tshuva vibe from you, not that there is anything wrong with that. As important as the Rambam is, "Sefer HaMitzvot" is not the end all to what is considered halacha, and I am assuming that you know that. As someone who spent many years in the ba'al tshuva world, I can appreciate the hardcore enthusiasm. What I can't tolerate is the "my opinion is the only opinion" attitude, which so often goes with it. Unless you can produce some credentials a rav, you are just a person with an attitude, as am I - so behave accordingly.
Sorry, but halakhic sources are halakhic sources. I had someone try and suggest that we could literally pasken by midrashei aggadah because it suited the outcome he was looking for. That's not how halakha works.
And sure, technically, I'm BT, but it's been over 40 years at this point, so I don't think it's relevant.
Well you still have the BT attitude, and like I said, I’ve spent so much time around it - it’s obvious. You aren’t a posek. You are ridiculously making the claim that only the Rambam’s opinion counts, and the Ramban’s does not, because it agrees with you. As for “halakhic sources are halakhic sources” - exactly. And you were speaking as though there is only one source, MY COMMENT was that there is more than one. That should be obvious. I’m done explaining points to you, just for you to ignore them and go onto another nonsensical point. You are saying whatever you need to not to be wrong. That’s a waste of everyone’s time. This will be the last comment in this thread.
Bava Basra 3B “He who says, ‘I come from the house of the Hasmoneans,’ is a slave,” as they were all destroyed on account of this sin. All the children of the righteous Matityahu the Hasmonean were deposed for this only: they ruled even though they were not of the seed of Yehudah and of the house of David, and thus they completely removed “the scepter” and “the lawgiver” from Yehudah. And their punishment was measure for measure, as the Holy One, blessed be He, caused their slaves (King Herod) to rule over them, and it is they who destroyed them” (Ramban).
Reb Lisa - where did you attend yeshiva? I gave you the direct quote of the Rambam and gave you the Talmud Yerushalmi as a source. If that’s not good enough for you, this is what the Rambam actually said:
The kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Yaakov by diverting the inheritance of Yehudah to another tribe. Now they relied on the word of Achiyah the Shilonite, the prophet who anointed Jeroboam, who said, “And I will afflict the seed of David for this, but not forever.” But when [the ten tribes of] Israel continued to crown kings one after another from the rest of the tribes, and they did not revert to the kingdom of Yehudah, they transgressed the testament of their ancestor. Therefore, they were accordingly punished, just as Hosea said, “They have set up kings, but not from Me” (8:4).
In addition, Tehillim makes a similar point (Psalms 132:11-12): “Hashem has sworn to David, a truth from which He will never retreat: ‘From the fruit of your issue I will place upon your throne ... forever and ever, shall [they] sit upon your throne.’”
Reb Joshua, Rambam states in his hakdama to the Mishnah Torah that he isn't including halakhot that were valid for a time and then never again. Like the shor at Sinai, for example.
Which begs the question of why he says what kind of shemen non-Davidic kings are anointed with.
(That's from the first perek of Hilchot Melachim. You didn't say where your quote was from.)
I'll grant you, they made themselves kings in Jerusalem, and they did so without a navi. They shouldn't have done that. But it's not making themselves kings that was forbidden. And *certainly* not d'Orayta.
They were punished, not for making themselves kings, but for defying the Torah and persecuting its practitioners.
Islam is infiltrating more into America now.
A third of Jews in New York voted for the anti-Israel Muslim to become mayor. Does it indicate a shameful ignorance of Islam among Jews?
I do recommend that everyone reads the slim book: "Concise Islam". Paid subscribers receive the ebook PDF at no additional cost. And also receive the "Abrogated Koran" and "Allah is a Zionist" PDFs:
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/allah-is-a-zionist-part-1
The Jlem Post article leaves out the most shocking detail. There has been an RFI for the project.
If this is true, it will cause the fall of the Netanyahu government. Israel would lose all sovereignty, even the limited sovereignty it has now.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/11/12/world/politics/navy-base-gaza-us-troops/
Todah Rabah, Woven and knitted masterpiece! must learn from tried and true blessings of past, keep it tidy: sovereignty ✡️ 🕎homeland 🇮🇱
Baruch HaShem
Thank you! That is a fantastic, and very uniquely put, compliment. I appreciate (as always) your support! Thank you! And yeah: sovereignty=homeland is the whole issue in it's purest form, also well stated.
Thank you, this is a highly informative article.
I am not a Jew. I have seen antisemitism directly in person, and I always call it out.
I am a member of a swimming club. The summer before last they wanted to hold a pro-Palestine event at the club. I objected. Pointing out that the club is nothing to do with politics, and it was a mistake to make it political. My position was formally adopted at the club AGM later in the year.
I have attended church thousands of times - people eating ham sandwiches in church is a rarity!
Thank you. We need more people willing to take a stand as you did. As for the church comment, it was just a hypothetical! Thank you too for supporting my Substack!
I always wondered about the whole Gog and Magog thing. It seemed to me that things would have to change radically in the world for us to end up in a situation where the entire world was against us and Edom and Yishmael were invading from both sides. But America *is* Rome. The golden eagle atop the flagpole would indicate that even if it weren't the world superpower descended directly from Rome. And while what's happening with the US isn't good, it certainly does seem to be pushing us towards the day that all the Nevi'im describe.
I totally agree. And while there have been many other eras that reflect the warnings of the nevi’im, this one seems particularly close to those warnings (as have other periods in Jewish history). But I have believed for two decades, as the Lubavitcher Rebbe taught us continuously, that we are in the era just before Moshiach.
"this was a direct violation of Torah law"
That's not true.
Again:
“The kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Yaakov by diverting the inheritance of Yehudah to another tribe. Now they relied on the word of Achiyah the Shilonite, the prophet who anointed Jeroboam, who said, “And I will afflict the seed of David for this, but not forever.” But when [the ten tribes of] Israel continued to crown kings one after another from the rest of the tribes, and they did not revert to the kingdom of Yehudah, they transgressed the testament of their ancestor. Therefore, they were accordingly punished, just as Hosea said, “They have set up kings, but not from Me” (8:4).”
I get the difference between a keren and a pach. It wasn’t the kind of shemen, it was the vessel which they used.
Nonetheless according to the Rambam the punishment was for not returning the throne to Beit Dovid. Their reign was a violation of Torah law.
The Ramban says differently:
“on this,
In my opinion, the kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Jacob by diverting the inheritance of Judah to another tribe...This was also the reason for the punishment of Chashmonaim, who reigned during the Second Temple...It is also possible that [in addition to the Chashmonaim having sinned for assuming royalty when there were not from the tribe of Judah,] they sinned in ruling on account of their being priests...it was not for them to rule, but only to perform the service of God.”
According to Ramban there were two violations.
1. Assuming kingship when they were not from Yehudah
2. They were Kohanim, and therefore not supposed to assume a political role.
I stand by what I wrote.
I need to go, Shabbat starts soon AND I need to deal with the Chanukah licht.
Honestly, Josh, I don't know where in the Rambam you're quoting for, because what I cited above, from the first perek of Hilchot Melachim, says that it's 100% legitimate to have a king from another tribe. I also don't know what "the testament of their ancestor" means. I've never seen that brought as a halakhic source.
Nor did you bring anything, not from Rambam and not from Ramban, that suggested that even if what they did was untoward, it was a violation of Torah law. Are you suggesting that it's one of the 613 mitzvot enumerated by either the Rambam or Ramban? Can you provide a source for that?
And I'm asking again, what is that quote from at the beginning of your comment?
"You haven't seen that"? And? I already explained why the Ramban's position is relevant. It is from his commentary to Bereishis, two seconds of research would have told you that.I am getting a serious ba'al tshuva vibe from you, not that there is anything wrong with that. As important as the Rambam is, "Sefer HaMitzvot" is not the end all to what is considered halacha, and I am assuming that you know that. As someone who spent many years in the ba'al tshuva world, I can appreciate the hardcore enthusiasm. What I can't tolerate is the "my opinion is the only opinion" attitude, which so often goes with it. Unless you can produce some credentials a rav, you are just a person with an attitude, as am I - so behave accordingly.
Sorry, but halakhic sources are halakhic sources. I had someone try and suggest that we could literally pasken by midrashei aggadah because it suited the outcome he was looking for. That's not how halakha works.
And sure, technically, I'm BT, but it's been over 40 years at this point, so I don't think it's relevant.
Well you still have the BT attitude, and like I said, I’ve spent so much time around it - it’s obvious. You aren’t a posek. You are ridiculously making the claim that only the Rambam’s opinion counts, and the Ramban’s does not, because it agrees with you. As for “halakhic sources are halakhic sources” - exactly. And you were speaking as though there is only one source, MY COMMENT was that there is more than one. That should be obvious. I’m done explaining points to you, just for you to ignore them and go onto another nonsensical point. You are saying whatever you need to not to be wrong. That’s a waste of everyone’s time. This will be the last comment in this thread.
Dude, *you* quoted the Rambam. That's why I'm quoting the Rambam.
Bava Basra 3B “He who says, ‘I come from the house of the Hasmoneans,’ is a slave,” as they were all destroyed on account of this sin. All the children of the righteous Matityahu the Hasmonean were deposed for this only: they ruled even though they were not of the seed of Yehudah and of the house of David, and thus they completely removed “the scepter” and “the lawgiver” from Yehudah. And their punishment was measure for measure, as the Holy One, blessed be He, caused their slaves (King Herod) to rule over them, and it is they who destroyed them” (Ramban).
It is true.
Rambam says kings can be from any tribe. They're simply subordinate to a king from Beit David.
Reb Lisa - where did you attend yeshiva? I gave you the direct quote of the Rambam and gave you the Talmud Yerushalmi as a source. If that’s not good enough for you, this is what the Rambam actually said:
The kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Yaakov by diverting the inheritance of Yehudah to another tribe. Now they relied on the word of Achiyah the Shilonite, the prophet who anointed Jeroboam, who said, “And I will afflict the seed of David for this, but not forever.” But when [the ten tribes of] Israel continued to crown kings one after another from the rest of the tribes, and they did not revert to the kingdom of Yehudah, they transgressed the testament of their ancestor. Therefore, they were accordingly punished, just as Hosea said, “They have set up kings, but not from Me” (8:4).
In addition, Tehillim makes a similar point (Psalms 132:11-12): “Hashem has sworn to David, a truth from which He will never retreat: ‘From the fruit of your issue I will place upon your throne ... forever and ever, shall [they] sit upon your throne.’”
That’s why the Hashmonaim
Were punished: they violated Torah.
Reb Joshua, Rambam states in his hakdama to the Mishnah Torah that he isn't including halakhot that were valid for a time and then never again. Like the shor at Sinai, for example.
נָבִיא שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד מֶלֶךְ מִשְּׁאָר שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהָיָה אוֹתוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ הוֹלֵךְ בְּדַרְכֵּי הַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה, וְנִלְחָם מִלְחָמוֹת ה' - הֲרֵי זֶה מֶלֶךְ, וְכָל מִצְוֹת הַמַּלְכוּת נוֹהֲגוֹת בּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעִיקַר הַמַּלְכוּת לְדָוִד, וְיִהְיֶה מִבָּנָיו מֶלֶךְ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲחִיָּה הַשִּׁילוֹנִי הֶעֱמִיד יָרָבְעָם, וְאָמַר לוֹ "וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּךָ... וּבָנִיתִי לְךָ בַיִת נֶאֱמָן כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּנִיתִי לְדָוִד עַבְדִּי..." (ראה מלכים א יא, לח); וְאָמַר לוֹ אֲחִיָּה "וְלִבְנוֹ אֶתֵּן שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד לְמַעַן הֱיוֹת נִיר לְדָוִד עַבְדִּי כָּל הַיָּמִים לְפָנַי, בִּירוּשָׁלִַם" (מלכים א יא, לו).
מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד - הֵם הָעוֹמְדִים לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּסְאֲךָ יִהְיֶה נָכוֹן עַד עוֹלָם" (שמואל ב ז,טז). אֲבָל אִם יַעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ מִשְּׁאָר יִשְׂרָאֵל - תִּפְסֹק הַמַּלְכוּת מִבֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי לְיָרָבְעָם נֶאֱמַר "אַךְ לֹא כָל הַיָּמִים" (מלכים א יא, לט).
אֵין מוֹשְׁחִין מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, אֶלָא בְּשֶׁמֶן אֲפַרְסְמוֹן. וְאֵין מְמַנִּין אוֹתָן בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם לְעוֹלָם, אֶלָא מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם מִזֶּרַע דָּוִד. וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִין בָּהּ אֶלָא זֶרַע דָּוִד.
Which begs the question of why he says what kind of shemen non-Davidic kings are anointed with.
(That's from the first perek of Hilchot Melachim. You didn't say where your quote was from.)
I'll grant you, they made themselves kings in Jerusalem, and they did so without a navi. They shouldn't have done that. But it's not making themselves kings that was forbidden. And *certainly* not d'Orayta.
They were punished, not for making themselves kings, but for defying the Torah and persecuting its practitioners.