Racism in Israel: When, And Why, Ha•lâkh•âh Went Dark

Racism as an example

I started from the earliest times, checking to find when things first went awry.

When I think about racism within Yi•sᵊr•â•eil (the nation), the facts lead me to dismiss the notion of inherent racism at the time of Mōsh•ëh, citing the eirëv rav.

Likewise, , the facts lead me to dismiss the notion of inherent racism at the time of Dâ•wid haMëlëkh, citing the instance of Rut.

The facts lead me to dismiss the notion of inherent racism at the time of Rabi Hi•leil haZa•qein, who simply saw Yi•sᵊr•â•eil as a Ta•na”kh-centric people who have made the decision to learn, and do their best to adhere to, Ta•na”kh as their life practice. Of course, Ribi Yᵊho•shua, critical of Sha•mai, was, a priori, the prodigy of the school of Rabi Hi•leil haZa•qein.

So, working chronologically or tracing back, we wind up scrutinizing the same time frame.

At this point, however, there’s a new factor that comes into play: scientific advances that began with Greek mathematicians and astronomers. Man’s understanding and perception of the world begins to advance at an accelerating rate. What had been ignorantly assumed under the best science of the time was rapidly grinding under the wheels of better science.

י‑‑ה remained Immutable and Ta•na”kh wasn’t changing—but הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (hâ-Ōlâm hi•shᵊtan•âh {mundus mutatus}; the world has changed)!

Myriads of memes that had previously been errors of ignorance, because Yi•sᵊr•â•eil couldn’t know any better, were coming to Light like Adam and Eve realizing their nakedness, in ever-growing numbers as intentional transgressions of Ta•na”kh; deliberate rebellion against the Enlightened new understandings of our Creator-Singularity and His operation of our universe.

But, from the time of the codification (resulting in ossification) of the Ta•lᵊmud in the 5th century C.E., the rabbis froze their mindsets in Bronze Age thinking. Things went dark: the Dark Ages.

That’s where the Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•im—and nearly all Orthodox—remain today. While it may appear that they absorb historical documentation, archaeology or science; closer scrutiny reveals that they compartmentalize these as illusions they must implement in order to interact with the rest of the “epikoros goy•im world”.

Like the law of guilt, there are two ways to approach new information: assume it right until proven wrong or assume it wrong until proven right. These two approaches often produce opposite results. Like the Christians’ and the Muslims’ idolizing reliance on their clerics, Orthodox assume everything at odds with what their rabbis taught as wrong until proven right; and they accept nothing as absolute proof except their rabbis. So, they remain convinced their Bronze Age mindset rabbis are right.

The Nᵊtzâr•im approach is to continuously revisit, review and, whenever correction is needed re-derive the Original First Principles of Ta•na”kh and derive Ha•lâkh•âh anew–not with the Bronze Age mindset but, instead, with the most advanced knowledge of historical documentation, archaeology and science—knowing that tomorrow’s perspective will be even better than today’s because we realize that we are always chasing knowledge of the Creator-Singularity, ever drawing closer, while knowing we, as mortals, will never attain His Omni-Science. There will always be more to learn; ergo, corrections to Ha•lâkh•âh as humankind progresses through time.

Ha•lâkh•âh must, necessarily, always adapt to advancing knowledge. This is the Nᵊtzâr•im Way.

(Republishing my articles and short quotations from the Netzarim website (www.netzarim.co.il) is encouraged as long as proper citation credit is prominently noted to Paqid Yirmeyahu, this blog and further information at http://www.netzarim.co.il)

Netzarim QR code business card Eng 9x5cm 340x189


6 thoughts on “Racism in Israel: When, And Why, Ha•lâkh•âh Went Dark

    • I demonstrated in The Nᵊtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) that the Even Bokhan (EB) is a ca. 1380 C.E. translation from either Greek (or, perhaps, English, which was translated from Greek) to enable rabbis to formulate polemics in response to claims of the Church that Yesh”u and this “New Testament” superseded Jews and the “Old Testment”, rendering the latter both enemies of the Church and enemies of Gxd.

      Thus EB reflects an intrinsic and inescapable core of the Hellenization, Romanization, Christianization, gentilization and idolatrization of the Christian “New Testament.” Relying on EB instead of exclusively relying on NHM isn’t acceptable.


  1. I don’t think the main sources confirm that Rav Yehoshua was a prodigy of any perushim school. Would his study and being a prodigy require that? I don’t find it in Hebrew Mattiyahu except by assuming it to be so according to the talmud. Shamai was harsh and Hillel wasn’t. One was a “good” perushim and the other wasn’t but I don’t see Rav Yehoshua giving kavode to either. They both were part of the perushim according to the talmud. Both could likely have been called rav and yet that wasn’t the halakhah since only the mashiakh holds that title. All of the warnings to his students about the perushim and khakhamim were probably against the Herodian perushim. I don’t get that from the text. If he ever had affiliation with the perushim he didn’t appear to have any at the end of his life.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Somehow, you’ve missed, or forgotten, square #1: 4QMMT, the only purely Yᵊhud•im insider’s view of the pre-Apostate Paul 3 min•im Yᵊhud•im.

      The leadership of both the original Tzᵊdoq•im and the Hellenized Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im were comprised of kō•han•im and Hellenist aristocracy—against whom Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa railed and which obviously excluded him. A priori, he was Pᵊrush•i.

      In order to be recognized in the Pᵊrush•i min as a legitimate and authoritative teacher of Tōr•âh meant earning sᵊmikh•âh. During the lifetime of Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa, that meant either Beit Hi•leil or Beit Sha•mai (the latter — “Herodians” — allied with the Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im to rule the Beit Din Gâ•dōl).

      Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa was clearly oriented toward Beit Hi•leil rather than Beit Sha•mai. Ergo, he obtained his sᵊmikh•âh through Beit Hi•leil.

      At the time Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa would have earned his sᵊmikh•âh, in Yᵊhūdâh, sᵊmikh•âh was only granted by the Nâ•si of the Beit Din Gâ•dōl—which c 20-30 C.E. when Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa would have been earning his sᵊmikh•âh, coincides with the change in predominance of the Beit Din Gâ•dōl from the Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im and Beit Sha•mai to Beit Hi•leil of the Pᵊrush•im—from whom Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa acquired sᵊmikh•âh. (See also Ribi vs other titles.)

      And the Nâ•si of the Pᵊrush•im-majority Beit Din Gâ•dōl at that time was Rabi Hi•leil haZa•qein!

      At the end of his life, the anti-Hellenist Beit-Hileil Perushim were under threat from both the “Herodians” Pseudo-Perushim (Hellenist Beit-Shamai Perushim, vilified in Talmud, who had allied with the Hellenist Pseudo-Tzedoqim to perpetuate their rule of the Great Sanhedrin) and their Hellenist Roman occupier handlers. So Beit Hileil were keeping their heads down, gone underground, in hiding from the Hellenist Pseudo-Perushim Shamai-Herodians and the Roman-occupier persecutors.


      • As I recall, 4QMMT was written by a sect to another sect or person that encouraged adherence to principles held by the first sect.

        When Rav Yehoshua was confronted about where his authority came from, (assuming they were the same ones 4QMMT were against that confronted him) should it not have been understood that it was those from the house of Hillel? But he poses the question back to them about Yokhanan. Was it from heaven or men?

        Why does Rav Yehoshua direct his students to not use the title Rav for anyone but mashiakh? Seems many people didn’t understand the title and it was used in error.

        Why did the disciples of Yokhanan ask Rav Yehoshua why they and the perushim fast often, if they didn’t know he was a perushi?

        I don’t think he needed at all to be confirmed by any religious group.

        But my point was that whether Hillel, Shammai, Boethus, pseudo-tzedokim, Qumranim, they were all missing the boat when and if they didn’t come under the umbrella of Rav Yehoshua’s teaching. He seems to indicate as much when addressing perushim.


    • There is only one reliable (Hebrew based; not Hellenized /​ Christianized/ Romanized /​ gentilized) source: The Nᵊtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM).

      Learn the difference between Rav and Ribi. Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa was NOT a Rav.

      NHM confirms repeatedly that he taught the Pᵊrush•i POV, he taught in bât•ei kᵊnësët, they called him by the title of Rav (aware of his education in Mitzrayim, they likely assumed he was a Rav rather than a Ribi; something he ignored and didn’t bother to correct or, perhaps, felt it was immodest to correct. Overshadowing that, even most Jews lost the nuance in the Dark Ages so we shouldn’t expect to find that nuance in extant texts). He was not a mere Rav.

      Rabi Hi•leil haZa•qein was a Rabi (different yet from a Rav).

      So no, they couldn’t both, even less so the three, have been called “Rav.”

      Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa was clearly educated where he spent his early manhood: in Mi•tzᵊrayim, most likely at the best university in the ancient history world—at Alexandria. Upon his return to Yᵊhūdâh, his teachings clearly put him not into Beit Sha•mai. A priori, he earned his sᵊmikh•âh (if he had no sᵊmikh•âh, that would have been the key part of charges by the Tzᵊdoq•im) from Beit Hi•leil.

      Sha•mai haZa•qein seems to have never been addressed by any of these titles. Ergo, this may indicate he was a well-educated lay Jew. (He was an engineer, but all Judaic clerics had an occupation for income; Hileil was a lumberjack.) The sources suggest that, apparently, he may have been a native of the Levant. In such case, if he had sᵊmikh•âh, then he was a Ribi.

      I don’t know where you got the notion about Rav that “that wasn’t the halakhah since only the mashiakh holds that title”, but there’s no basis for it.

      You appear to assume what you wish to think until proven differently. That is not logic. One could assume he was an extra-terrestrial until proven differently. Since there’s no proof to the contrary… All of the extant evidence indicates he was a Pᵊrush•i Ribi. There is no contradictory evidence. There’s no “There!” there!

      You would be correct in more carefully stating that Most “of the warnings to his students about the perushim … were probably against the Herodian perushim.” I’m persuaded that there was also hypocrisy and sanctimony among other Pᵊrush•im as well to which he also objected. We can see the same kinds of hypocrisy, sanctimony, imposed ignorance and illiteracy, and even criminal behavior among Pᵊrush•im today. But his primary target were the Hellenist neo-Tzᵊdoq•im sycophants of the Hellenist Roman (goyim) occupiers.

      One who assumes their beliefs are right until proven wrong has no chance of pursuing Truth. You must assume Tanakh and Judaic concepts are right until proven wrong while Hellenist, Zeusian, Roman, goyim and Christian displacement concepts to the contrary are wrong until proven right (because it’s deviation from the known–which was Tanakh and ancient Israel–that bears the burden of proof).

      If you’re assuming previous (Christian) beliefs until proven wrong, that isn’t logical or possible and this isn’t the forum for it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s