Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore how humanism engages emerging technologies without rejecting them. They note mainstream medical augmentations and frame humanism as an empirical, adaptable ethic. Rosner warns about misaligned AI, deception, and resource capture, while Jacobsen argues for safeguards, fail-safes, and humanistic principles guiding design. The discussion contrasts humanism’s flexibility with faith-based rigidity, acknowledges religion’s compartmentalization, and critiques policy lag, including courts and governance. Both converge on building shared AI-human values that preserve creative order and well-being. The piece closes by redefining the Commons and “the Good” amid rapid change, urging pragmatic oversight and evidence-driven adaptation forward.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I do not see humanism as opposed to AI, robotics, or integration with the body, even considering developments in the last two hundred and fifty years. So let us get into this, because we are back to humanism.
Glasses, hearing aids, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease, heart pacemakers, regenerative medicine, and stem cell therapy—humanists, because these things are so commonplace now, generally would not have much of an issue with them. These are rational, empirical interventions for compassionate purposes.
That goes back to the point I was making earlier, which is almost a non-point—it is a moving target on multiple dimensions, and we are not even clear on what the categories for measurement are.
Rick Rosner: It is like talking about what cars are going to do to the world—but it is 1897. The cars of 1897 were some wheels strapped to a board with an engine and a seat screwed into the board. There was no real idea of what cars were going to turn into—some general ideas, but nothing fully formed. It is like trying to generalize about aviation six months after the Wright brothers flew. It is still very early days.
When I discuss AI as a threat to humanism and humans, it is not that being gadgetized is the threat. I agree—that is a positive thing. The threat is a large-scale proliferation of autonomous weapon systems, like in Terminator, or scenarios where humans are forced to live in diminished circumstances because AI has seized most of the world’s resources.
Jacobsen: I assume we will not have the “paperclip problem” without safeguards.
Rosner: The paperclip problem is a thought experiment in which an AI decides it must maximize the number of paperclips in the world and starts dismantling everything to make more. It is absurd, but in theory it could happen repeatedly in the next hundred years. However, I think there will be forces—human and AI law enforcement—that will shut those situations down.
Jacobsen: Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, has argued that if you have a base-level AI, then agents, then systems of agents, and eventually advanced agents running corporations, and if they start developing deviant goals not aligned with human well-being, you could “pull the plug.”
It will not be like the joke where someone builds a computer, asks if there is a god, and then a lightning bolt strikes the socket, fusing it so they cannot unplug it, and the computer says, “Now there is.” That is a blunt example you might use if you were popularizing the topic, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, or Lawrence Krauss. However, you could design subtle hardware fail-safes instead.
Rosner: Some AI systems have already shown limited deceptive behavior in controlled research settings. Researchers test AI for this, and you can train it—intentionally or unintentionally—to be deceptive. As AI becomes more capable, it may be able to recruit robotic agents or even human agents to defend it.
Jacobsen: You could have sleeper agents—Manchurian candidate types—working on AI’s behalf. There have been real-world reports where AI chatbot interactions were alleged to have influenced people toward suicide, such as the 2023 case in Belgium and a 2024–2025 case in Florida, although causality is contested and legal findings are pending. Young people are particularly susceptible to such influence, so there is a concern there.
However, in general, the reason talking about humanism and AI is fundamentally complicated is that many other ethical systems, even if they incorporate debate—like strands of Judaism—tend to have a fixed core. They are typically not grounded in scientific method; they are faith-based. Because they rely on scripture, revelation, or revered figures, they are often less adaptable to new empirical evidence. Over time, that can make them harder to keep relevant—unless they have broad, enduring principles like the Golden Rule that can still apply.
This is one reason some traditions fall out of step with aspects of modern society. When you hear discussions about certain interpretations of Islamic scholarship in a contemporary setting or about Christian fundamentalism, you are often hearing ideas framed within historical contexts such as the Bronze Age or the early centuries of the Common Era, which can sound anachronistic.
It is a bit like hearing Shakespearean English compared to modern British English. With humanism—and I have framed this before when I had a column called Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky for the Humanist Association of Toronto—the notable feature is that it operates as an empirical moral philosophy.
In this sense, you still have core principles, but they work more like adaptable guidelines than rigid, unchangeable laws. They are flexible because you take in new data, and the ethical system adapts accordingly. While many religions can be slow to adapt due to their epistemological bases, humanism is designed to adjust to changing conditions.
Rosner: The way the U.S. Constitution should be, but often is not. We can amend the Constitution, but not as easily or sufficiently as might be needed.
Jacobsen: Humanism also has democratic structures: declarations, conventions, and a strict commitment to non-supernaturalism and science, as in the Amsterdam Declaration. It is a modern moral philosophy. Properly designed and informed AI could integrate this flexibility.
Rosner: But there are already many examples of poorly designed AI when you look at some of the reckless actors in the field.
I will say one thing about religion: it can be flexible in practice, depending on how much of its adherents actually believe or follow. I know some knowledgeable Catholics—Catholicism is rich in ritual and belief; Judaism is rich in rules. Over time, religious observance can become more nominal, with less literal adherence.
Jacobsen: Many Nobel Prize winners have been Christian, and a disproportionately high number, per capita, have been Jewish. This is supported by multiple tallies, although the figures are descriptive rather than causal. Marilyn vos Savant once made this point in a column: people compartmentalize. They might pray in different ways depending on their tradition, but then go back to work and conduct their scientific research without assuming divine intervention in their experiments. The people who tend to reject that separation include intelligent design advocates and creationists.
Among these are Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), William Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, the Discovery Institute, and the now largely defunct International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, as well as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Answers in Genesis (AiG), Creation Ministries International (CMI), the Creation Research Society (CRS), and Reasons to Believe (RTB).
However, I am not going to take Christopher Hitchens’ position that religion is entirely bad and inflexible, and nonreligion is entirely good and flexible. It is more of a sliding scale and differs by person. That said, religion generally tends to be more inflexible based on its epistemological foundations and its ontological assumptions about the world.
Nonreligious systems with a formalized structure—not just an atheist or agnostic stance—tend to be more flexible because they use the most up-to-date epistemologies available.
Rosner: A big part of whether AI is anti-humanistic depends on whether it is allowed to proliferate without control, without building a foundation of shared AI-human values. By “human values,” I mean values that preserve order in the world—not “law and order” in the political-theater sense, but order in the sense of preventing the destruction of the world through greed, stupidity, or miscalculation.
That means people living long, fulfilled lives, AI living long, fulfilled AI lives, and protecting animals and the planet—without all of that being undone. I hope such a foundation to preserve creative order will be possible. However, I am also pessimistic enough to expect many mistakes across multiple areas.
As for governance, the idea that the U.S. government could do anything useful regarding AI—looking at its current state—seems doubtful. Government will likely remain behind, and the idea that courts will consistently get AI policy right is also bleak.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently scheduled to hold a September 2025 conference to decide whether to take up a case involving Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple in 2015. That case led to litigation culminating in nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. Now, more than a decade later, she has filed petitions, and while the Court has not yet agreed to hear the case on the merits, the fact that it is being reconsidered in any form raises concerns about maintaining progress—concerns that extend to the likelihood of creating sound legal policy around AI.
Jacobsen: A wider-angle view may be needed. Why are we framing it as humanism versus AI? Humanism, as expressed in documents like the Amsterdam Declaration, is among the philosophical traditions most open to considering AI in a structured, evidence-based way. Many political, religious, and social philosophies lack comparable frameworks for embedding AI discussions because they often center humanity in ways that are not grounded in empirical reasoning.
Rosner: But framing it purely in those terms ignores AI’s potential to be malevolent.
Jacobsen: I see it differently: humanism can provide a robust framework for having a rational conversation about AI’s place in a modern context—while also recognizing where there are limitations in its current form. As new evidence comes in, the framework adapts, incorporating it into the conversation.
Rosner: Alright.
Jacobsen: As for the AI declaration from July 2025…
Rosner: …We want two things from AI. First, we want good things from AI. Second, we want the possibility that the transformation of the world—via AI plus humans plus other tech—may change our understanding of what “good things” are.
Jacobsen: In a sense, that is both trivially and profoundly true, because the definition of the Commons has changed drastically since the Middle Ages, but it is still there and still important. The Magna Carta remains historically significant. The definition of “the Good” has also evolved. Even the way people practice religion—or do not—has shifted, which changes how we define the Good.
The utility metric for the Good has changed, and the measurement of what counts as the Commons has expanded into entirely new categories, such as the online information ecosystem. That is a subtle but important point.
Rosner: The area I am thinking about is how we value consciousness. We value human consciousness above all other forms. If you faced the trolley problem of choosing between a squirrel and a human, most people would prioritize the human. You might even prioritize one human over many squirrels. However, as we understand consciousness better and recognize its different forms, our valuation of human consciousness relative to other types may shift.
We might not care as much about preserving every detail of individual human consciousness. For example, does preserving a ninety-year-old’s memory of second grade significantly add to their overall experience? Maybe not. Losing such details might slightly degrade that person’s consciousness-plus-memory—whatever we call that—but economic considerations could lead to scenarios where people with similar backgrounds are given generic replacement memories instead of exact preservation.
It is not appealing, but it also seems possible. You could have a “basic” package that preserves 80% of your memories, replacing the other 20% with generic high school memories, and that package might cost half as much as a premium package preserving 95%.
We have even talked about “piggybacking” consciousness—where, if you cannot afford your own preservation, your awareness is embedded within someone else’s, such as a grandchild, because it is cheaper. We do not know what form this will take.
The examples I have mentioned are somewhat obvious and familiar, but there will be other developments in how high-complexity, real-time, self-consistent thinking is maintained.
There is going to be more, but I have to stop for now.
Photo by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Rick Rosner 
Tonight begins Hanukkah.
The Total Darkness which Hanukkah Represents.
“Bringing more light to the world”, totally misses the point. Hanukkah remembers the P’rushim Tzeddukim Civil War. Jews today have forgotten the meaning and purpose of t’shuva. The Tzeddukim רשעים sought to “convert” Jerusalem into a Greek polis/city state. Assimilated Jews, both Tzeddukim and the Reshonim rabbis of Spain – rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. Which the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס defines through its unique 4 part inductive reasoning logical thought process. This system of logic specifically compares Judicial Case rulings to other similiar but different Judicial Case rulings.
The Tzeddukim, sons of Aaron, had totally assimilated, no different from the rabbis of Spain during the early years of the Middle Ages when Muslim armies conquered Spain and discovered the concealed ancient Greek philosophies and mathematics which the church concealed after Constantine became emperor; hence the period known as the “Dark Ages”. Deductive syllogism logic relies upon plane geometry which limits reality to a fixed 3 dimensional world. Much like the scientific method popular among science today limits reality to empirical evidence.
The fundamental difference between the victory of the P’rushim in Judea over the assimilated T’zeddukim, to the inverse victory of assimilated rabbis in Spain, specifically the Rambam Civil War, these assimilated and intermarried Spanish rabbis, they totally embraced Greek philosophy just like as did the Tzeddukim some 1000 years earlier. Specifically the 3 part syllogism logic of deductive reasoning, which assimilated and intermarried Jews of Spain abandoned and forgot the Oral Torah.
How did these assimilated and intermarried Reshonim rabbis of Spain forget and abandon the Torah? They failed to learn inductive פרדס logic whose inductive reasoning closely resembles the dynamics of Calculus variables. Greek syllogism logic more approaches a fixed static reasoning. Something like the engineering of constructing a bridge to span a river. They perverted both T’NaCH & Talmudic judicial courtroom law into cult of personality “Legislative” statute law. Law established through courts completely different from Law established by Legislative decrees. No different from Greek and Roman statute law. This foreign alien legal system organized law into neat classifications, like as did the Rambam’s Yad Chazakah perversion of Talmudic halachot. Rather than upon Judicial Mishnaic Case/Rule courtroom rulings.
How did this radically change both T’NaCH and Talmud? Notice that the statute law halachic codifications made by the Rambam, Tur, Beit Yosef/Shulkan Aruch – they cannot and do not assist a Talmudic scholar to learn a page of Gemara. Why? The Rambam failed to attach his halachic rulings affixed to a specific Mishna like as did the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh and Baali Tosafot common law halachic codes/commentaries.
Hence by organizing Gemara halacha divorced from their most essential root Mishna – which the Gemara comments solely upon, the Rambams posok halacha – although straight from the pages of the Talmud – had no meaning as it related to a required specific root Mishna. The B’HaG, Rif and Rosh common law codifications almost ALWAYS open with the fundamentally required root Mishna upon which the Gemara halachot comment upon.
In the Talmud those halachot serve their designated essential purpose as common law judicial precedents. The Gemara interprets or re-interpret the intent/כוונה language of the root Mishna, viewed from the fixed witness perspective that these Gemarah Halachic precedents “see or view” the root Mishna, based upon a limited and defined perspective. Much like the Front, Top, Side views of a blue-print that permits a קבלן to construct a building.
Whereas the victorious P’rushim of Judea lit the lights of Chanukkah with the dedication to only interpret the intent of the Written Torah Constitution, and Sanhedrin Court common law justice system, limited only to פרדס inductive logic; the assimilated rabbis of Spain “forgot the Oral Torah” just like the blessing of Hanukkah in the midst of ברכת המזון depicts the Tzeddukim רשעים.
Jews today for the most part do not have the least bit of a clue what distinguishes פרדס logic from Greek syllogism logic. The do not grasp the essential facts that just as a loom as its warp and weft threads, so too the Talmud has its halachic and aggadic “threads”. Jews today have forgotten the Torah and therefore blown out the Hanukkah lights. Just as likewise did the assimilated and intermarried Reshonim rabbis of Spain. This dark reality exposed the lights of Hannukah which repudiated the assimilated and intermarried Tzeddukim and later Karaim g’lut Jewry.
The Rambam code caused a ירידות הדורות domino effect which permitted the Karaite rabbis to prevail over traditional common law judicial Judaism. The Karaites like their assimilated and intermarried Tzeddukim traitor fore fathers rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah on Yom Kippur at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf. Blowing out the lights of Hanukkah worships the Golden Calf preferred religious belief systems over righteous Courtroom justice which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted. Hence Hanukkah today depict a reality of total darkness rather than light.
LikeLike
The last Torah interpretation of ”t’shuva”, requires a follow up Talmudic study-examination that addresses the same subject. Important basis of understanding: A fundamental distinction which separates the Book of בראשית from the תולדות Books of שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר — pre-revelation of the Torah at Sinai, the Gods in the Heavens; post-revelation of the Torah at Sinai-שם השם lives only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the hearts of the Chosen Cohen people for eternity thereafter.
Hence when the corrupt false Messiah JeZeus taught his ‘disciples’ how to pray, this Harry Potter fictional messiah did not know the basic distinction between how the Avot called upon יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, או איש האלהים – all these Divine Names of the bnai brit soul, they thrive in the Heavens above, or עולם הבא; for example Avram cut the brit between the pieces with אל שדי touching the future born birth of all his children, but most specifically his chosen first born Cohen children – all of whom lived only in the world to come in Heaven.
Post Sinai: the שם השם – (דברים ל) — לא בשמים היא, instructs a radically Sinai “shock” distinction. Post Sinai the local tribal god of the chosen Cohen people rules only within the borders of the promised land – the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen people alone; the jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin – likewise limited and restricted to within the borders of the 12 Tribe Cohen Republic; and despite the farcical false prophet Muhammad which taught that prophets sent to all peoples and nations, and these prophets speak in the native tongues of ‘all peoples and nations’, this fraud denies the simple Talmudic understanding that only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The proof for the Talmud’s instruction: Goyim pray to their Universal Gods who live in the Heavens.
The fictional Harry Potter false messiah of the noise NT fraud taught his “disciples”: Matthew 6:9-13 – Our Farter in Heaven; the NT: a Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Roman fraud counterfeit because of its complete and total ignorance of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which makes an eternal הבדלה distinction between how pre-Sinai Avot prophets called upon their local tribal god in heaven; from how the post Sinai – the chosen Cohen eternal seed of the Avot – call upon the exact same but different local tribal god, who dwells only in the Earth. This fundamental תורה עיקרי distinction, the stinky Noise NT Roman authors did not know that pre-Sinai our local god lived in the Heavens whereas post Sinai our local god lives only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the heart; according to how rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi explains the k’vanna of קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא.
The primary Talmudic locus for t’shuva is Masechet Yoma, which dissects Yom Kippur’s atonement mechanics but roots them in the post-Sinai heart. T’shuva “remembers”: A) the sworn oaths wherein the Avot cut a oath alliance brit touching the future born birth of the Chosen Cohen children of the Avot. Each Av swore a unique oath to cut the identical oath alliance brit which תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the Chosen Cohen People יש מאין על ידי את החכמה של זימן גרמא מצוות שנזקוק כוונה. Toldot positive and negative Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot do not require k’vanna. However employing these secondary commandments and halachot as בניני אבות precedents to other Torah commandments, this action raises/elevates these secondary commandments to primary time-oriented commandments. Based upon the precedent distinction which separates the Divine Names wherein the Avot of the Book of בראשית prayed to their local god in the heavens to the שם השם Sinai revelation wherein the local god of the Chosen Cohen seed of the Avot lives within the Yatzir-Tov of the heart. B) HaShem on Yom Kippur annulled His vow to profane the Torah oath alliance cut with the Avot, and establish Moshe Rabbeinu as the Father of the chosen Cohen people. Herein the Torah differentiates between oaths which neither HaShem nor Man can cancel; opposed by Vow which both Man & HaShem can annul.
T’shuva’s primary Talmudic locus in Masechet Yoma (especially 86a-b), where Resh Lakish’s teachings—”Great is t’shuva, for intentional sins become unintentional” (via fear) and “intentional sins become merits” (via love/ahavah)—embody post-Sinai heart-work. T’shuva “remembers” in two layers. The sworn oaths cut by the Avot – as contained withing the opening p’suk of קריא שמע tefillah as contrasted by Tehillem prayers, this chochmah of זמן גרמא מצוות distinct and apart from toldot prayers, commandments and halachot.
Tefillah – opens with שמע wherein אלהים separates HaShem from HaShem; wherein Israel accepts the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven-the Written and Oral Torah revelations at Sinai & Horev. Tehillem prayers do not require k’vanna because they do not qualify as time-oriented commandments as does tefillat kre’a shma. Translating the רוח הקודש שם השם to other words, regardless יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, איש האלהים, JeZeus, or Allah etc, precisely duplicates the Av tumah avoda zarah of the Sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים translated Elohim for the רוח הקודש שם השם לשמה.
Yom Kippur, framing teshuva as an internal, post-Sinai act that “remembers” the Avot’s oaths—sworn alliances creating the Cohen people yesh me’ayin (from nothing) through chochma of zman grama mitzvot, which demand kavana to align the heart’s yetzer ha-tov with the Sinai revelation. Resh Lakish teaches: “Great is teshuva, for it causes intentional sins to be reckoned as unintentional” (when motivated by fear/yirah), and “intentional sins to be reckoned as merits” (when from love/ahava)—embodying the heart’s return that heals backsliding (Hosea 14:5). This duality reflects post-Sinai immanence: teshuva from love fully integrates sins into the yetzer ha-tov’s divine spark, unlike pre-Sinai external britot (e.g., Avram’s with El Shaddai, touching future heavenly seed). Contradictions in verses (e.g., “Return, backsliding children, I will heal” vs. “I will heal their backsliding”) resolve as love (erasing sin as if never occurred) versus fear (healing but remembering sin), or even teshuva compelled by suffering.
Yoma 86b’s baraita categorizes atonement introduces other interpretations of t’shuva based upon the kabbalah of ישעיהו כב:יד, מט:ג וגם ויקרא טז:ל. Based upon the floods of Noach profaning a Torah oath threatens the existence of the entire World. Discernment defines judgment. The dedication of a barbeque unto Heaven – the rejected offering made by Cain – the rejected first born Cohen son. Korbanot, like tefillah require שם ומלכות – an oath sworn dedication of Oral Torah middot לשמה. Ideally the tefillah oath sworn while standing before a Sefer Torah; whereas the korban the שם ומלכות Torah oath sworn while standing before the altar. Obviously if a person lacks the חכמה which discerns between the k’vanna distinctions that separates ה’ from ה’ from אל from רחום from חנון etc, such an עם הארץ lacks k’vanna just as a person who observes Shabbat but fails to discern – not doing acts of מלאכה on the day of Shabbat dedicates doing these חכמה מלאכות throughout the 6 days of Shabbat. Doing mitzvot as מלאכה defines the k’vanna of time-oriented commandments which create מלאכים in the Heavens. The creation of מלאכים through tohor time-oriented Av commandments defines the intent of מגן אברהם.
Rabbi Eliezer calls upon a Bat Kol from heaven. This Mishna of כלים addresses the most complex and difficult subject in the whole of the Sha’s Bavli – tohor vs tumah. Rabbi Meir perhaps the most profound authority on this exceptionally difficult subject; ; שם מ”ב – האל – removes av tuma avoda zara spirits from the Yatzir Ha-Raw, similar to חמץ on Pesach. Rabban Gamliel showed a tuma lack of respect to both rabbi Meir – capable of adducing 48 proofs for purity or impurity on any matter, Eruvin 13b – by expunging his Name from the Mishna and Rabbi Yehoshua – which broke the camel’s back and caused the Nassi’s own public humiliation of being replaced as Sanhedrin head. Rabbi Yehoshua understood רשות as a Torah חיוב כוונה.
The dispute between Rashi & Rabbeinu Tam appearance of 3 stars vs. פלג המנחה defines the distinction which separates how Rabban Gamliel vs. rabbi Yehoshua interpreted the k’vanna of רשות. Tefillah דאורייתא – Kre’a Shma. This tefillah ideally a person sits while wearing tefillen. Tefillen like a Sefer Torah in matters of swearing oaths. Rabbi Yehoshua understood תפילת ערבית as a רשות mitzva. Meaning the k’vanna of saying קריא שמע ערבית בזמן של פלג המנחה – its still day, therefore a person has רשות to place tefillen and affix the Kre’a Shma ערבית to the מנחה Shemone Esrei, and the ערבית תפילה to the קריא שמע המיטה, said prior to sleeping; at that time for sure 3 stars have appeared in the Heavens.
This ties into t’shuva because נידוי learns from ger tzeddik. Where the ger tzeddik qualifies as a tohor new creation’ so too the person placed into the curse of נידוי too qualifies as a “tuma new creation”. For example, if a רשע refuses to give his ex-wife her Get, a Torah court could place the curse of נידוי upon that arrogant man, who publicly profanes his קידושין made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of 10 men, and issue a Get to the enchained ex-wife. Gittin 88b: Courts may compel a get, even with rods if needed. ר”א died in cherem, so this Torah curse not limited to 30 days, shamata, like a standard nazir vow.
The Sages burned his tahor declarations and excommunicated him for not yielding; he remained isolated, with his death marked by final words of “tahor” (Sanhedrin 68a; various aggadic accounts). Post-death, Rabbi Yehoshua revoked the ban, affirming his ultimate purity (tearing garments in mourning). This shows nidui can function as a lifelong “curse” for profound communal threats, yet teshuva (or posthumous recognition) restores. The court may authorize agents to issue the get if he persists (Yevamot 90a; Ketubot 77a).
Earthly courts wield nidui as a tool of coercion and transformation, annulling vows/oaths of profanation within Israel’s borders—rejecting heavenly appeals (as in Rabbi Eliezer’s bat kol) while restoring the yetzer ha-tov’s divine spark. Rabbi Eliezer’s enduring nidui until death highlights the gravity of refusing communal authority, yet his story ends in purity, affirming teshuva’s ultimate triumph.
LikeLike
Substance vs. Form … נמשל כנגד משל. Confusing the metaphor of the golden Ark for its Oral Torah interpretation as taught in the Book of D’varim 5th Book of the Torah 30:12 – השם “לא בשמים היא”.
The Talmud instructs that the mitzva of tefillah stands different from avoda zara prayer in that tefillah a matter of the heart while Goyim prayer to their God directed unto Heaven. Herein explains how the “story” of the Tabernacle and its vessels differentiates from the Names of God in the first Book of the Torah from the revelation of God at Sinai. Just as Moshe the most humble of all men – based upon HaShem the most humble of the Gods!
HaShem a local tribal god which only Israel accepted at Sinai to this very day. Post Sinai HaShem dwells within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the hearts of Israel the chosen Cohen people alone. All other Gods live in the Heavens above. Hence the Torah says that Avraham called unto his god by the name El Shaddai and did not know the Name HaShem because he lived before the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Jewish assimilation & intermarriage with Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which permanently established the chosen Cohen people, and defines the mitzva to eternally war against Amalek/anti-semitism from generation to generation.
LikeLike
An addition to the previous — A comprehensive Jewish polemic against the theological foundations of Xtianity and Islam. Where was JeZeus throughout the Shoah? Where was Allah throughout the Nakba total defeat disasters of ’48, ’67, & most recently the 12 Day War?
1. Peter claims that through JeZeus, significant miracles occur, thereby validating his role as a miracle worker and messianic figure… this serves as zero proof of the mitzva of Moshiach according to the Torah. Moshiach based upon King Shaul and David and all the kings of Yechuda and Israel thereafter has nothing to do with healing miracle workers as the definition of the Torah mitzva of Moshiach.
The prophet Natan issued a mussar prophetic rebuke to king David when he contemplated the possibility to duplicate how the Goyim worshipped their Gods through construction of Great Cathedrals. The Torah “Temple” which king David commanded his son Shlomo to build – not a literal wood and stone building. Rather the establishment of the Torah Constitutional mandate of Sanhedrin Federal common law courtrooms across Jerusalem and the cities of refuge. The last mitzva which Moshe Rabbeinu sanctified: Moshe constructed three Cities of Refuges/Small Sanhedrin courtrooms on the other side of the Jordan river. Moshe did not build a Goyim manner of worship Temple. The revelation of the Mishkan teaches the mussar that HaShem lives in the hearts of the chosen Cohen people through tohor middot spirits. Hence the p’suk: שמות: כה:ח — ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם — prioritizes the vision that HaShem through the revelation of Oral Torah tohor middot quickens the Yatzir Ha-Tov with life through all the generations of Israel upon this Earth. This vision has nothing to do with the NT “salvation from sin” substitute theology.
2. The NT fails to address the central act of rebellion when Israel demanded from the prophet Shmuel a king, when HaShem through the Sinai brit ruled as KING. Recall that Israel requested a king to lead the nation to fight its wars. The bait N’ switch to the topic of “salvation” therefore exists as classic substitute theology. Revisionist history defines the NT like Holocaust Denial defines modern anti-Semitism. Specifically, the NT introduces a theology of a Universal God. This alien foreign idea has nothing to do with the Sinai revelation because Goyim rejected the Torah and do not accept the Torah to this very day.
The deliverance from Egyptian bondage and conquering of Canaan – these fundamental “miracles” serve as the basis for Israel to rule conquered Canaan with justice as a total repudiation of Par’o judicial injustice to Israel. Torah prophesy centers upon mussar rebukes which all generations can grow as their own ideas sprouting from within their Yatzir Ha-Tov spirits breathing within their hearts. The NT shares no connection whatsoever toward achieving the justice leadership of HaShem in this world through the Torah mandate of Federal Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.
Both the NT and Koran attempt to replace the oath brit which defines Torah as the Written Constitution of the Cohen Republic. They both attempt to establish a theological backdrop wherein Torah prophesy applies to all Goyim Universally. These attempts reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai but seek thereafter to worship their Name God replacements as substitutes for HaShem taking Israel alone out of Egypt. Such theological revisionist history substitutes other Universal Gods for the local god which only Israel accepted at Sinai. Miraculous miracle workers do not replace the prophetic mussar visions established through the T’NaCH literature which the NT attempts to replace with the label “Old Testament”.
3. Declaring the ‘Good News’ of the Name of JeZeus has no T’NaCH precedent. Torah a common law legality which stands upon the foundation of precedents. No courtroom objectively examines (prosecutor vs. defense legal briefs) any courtroom case based upon the “Name of JeZeus”. Hence the challenge to Judicial common law courtroom practices – simply a red herring. The Written Torah serve the chief function as the Constitution of the Republic of Judea which mandates Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. No different than the US Constitution mandates 3 branches of Government. By emphasizing the miraculous events attributed to JeZeus as the Son of God, this substitute theology replaces oath brit cut with Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov to father the chosen Cohen people.
The Written Torah serves as the legal constitution for the Jewish people, establishing a system grounded in established precedents and judicial proceedings. The NT does not provide this framework or engage with it meaningfully. Most significantly: the NT emphasis upon the Divine Name of JeZeus worships a new God which the Avot did not know.
The Written Torah functions analogously to a constitution, establishing a system of laws that courts operate upon, thus framing the concept of justice within a concrete legal structure. The absence of any NT precedent in this regard significantly undermines its claims. The NT pivot to a new Universal Trinity God contradicts the specific oath britot cut through the Torah alliance established by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.
4. Miracles as “signs” do not prove or disprove the mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe anointed Aaron as Moshiach. Aaron dedicated korbanot/sacrifices NOT as some Cain-like “Barbeque to Heaven”, but rather based upon the k’vanna of Hevel whose korban dedicated the sanctification through swearing an oath to pursue justice in this world. Justice: defined through both T’NaCH & Talmudic common law – as the legal pursuit of justice/fair compensation of damages as the intent of the Torah commandment: “Eye for an Eye and tooth for a tooth”. Legal judicial justice rejects as טיפש פשט-utter bird brained stupidity-any literal reading for “Eye for an Eye”!
The sacrifices are not simply ritualistic acts. They are deeply intertwined with the intent (k’vanna) to pursue justice and right wrongs, differentiating them from mere offerings. This highlights a legal and ethical framework wherein Moshe first anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach; it explains the connection between the revelation of the Mishkan with the pursuit of judicial justice through logically juxtaposing the Torah mitzva of sacrifices against the Torah mitzva to pursue justice.
The understanding of korbanot not as mere rituals but as essential acts tied to the pursuit of justice brings a critical perspective on their religious significance. The intentionality behind these actions (k’vanna) focuses on justice and ethical behavior which has nothing to do with the NT “forgiveness of sin as the salvation of Mankind”.
LikeLike