Germans V Greeks... where are the Jews?

                                                                                        B-H

Recently, I received a link on WhatsApp to a YouTube video featuring an old Monty Python comedy sketch. For most of my life, I consciously chose not to own a TV, even in my old years in Poland. My parents, on the other hand, had two televisions at one point. I vividly remember when they bought their first one, around 1970 or 1971.

However, there was a time when I did get a TV, and one of the shows I truly enjoyed was Monty Python. I wouldn’t recommend it to my more frum readers, as I generally advise against watching TV altogether. Monty Python’s humor is unique, and to appreciate the depth of their films or sketches, one must be quite familiar with general culture.

The video I’m referring to is only three and a half minutes long. In it, the performers depict a hypothetical soccer match between Germans and Greeks. The players are not typical soccer players—except for Franz Beckenbauer, who was a real athlete in the 1970s. The German team includes the likes of Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Schelling, Jaspers, Beckenbauer (for fun of it), Schlegel, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. At one point, Wittgenstein is replaced by a vigorous Karl Marx. The Greek team is made up of Plato, Epictetus, Aristotle, Sophocles, Empedocles, Plotinus, Epicurus, Heraclitus, Democritus, Socrates, and Archimedes. I can’t help but miss one of my favorites, Diogenes, though I suppose Monty Python had their own criteria for selecting the players.

The only non-European on the field is the main referee, Confucius, with St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas serving as the two side referees.

At one point in my life, I familiarized myself with the writings of nearly all the philosophers mentioned. Some I read directly, while for others, I turned to summaries and analyses of their philosophies. I began with the Greek philosophers and later moved on to the Germans and others.

It’s clear that many nations have contributed significantly to the field of philosophy—French, Russian, British, and Italian philosophers have all made their mark. Poland, with its Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, has its own representation. But no other nation has produced enough philosophers to form a full team, at least not in the same way the Germans and Greeks have. Perhaps Arab philosophers could easily form such a team, but they are often overlooked by the Eurocentric mindset.

There is another group of philosophers—recognised in the academic world but largely unknown to the public, and I don’t mean masses—whom I would like to mention: Jewish philosophers. Some of them lived in Europe and include figures such as Saadia Gaon (technically Asian), Yitzhak ben Yosef, Abraham bar Hiyya, Maimonides, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yehuda Halevi, Nachmanides, Shlomo Ibn Gabriol, Bahya ibn Pakuda, Yona of Gerona, Levi ben Gershon, Hasdai Crescas, Yosef Albo and many others. This list is far from exhaustive, and it’s fascinating to think that we could form a strong Iberian team of Jewish philosophers. But there is more - Gershom ben Yehuda (Or Hageula), Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh), Yakov ben Asher (Tur). Yosef Caro (Remu), Yehuda Loev of Prague,  Akiva Eiger, Israel ben Eliezer, Shneur Zalman of Liady, Nachman of Breslov, Elimelech of Lizansk, Chaim of Sanc, Yechezkel of Shenava, Symcha Bunim of Przysha, Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Yisrael Meir Kagan, Eliahu Dessler…we can go on and on and on and we listed not even the part of the major personalities on this possible list, lechavdil to the previous list. We can definitely make our own Olympics.

These philosophers are known not only for their vast knowledge but also for their ability to intertwine multiple disciplines, from law and ethics to mysticism (Kabbalah) and philosophy (Hakira and Hashkafa). The depth and breadth of their works are unparalleled, and their writings reflect an integration of revelation with reason, making their contributions distinct from their non-Jewish counterparts. We are not even going back to the wisdom of Talmudic Sages as I want to stick with Europe.

It’s fun to imagine the greatest minds in history playing sports, and the Monty Python sketch captures this in a humorous way. After the referee’s whistle, instead of playing soccer, the philosophers wander off, some in pairs discussing abstract ideas, others lost in their own thoughts, all while dressed in the attire of their respective eras.

Chazal (our sages) appreciate wisdom from outside our own tradition. There are elements in the wisdom of other nations that we can learn from, which is why halacha reflects a respect for older individuals and scholars. The Maharal, for instance, limits the concept of Chochma Umois Oilom (wisdom of the nations of the world) primarily to the discipline of rhetoric, the art of speech for speech’s sake. Jewish speculation, however, must always have a practical application. Even Kabbalah, Hakira, and Hashkafa ultimately serve to guide our decision-making in the real world.

While non-Jewish philosophers, such as the German existentialists and the classical Greeks, also aimed to connect philosophy with real-life applications, figures like Francis Bacon and John Locke laid the foundations for the social order. But it was the Americans who took these ideas and "kicked the ball" forward.

For millennia, Jews have been "kicking the ball," though the world often doesn’t recognize it. This unfamiliarity with our wisdom can be attributed to two factors: isolationism and exceptionalism. While isolationism results from the persecution Jews have faced throughout history, exceptionalism stems from a sense of mission and the belief that we are different by divine mandate.

This mission is central to our identity, but the challenge arises when this sense of mission veers into a feeling of superiority, something our most humble leaders, like Moshe Rabbeinu, cautioned against.

One of the most jarring experiences I had was studying the history of the Warsaw Ghetto and its uprising. I was deeply shocked by the image of a carousel that operated during the final days of the Ghetto, as Jews were being slaughtered just inside the Ghetto. The disturbing reality was the indifference of those living just beyond the walls, enjoying a peaceful, normal life while horrific atrocities occurred so close by. It echoed a chilling theme of dehumanization, a concept that has haunted history and continues to be relevant today.

Although I am not deeply involved in social media, I use WhatsApp and YouTube to stay connected with family and friends. WhatsApp, in particular, has become a vital tool for maintaining communication, especially with family members, which is crucial for someone like me who travels extensively. Through WhatsApp, I also receive status updates from Jewish users, including advertisements for organized trips to Holy Land. One such trip included stops at major Jewish sites Koisel, Keiver Ruchel, Maaras HaMakpeila, Meron and few other crucial to the Jewish awareness places., except for one unexpected inclusion: the Gaza Border.

Apparently, the Gaza border has now become an official tourist attraction for visitors from abroad. I had heard that, during past conflicts, some individuals even brought folding chairs to the area, as though attending a parade—similar to how people might enjoy a festive event in an American town on the Fourth of July. Seeing this was deeply unsettling to me. It immediately reminded me of the image of the carousel just outside the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto, where, in the midst of unspeakable suffering, some seemed to carry on with their lives as if nothing was amiss or even worse, like this is some kind of entertaining event. I found myself asking: Should I be shocked now, as we observe our nation drifting so far from the ideals our leaders preserved for us, values that we have long cherished as our greatest treasure: the sanctity of human life, dignity, and the right to live in freedom and peace?

Manufacturing Consent

                                                                                                 B-H

Rav Dessler highlights that the insatiable hunger for possessions and gluttony can eventually be satisfied. A person may reach a point where they can no longer eat, sleep in more beds, or drive more cars; there simply aren't enough days in the month to wear all those $500,000 watches. This individual will inevitably hit their peak—or their nadir.

In contrast, the hunger for power is never truly satiated. The thrill of dominating others is endless, only halted by history itself when it stops the conqueror in their quest for control. I intentionally avoid the gender-neutral "his/her" expression, as this issue predominantly affects men. Mothers typically do not grapple with this problem, as power is bestowed upon them in the most beautiful and productive manner.

A man seeking domination will immerse himself in environments that allow him to fulfill this hunger, whether in business, educational institutions, or more commonly, through military careers or political ambitions. However, there exists another avenue to satisfy the desire for dominance: a career in the media.

Even without political or rank power, a propagandist wields the ability to manipulate not only the populace but also politicians, military leaders, and billionaires. A brief digression: consider billionaires who cannot utilize more than they have acquired yet still crave more. While Rav Dessler does not address this, it is evident that these gluttons, after indulging in their obsession with possession, experience both a hunger for ownership and a hunger for power. For them, money equates to the power of domination, enabling them to purchase politicians, countries, armies, and, of course, mass media.

Once power-hungry individuals find themselves in a position of absolute or near-absolute superiority, they begin to reshape the world according to their whims. The thrill of playing god—deciding who lives and who dies, who suffers by fire and who by water, who faces hunger and who meets execution by rule of new law or military action—becomes intoxicating.

Yet, the fundamental truth remains, people generally wish to stay alive and, more broadly, want others to live as well. Those who travel and encounter diverse groups—people of various religions, ethnicities, and intellects—tend to be more aware of humanity's positive traits.

By the grace of G-d, I travel and meet fellow travelers. I read memoirs from both contemporary and historical travelers. Acts of violence are rare; most travelers experience hospitality from those speaking unfamiliar languages and belonging to unknown civilizations.

Those susceptible to propaganda live in fear of nearly everyone. From the days of storytellers captivating villagers with thrilling and sometimes terrifying tales to today's media, which perpetuates fear every moment. Stories or braking bread, helping in trouble, barter exchange or sharing ideas or even technologies are too boring. Horror and terror sell. Stories of danger targeting you or your loved ones are often employed by the powerful to manipulate or pacify the masses.

However, power-hungry individuals can also entice you with promises to garner your support. Rav Hirsch, in his essay commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Leipzig Battle, notes that Bonaparte, a bloody conqueror, understood that by promising the nations of Europe "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," he could garner more support than through mere suppression. He also exploited the fear of the enemy to bolster support for his excesses, a tactic that remains relevant—carrot and stick.

Hitler, may his name be blotted out, employed a similar strategy, albeit with more sophisticated propaganda. His deep-seated antisemitism is unquestionable, yet it is less known that for several years after becoming Führer, he refrained from mentioning Jews in his speeches. Discussing race differences was acceptable, and some separation was tolerated. The emigration of Jews from the Reich was seen as permissible if they wished to establish their own country.

In the early years of the Nazi regime, propaganda focused on organizing the mass emigration of Jews from Germany. Zionists seized this opportunity, first raising awareness about the prosperous developments in Palestine and then establishing the necessary infrastructure for resettlement—bureaus, banks, and legislative support. Unfortunately, this often meant that Jews had to leave most of their possessions behind, and if allowed to take more, it had to be in the form of German-made products to support the German economy. This was the initial Nazi solution, aimed at maintaining calm among the broader German society during the early persecution of Jews.

It is important to note that the Nazis had already established their identity by this time; they did not only become Nazis upon the construction of gas chambers. Implementing discriminatory laws and regulations against other residents in the same territory is indicative of Nazi behavior.

Simultaneously, concentration camps were established, initially for political dissidents—communists, socialists, and pacifists of various creeds. Jews were viewed as the primary proponents of the "wicked" philosophy of pacifism, which contradicted the prevailing notion of "survival of the fittest."

Soon, a secret euthanasia program targeting the physically and mentally disabled was implemented, with parents often misled into believing their children died of natural causes. This was part of a calculated effort to gauge how much criminal behavior the German populace could tolerate.

Years of manufacturing consent, as noted by Reb Avraham Noam, ensued among the German and European populations. Controlling a conquered population through ethnic or religious minorities is not a novel concept; it has occurred across continents and throughout history. Jews have sometimes been used as tools of oppression, as seen in Polish-dominated Ukraine, but more often, they served as scapegoats for societal problems.

Following a series of anti-Jewish laws that restricted the rights of Jewish citizens in Germany, the time came for roundups and mass deportations. Initially, it was not the German Jews who faced this fate, as justifying such actions against them would have been difficult to accept by German Society. Instead, the focus was on immigrants.

Roundups began in the early fall of 1938, primarily targeting Polish Jews living in Germany, some of whom had resided there for most of their lives. They were detained, placed on trains, and sent back to Poland, which was grappling with its own antisemitic fervor—boycotts, legislation, and pogroms were the grim realities for Jews in Poland, who had lived there for generations, even before the nation existed.

 

Poland refused to allow its citizens returning from Germany to cross the border. In the cold, rainy months of October and November, thousands of families found themselves stranded between the Polish and German borders, suffering and dying in the process.

Voices of sympathy emerged from both German and Polish societies, and deportation became increasingly unpopular. There was a genuine risk that the Nazis would lose support for this aspect of their policies. Yet, they were already preparing for the next phase of their plan, needing only a trigger to set events in motion. That trigger was pulled by Hershel Grynszpan at the German embassy in Paris, resulting in the death of German dignitary von Rath, who was himself somewhat anti-Nazi.

Hitler and Goering, may their names be blotted out, declared von Rath a victim of Jewish oppression and terrorism, announcing a day of wrath—Kristallnacht. The murder of the diplomat was deemed sufficient justification for the destruction of Jewish public buildings, private businesses, and the murder of numerous Jews in Germany.

Some may argue that this response was disproportionate, yet no Germans protested. Even those who understood the situation were too intimidated by the Nazi regime's grip to voice dissent publicly. This grip was not solely a product of political organization and police structures; it was by then deeply rooted in the German psyche.

Years of propaganda—through press articles, speeches, and films—conditioned the German, European, and American populations to compliance or indifference. Every crime committed by a Jew was amplified in the public eye. After ensuring that no written or spoken resistance would emerge, lies were fabricated to portray the "other," particularly the Jew, in the most grotesque manner imaginable.

This is how those hungry for power consumed the soul of the people. In the ensuing years, propaganda intensified but never reached a level that allowed for open acknowledgment of the mass murder of Jews and others in death factories. Everything was justified by war, as humanity has long been conditioned to accept that while individual killings are wrong, when powerful interests are at stake, people must die, and mass murder becomes a grim necessity.

For the rest of us, it is always framed in terms of holy faith, our land, our culture, our way of life, and our freedom. The Nazis operated under a sense of superiority. Embracing Darwinism as their worldview, they viewed themselves not only as superior and deserving of more but also as victims of a system created by Jews—Jews who proclaimed that all people are created equal and come from the same origins.

Unfortunately, the hunger for power is not an extinct phenomenon. Post-Holocaust philosophers and thinkers briefly gained prominence, leading to some positive advancements in the aftermath of European, Asian and American societal ruins. International courts of justice and the United Nations emerged to help diffuse conflicts and assist victims, embodying the commandment given to nations to establish systems of justice. While never perfect, this system was far superior to the unchecked hegemony of the early 20th century.

Observing a head of state banging their shoe on a podium or calling each other names may be entertaining, as it reveals the true character of these psychopaths and likely saves many lives. However, this imperfect system of justice is being dismantled before our eyes.

We are witnessing the erosion of international courts, paving the way for new bloodthirsty hegemons who seek control through human suffering. The shifting of borders, the establishment of disparate rules for populations on the same land, expulsions, and mass murder are realities that, if we do not close our eyes and ears or dull our consciences, will undoubtedly rob many of us of sleep.

By the grace of G-d, I have previously written on the value of human life. For those who have made it this far in my essay but cannot access my earlier works, I will reiterate: a society that values human existence less than land, government, buildings, or places of worship is no longer a human society. People willing to sacrifice their own to maintain control over land—regardless of its sanctity—are doomed to catastrophe. How it is different than human sacrifices of Canaanites of old?

Of course, there are situations where someone may be compelled to kill, steal, or take away another's freedom. In such cases, we are justified in responding, even if it results in the tragedy of taking a human life. However, we must always remember that it is a tragedy and strive, like our father Yaakov, to avoid such outcomes by any means possible.

Organizing society based on the principles of Eisav (Esau) is not our path. Rav Dessler, in the final years of his life, warned that some of us are inadvertently nurturing the spirit of Eisav (Esau). The question remains: what is our role in this nurturing as individuals? How much of our behavior is driven by conscious choices, and how much is a result of conditioning over generations? Rav Dessler asserts that most people are followers, a notion few wish to accept. We all believe our worldviews and decision-making tools are independently developed, while others are propagandized and brainwashed. Yet, I find Rav Dessler's perspective to be profoundly accurate. This gives me hope, as our sages unanimously agree that no matter how far we stray, a root of truth remains, ready to nurture the growth of truth once more

L'Chaim

                                                                   B"H

I will not finish this essay today, as it is a complex topic that is difficult to convey for many reasons. One major reason is my expectation of resistance to the idea that was once fundamental to the majority of our people—the value of human life, the existence of each individual.

Today is a significant day on my personal calendar. For many years, I have been deeply involved with the topic of Noah’s Mabul (Flood). B"H, I have spent extensive time conducting geological research in the western deserts, mountain trails, and Alaskan glaciers. My personal discoveries on this subject are valuable, and I believe, with further development by specialists, they may alter some scientific perspectives.

Thus, the Mabul has become very personal to me. I don’t know anyone else in the Orthodox world with comparable work in this area. However, in this essay, I will not focus on the “natural” aspects of the Mabul but will instead explore the moral reason behind this catastrophic event and the extinction that followed.

Today marks the second day of Chanukah, the 25th of Kislev, the anniversary of the last day of the 40 days of unprecedented rain during the Mabul. The Torah tells us:

"וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְנֹ֗חַ קֵ֤ץ כׇּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֛רֶץ חָמָ֖ס מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהִנְנִ֥י מַשְׁחִיתָ֖ם אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
"The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and I will destroy them from the earth."

Rav Dessler notes that Onkelos translates the word חָמָס (violence) as "snatching, grasping, seizing." In Rav Dessler's words, it is the "power of taking." This could be likened to legislation that allows a self-appointed “superior” class to direct the fruits of the working class into their own pockets and stock portfolios. However, this essay is not about the injustices of capitalism. Rather, we will explore why taking something that rightfully belongs to another is a form of killing.

In our reality, we operate on the principle of Midah Keneged Midah—measure for measure. The annihilation of humanity in the Mabul would be a disproportionate consequence (punishment) if taking material advantage from the underprivileged were not considered a form of taking someone's life.

Our work, the products of our hands, express our being. The fruits of our labor are an extension of ourselves. This is why Halachic principles of monetary reparations exist, even for injuries or death. In my previous essay, I discussed the prohibition against terminating human life. Outside of Halacha, it is completely prohibited. For centuries, this framework has not been part of our immediate reality, but it remains fundamental. For those who prefer simplicity—killing is prohibited, both for Jews and non-Jews.

Jewish commentators explain that even harsh behavior, language, or public shaming can be considered a form of killing. For more on this, see my essay on the Prohibition of Killing.

As we have already established, any form of stealing can also be seen as a form of taking a person's life. Sometimes, the theft is literal—taking someone's possessions can lead to their literal death. Denying justice or failing to provide necessary sustenance to someone unable to care for themselves is also a form of killing.

This point should not need further explanation. However, to illustrate it: if you were to deny a person a transplant—such as a heart—you would be participating in their death. If you think that is not so, it may be that you need such a transplant. A pig’s heart would suffice, at least it's flesh.

But why? Why is human life of such superior value?

Because G-d says so.

For some, this might be enough, but it has been over 4,100 years since G-d proclaimed to mankind the prohibition against killing. And yet, not only does mankind fail to heed this divine command, but we also allow psychopathic leaders to emerge—leaders who devalue human life. Worse still, entire economies thrive by manufacturing and selling tools of destruction and death.

Governments that claim to operate "by the people, for the people" sometimes prove to be little more than merchants of death, publicly boasting of their success in selling arms mass-produced by private companies. In many cases, these weapons are funded by the taxes of ordinary citizens.

The same individuals who campaign for our votes every few years to legitimize their positions—who, once elected, begin searching for new cash flows to fund their next bids—are complicit in the perpetuation of violence. Meanwhile, entire societies, at best, remain indifferent or, at worst, actively support the killing that happens around them.

"I can’t do anything, I’m too small." This cry of helplessness is familiar to me. But others say, "It’s war." In other words, wholesale killing somehow makes it more acceptable than individual killing. A poet might say, "When fighting the Devil, killing is good." But this reasoning fails to recognize the value of each individual life.

We are not all total monsters. There are examples where concern is expressed over the psychological toll of mass killing—where soldiers suffer from the trauma of killing babies. Himmler, Y-SH, had to personally address the Einsatzgruppen, explaining why they had to kill Jewish children—children who, he claimed, would grow up to oppress them. In other wars, soldiers were provided with means to release the psychological tension created by the violence they inflicted in form of female cuspidors. Some others, in recent massacres, became so affected by their actions that they turned to vegetarianism, unable to stomach the "human meat" they had been forced to create under the tracks of their tanks and bulldozers.

This is the world we live in.

I will not delve further into these examples, as I know the questions that will arise: What about the Nazis? What about the Communist regimes? What about those who claim to fight "for a greater cause"? Yes, these questions carry weight. But we will leave them for another discussion.

Here, I want to emphasize why the value of human life is superior to all else in this reality, and why its termination can only be justified under extraordinary circumstances. Historically, the Court of Law (Bais Din) with proper smicha (authority) was part of this reality and life could be ended only by the decision of Bais Din.

Why is human life of such value?

G-d created man and the universe as His home, to bestow love and give. There was no necessity for creation, but there was a possibility, as Rav Dessler explains. The essential aspect of man’s creation was free will—a gift that reflects the Creator’s own freedom.

There is, of course, a profound difference between the free will of the Omnipotent Creator and the limited, confused will of man. Nevertheless, Adam knew the truth at the beginning, and his potential for error was a choice of illusion. With his choice, humanity descended into confusion, where the possibility of a wrongdoing emerged.

Humanity could have been annihilated at that point, but the Creator offered another path—a path to rectify the relationship with Him. By rejecting wrong and choosing doing right, mankind could find the path to truth, as Ramchal writes in Derech Hashem.

The story of mankind has not been a simple one. After 1,656 years, the world had to be "remodeled," and humanity was given a new start. The emergence of Avraham marked a new possibility—one that began to shape a community of ethical monotheists. But it was only his seed who eventually became the spiritual leaders of humanity. But even though this journey was not about them alone, it was always about all of mankind.

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch explains that humanity's plural nature, as represented by the 70 nations, brings collective characteristics that contribute to the advancement of human civilization. Rav Dessler discusses the beauty and necessity of every individual’s presence. The Ramchal in Derech Hashem explains the path humanity must take to regain moral awareness of the Creator.

Three times a day, we say the prayer "Aleinu." If your Hebrew is insufficient, please refer to a translation. This prayer has always been about mankind and us humbly serving humanity by shining the light on the path to truth. This is what makes us Am HaNivchar.

Without a doubt, leaders have a different level of spiritual achievement than those who are led. But each individual builds their own level of spiritual accomplishment. Every person is born into this world with a set of moral choices. This is the reason for our existence. (Derech Hashem, Mivtach mi Eliayhu)

Taking away that life—whether through murder, suicide, kidnapping, enslavement, abuse, conquer, control, mental control, lies, manipulation, propaganda or any other means—cuts off or limits a person’s free will. These are the "kley hamas - tools of violence," tools and domain of Eisav.

This is only a short list of tools interfering with the goal of Creator of making every human being in His image, as explained above. Doing, participating or supporting any of those actions makes us immediately enemies of G-d.

Now.

Supporting life, freedom, the dignity of every individual, the value of every individual, restraining from turning human being into tools of pleasure or tools in general, standing always for truth is our most important religious act. These are the principles of Yaakov. If any other so-called religious acts compromise these principles, we are serving our ego, not G-d. In such cases, we are consuming proverbial opium to calm our conscience. We may be part of religion, but we have no true relationship with G-d. That relationship can only be developed by extending love to our fellow human beings, as both Buber and Rav Dessler have taught.

If the cost of our service to G-d involves committing a crime against any human—whether directly or indirectly—we must carefully examine our paths. The same holds true if we are using others as mere tools for our religious experience; in that case, our actions are motivated by self-interest, not by a true relationship with G-d or a genuine concern for our fellow man.

None of the ideas presented in this essay are my own. They are the result of my deep engagement with the writings of Jewish prophets and sages, B’H.

To those who may point out that this essay does not align with Halachah, particularly in terms of its high moral standards, I say this: Without a doubt, we are all required to follow the Halachic framework. However, we must also understand that the purpose of Halachah is not simply to limit us, but to provide a platform that allows us to rise and achieve greater moral and spiritual heights.

Our adherence to Halachah shapes us as a nation, and following its Hashkafah (philosophical principles) makes us a holy people.

Gaza - Final Solution?

                                                                                                         B-H

Let me share a glimpse of my background. I was born and raised in a country with a unique history, a nation that endured the loss of its independence for an extended period, subjugated by various empires over time. This nation survived primarily through its literature and the preservation of its once-glorious past. Its people were seen as “messiah for nations”, revered by their most significant bards, almost like prophets to their fellow citizens.

These downtrodden masses faced numerous attempts to reclaim their independence, all of which were met with brutal persecution and oppression. Then, a miracle occurred—not so much as a supernatural event, but rather a fortunate alignment of historical circumstances and the lobbying efforts of advocates for this new country. Who can truly delineate where the natural ends and the supernatural begins?

Before this transformation, troops began to assemble, eventually evolving into a regular army. Armed conflicts ensued, but with support from Western governments, the country was established, and its administration took shape. A new era dawned for this once-oppressed nation, marking the beginning of its second republic.

While technically a democratic nation, there were always those "others" present. They had been there for a long time, yet their language and religion differed from ours. The nation sought unity, as its citizens were previously citizens of various countries. The presence of these "others" became a significant obstacle in this endeavor. Some advocated for their integration, while others favored separation. Ultimately, the latter prevailed, relegating the "others" to second-class citizens in the very land where they had lived for generations.

Externally, threats loomed. Neighboring countries were hostile, and from the outset, our nation had to engage in wars for its independence. We triumphed and expanded our territory, which brought more "others" into the fold, complicating the internal strife. However, the phenomenon of new nations gaining independence during that era was not entirely unique; it was, in fact, quite common. The prevalent situation during that period involved nations establishing strong military forces and shaping their identities around these armed services.

The soldier became the epitome of national pride, with elite army units representing the pinnacle of excellence. The might of the military was celebrated publicly, with media coverage highlighting the army's growth and patriotic literature gaining popularity. Military parades became a staple of public life, showcasing soldiers with their polished weapons and heavy military equipment, all for the masses to admire.

The public revered the military for its strength, discipline, and the synchronized movements of its marching troops. These soldiers were seen as heroes, capable of defending the homeland and vanquishing enemies. Military songs resonated with the troops, and their catchy melodies permeated the general populace, even reaching the "others," who adopted these tunes within their communities, as music knows no borders.

A spirit of love for the land flourished, fostering a willingness to sacrifice for the country, the state, and the soil—an ideal cultivated as the highest value of the nation. G-d Himself designated this land as a homeland. The military parade became a significant event in the life of cities and towns, serving as entertainment in an era when mass media was limited to print, with radio still out of reach for many. It was, aside from street performances and traveling theaters, perhaps the only visual entertainment available, especially in small towns.

The impact on the populace, particularly on boys of all ages, was profound. They aspired to emulate the admired soldiers they watched, while still often holding their fathers' hands. For those advocating for the integration of the "others" into society, enlisting their youth into the army was seen as a crucial step toward achieving that goal. Years of discipline and nationalistic indoctrination were believed to facilitate this integration.

Conversely, those opposed to integration viewed the existence of the "others" as a threat to national unity, seeking various obstacles to impede the process and advocating for the mass emigration of these "strangers." They considered themselves civilized and moral, insisting that any emigration be called voluntary.

Regardless, the frequent military parades served as preparatory tools for achieving national objectives. Janek (Yanek) and Franek stood on the sidewalk, watching the marching soldiers while holding their children. Nearby, Piotrek and Valenty observed from their porches, also with their families. The "others" were present too—Moishe with his sons and Yitzchok with his offspring—unaware that the parade impacted their children just as it did the children of their Polish neighbors.

If you haven't yet realized which country I refer to, it is Poland.

If it seems that another place resembles this narrative, if you got a filling that some other place looks like copy and paste…yeah, perhaps it was copied and pasted. Though I was born much later, I lived among people who shared stories of life in previous generations. I spoke with older Poles and interviewed many Polish Jews, capturing the reality I have described. You can conduct your own research to find not only written accounts but also pictorial evidence. The spirit of nationalism and militarism has dominated European philosophy for decades. Polish military parades were not the first to march through the streets of small towns.

When Zionist agitators arrived in cities and towns, they easily captured the attention and imagination of Jewish youth, presenting a new nationalist gospel. They promised not only land but also the opportunity to build it in a model familiar to the younger generation of Jews in Poland and other Central European nations—a nationalistic society centered around military strength, with the "others" merely existing to be treated similarly or worse than the Jewish population in Europe just before.

This ideology emerged among many others, where blood and soil were deemed superior to all else. At times, it appears that the Zionist state is a parody of other nationalistic countries in Central Europe. Their relentless pursuit of "Lebensraum" and "drang nach osten" reveals staggering similarities. It would be a parody if it were somehow diminished compared to its formidable predecessor, Nazi Germany, but at this moment, it stands on the same level or worse; it is merely European fascism that has outlasted any other fascist regime from its origin.

Yes, there are no gas chambers for the Palestinian people. Those who believe that Nazism began only after the Wannsee Conference know little about history and, quite frankly, lack compassion.

I am indifferent to what some readers of this essay may think or say about me.

Quite frankly – I don’t care.

Beezras Hashem, I have laid out my beliefs over the years on this blog and elsewhere. I have demonstrated my loyalty to Hashem, His Torah, and His people in a manner rare in this generation. Those who know me personally well understand this.

However, I cannot remain silent while my people spiral into madness. When my people lose their way, we all pay the price. Just read the Prophets; just read the Sages ZT’L. I cannot keep quiet now, as the original nationalistic secular ideology, by design, intertwines with messianic fervor, dulling the conscience shaped by thousands of years of moral and ethical study. Once again, in our history, we have lost our way by placing our hope in something other than HBH or, worse, using Him as a tool for a murderous ideology, reducing the Almighty G-d to a national trinket a getchke.

I joined the Children of Yisrael on the premise that, as Rav S.R. Hirsch states, it is the law that grants me citizenship, not citizenship that bestows rights. As a Jew, I possess the right to weep when I can no longer contain my voice and tears.

To those who cite Talmudic statements about the ger who aligns with enemies merely due to a sense of alliance, listen to me. Long before I formally converted to Judaism, I concluded that human life is of paramount value—more valuable than anything else in this earthly existence, more than prosperity, more than country and soil. Is this radical?

It was not to the Uvois (Avot) or to the holy men of our people. If you seek a deeper understanding of the value of human life according to the Torah, and if the commandment not to kill is insufficient, please refer to Rav Dessler's essay on the topic of suicide; it offers excellent explanations among others. Beezras Hashem, I will endeavor to revisit this topic in the future, exploring why life is superior to anything else.

I was relieved to escape the toxic mindset imposed on me since childhood. I was grateful to break free from the chains of patriotic thinking, where value lay in killing and sacrificing one's life and well-being for the idea of the country. If you believe that in Judaism, I am merely seeking validation for my preconceived notions, please consider this: around the same time in my life, I concluded that the fundamental powers of the human body, which can be exploited in any circumstance, should be confined to the family structure. Specifically, our sexual lives should occur solely between husband and wife. Yes, I later found this reflected in The Book and among those who live by it. But it was also preconceived. Why? It is part of my personal journey with Boire Oilom. Would anyone disregard that conviction simply because it developed long before I encountered the teachings of the Torah?

Despite the rampant antisemitism surrounding me, I was able to discern right from wrong. I sharpened my understanding of Tzedakah and Mishpat, largely on my own but with remarkable guidance from HBH. With that Divine guidance, I found people who valued life more than any other nation in the world. People who, as Rav Hirsch noted, had not shed human blood for nearly eighteen hundred years, often paying for this moral high ground with their own blood and that of their children. They resorted to self-defense only when necessary, refraining from waging war against any nation, as it is prohibited and a matter of the oath—a covenant with G-d imposed on the nation after the last revolt, as recorded in the Talmud.

With G-d’s guidance, I joined the people who gave the world the Law and conscience. Even though this Law calls for capital punishment, it has rarely been enacted for over two thousand years. The people of Yisrael, whose judges made every effort to preserve life, even when the criminal was undeniably guilty. Their ancient kings were judged not by the number of dead but by their fidelity to the Law. Even the one who inspired humanity with his timeless poetry was admonished by the prophet for shedding human blood—David HaMelech.

It took my entire youth to seek out and find the people of Tzedakah and Mishpat, and I solidified my convictions within the framework of Halacha. The circumstances were not favorable, but I joined the holy people of Yisrael and was embraced by them. All of them are my people—those in Mea Shearim or Monsey, and those in Givatayim or Varanasi. They are all my beloved brothers and sisters.

It tears my heart apart; I bleed and weep through sleepless nights, witnessing the state of my people today. It is not merely a matter of stealing from others in a frenzy of nationalism; it is not just the ongoing bloodshed and harm to the dignity and well-being of others to establish and maintain the state. It is also the dehumanization of the "others," akin to what Europeans inflicted upon Jews over millennia, culminating in the Holocaust. As the wise say, dehumanizing others dehumanizes us equally. Violence inevitably follows.

Now, we witness grotesque and unprecedented violence. If anyone wishes to understand why I use such language, I invite you to read my other essays. They will help clarify my sources—the spiritual ones.

For most of my life, I believed that religion elevates a person above spiritual indifference. I will not delve into the debate over the causes of past wars and bloodshed, as I am acutely aware of how emotional issues surrounding our beliefs can be manipulated by the rulers and politicians of this world. This is not the time for that.

I once believed that religion instills values otherwise absent from a person's conscience. Yes, I recognize that an agnostic can possess moral convictions that may place them in a better moral position than someone who identifies as religious. However, I grapple with this notion today. What if someone commits crimes out of love for the Supreme or superior values as they perceive them? The Torah is clear on this matter, but evidently not to all my coreligionists.

Should I tell them to abandon their religion if it instructs them to kill, steal, mistreat, create widows and orphans, treat humans as cattle or subjects, and support the atrocities we have endured throughout history? Should I urge them to renounce it and instead become nonbelievers if it saves a life? The prevalence of this crime and the associated falsehoods are apparent to everyone, including those we have hastily labeled as antisemites. Because, in addition to the natural, Divinely imprinted sense of justice, we have taught them "right and wrong" over millennia.

To those who approach me with the usual lines and talking points, please do not attempt to gaslight me with "self-defense," Amalek, and other nonsense. Anyone familiar with Zionist ideology from its inception knows that the conquest, control, and expulsion of the indigenous population from Palestine were integral to that ideology. A few exceptions existed where some Zionists proposed peaceful coexistence with the indigenous and neighboring peoples, like Martin Buber, but ultimately, even he—a prominent European philosopher—was marginalized and ostracized by the Zionist establishment.

There are sources to learn from—not from late apologists of that ideology but from its early writers and ideologists. Do not fear; their writings will not diminish you if you already support any actions of the Zionist state. If you believe that any of these actions, please your god, I think I can say this: leave him and first become human, as Rav Hirsch advises.

“Now, had Scripture not told us here that Avraham was ninety nine old when the covenant of Milah - which is the founding covenant of Judaism - was established with him, we would have thought that all of Avraham's virtues, of which we have learned until now, were the result of the covenant established with him in his youth, and that the whole flowering of this covenant consisted in these virtues. In fact, however, they all preceded the covenant of Milah. The full attainment of purely humane virtues preceded the mitzvah stated here: וֶהְיֵ֥ה תָמִֽים . The covenant of Avraham is a higher perfection of the humane virtues. The inference is twofold: On the one hand, "Be a mensch, a decent human being, before you attempt to be a Jew." First acquire all the humane virtues; only then can you become a Jew. On the other hand, you are not yet a Jew if you have reached only the level attained by Avraham until this point. A person who is compassionate, forgiving, and benevolent qualities demonstrated by Avraham until this point is merely the embodiment of the ideal Noachide.”

To regain your status as a Jew, one must engage deeply with the teachings and commentaries of our tradition. Following this essay, I will present extensive quotations and analyses from Hirsch’s Chumash. While some may argue that Hirsch's opinions are merely his own and that there are numerous commentaries offering alternative perspectives, it is essential to recognize the principle of Ailu Ve Ailu. However, in my understanding, one Ailu can often be reconciled with another.

There are also opinions that, while recorded, were never accepted, and others that are outright heretical. Hirsch’s Hashkafa stands out for its clarity and its ability to align with all Divrey Chazal, to the best of my knowledge.

For the sake of argument, let us hypothetically consider that what he writes may be beyond the pale—ideas that cannot be taken seriously because they contradict other logical interpretations based on Scripture and Divrey Chazal. It is indeed true that this Holy Book has been misused by dictators and murderers throughout history to justify their heinous acts. Some liken it to a fiddle, which can be played to produce any melody one desires. It is a fact that pasukim can be manipulated, taken out of context, and distorted into a scriptural Frankenstein to support every conceivable sin.

Ultimately, how one utilizes the Torah reveals more about the individual than about the Torah itself. If anyone, regardless of their stature, presents a "logic" that contradicts the ideas expressed below, I would prefer to stand "wrong" with Hirsch rather than be "right" with the majority.

Genesis chapter 12

“Avraham appears merely as an individual who is told: "Go your own way, dare to be alone." In verse 2- וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל the nation already appears, but not yet in the context of interaction with other nations. Then, verse 3 – וַאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ shows Israel in its relationship with other nations: The blessing of Avraham is made dependent on others blessing him, and there are also those who dare to curse him.

Avraham's task was to isolate himself, to walk alone with God. The second stage was the creation of a nation out of this Avraham. It was destined to become apparent that the existence of this nation is a second act of creation by God in history, and toward this end it was necessary that Israel become a nation only by way of Golus (exile) and Geirus (homelessness), without a homeland. Had Israel, from the very beginning, dwelled in its own land, its creation would not have appeared as אֶצְבַּ֥ע אֱלֹהִֽים or as  מעשה ה'

וַאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה שְׁמֶ֑ךָ "And I wish to make your name great." Scripture does not say: "I will make your name great." God can bless people and nations, but He can only wish that they will attain moral virtue and that their deeds will be exemplary, for that depends on their faithfulness to the Divine Law. Similarly, Scripture does not say והיית ברכה or ותהיה ברכה "And you will be a blessing" but, rather: " וֶהְיֵ֖ה בְּרָכָֽה "Become a blessing." These two Hebrew words capsulize the whole moral mission on whose accomplishment the fulfillment of God's own wish depends: "I wish to your name great; therefore, you, become a blessing! I wish to make of you a nation that will be a beacon to the nations, a nation to which the others need only look in order to become aware of their own tasks. And the task that is assigned to you as distinct from the aspirations of all other nations - is: to become a blessing!" Everyone aspires, not להיות ברכה but להיות ברוכים to be blessed. This is the aspiration of every person and especially of every nation. Honesty, humanity, and love are duties incumbent upon the individual, but are regarded as folly in relations between nations and are viewed as unimportant by statesmen and politicians. Individuals are imprisoned and hanged for the crimes of fraud and murder, but countries murder and defraud on a grand scale, and those who murder and defraud "in the interest of the state" are decorated and rewarded.

Not like these is the portion of Avraham. The nation of Avraham is to have no national politics and no national economics. The One Who guaranteed its national welfare does not need to allocate funds, form coalitions, or conclude treaties. At His command are rain and sunshine, strength and life, power and victory. אִם־בְּחֻקֹּתַ֖י תֵּלֵ֑כוּ then all will go well. In the midst of a world where mankind's stated aim is וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם and its ambition is to increase its power and extend its domain no matter what the cost, the nation of Avraham is in private and public life to heed only one call: to be a Blessing. Its life is to be devoted to the Divine aims of bringing harmony to mankind and to the world and restoring man to his former glory.

Then God will grant this nation His blessing for a life of dynamic action. Its name will become prominent among the nations, so that they, too, should be educated to these same aspirations: וַאֲבָ֣רֶכְךָ֔ וַאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה שְׁמֶ֑ךָ

This second stage of Jewish history, the creation of a nation out of Avraham, was to have become a reality in ארץ ישראל. There, Israel would live apart from the nations. Not only would Israel be blessed, but blessing would spring from Israel; Israel would become a source of blessing וַיִּשְׁכֹּן֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל בֶּ֤טַח בָּדָד֙ עֵ֣ין יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב (Devarim 33:28). Had we been worthy, all the promises to us that are to be fulfilled at the end of the days, would have been fulfilled thousands of years ago, and the whole course of human history would have been radically different.

It appears, though, that this first promise to Avraham (vv. 1-3) alludes to a third stage. We have already noted that the form וַאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה is expressive of a wish; for the realization of the second stage does not depend on God alone. Verse 3 appears to allude to a third stage in which Avraham's people - its blessing or curse are dependent on man, a stage in which man has the power to bless them or to curse them. This is the stage of גלות which was decreed to befall this people if they would forget their mission and seek - like the other nations להיות ברוכים instead of להיות ברכה

In the stage of גלות the people of Israel are subject to the nations and dependent on them, for blessing or curse. Of this stage Avraham is told: וַאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ. That is to say, those who bless you and help you, who value your principles and submit to the service of your God I those will I bless. “

“Yet another truth was revealed here to Avraham. He came face to face with a reality that concerned his people in particular. In the land promised to him as the future homeland of his people, the first trial he faced was famine, and the second was war! The land does not, by its very nature, provide material prosperity and political independence. In both these respects, the land of Israel is the antithesis of Egypt. The land is dependent on heaven for its fertility, and its political position is one of dependence; it cannot offer resistance to a foreign invader. In and of itself, the land of Israel is prone to famine and political dependence. Since it is situated at the crossroads where Europe, Asia and Africa meet, all the major wars that have shaken the world have inflicted severe damage upon it.

But precisely for this reason it was chosen. Had Israel built a holy life on this land, no foe would have dared to approach its borders. Three times each year the borders of the land would have been left undefended and vulnerable, yet no one would have covetingly touched the land (see Shemos 34:24). All the countries of the world would have fought one another and passed near Israel's land, but no sword would have entered this most prosperous yet most defenseless of lands וְנָתַתִּ֤י שָׁלוֹם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וּשְׁכַבְתֶּ֖ם וְאֵ֣ין מַחֲרִ֑יד וְהִשְׁבַּתִּ֞י חַיָּ֤ה רָעָה֙ מִן־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְחֶ֖רֶב לֹא־תַעֲבֹ֥ר בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם׃ (Vayikra 26:6). Then all the nations of the world would have seen with their own eyes: "God is there!" God is the stronghold of Zion; His deliverance stands in place of wall and bulwark אֱלֹהִ֥ים בְּאַרְמְנוֹתֶ֗יהָ נוֹדַ֥ע לְמִשְׂגָּֽב׃ (Tehillim 48:4) יְשׁוּעָ֥ה יָשִׁ֖ית חוֹמ֥וֹת וָחֵֽל׃ (Yeshayahu 26:1). All the prophets' promises for the future would have been fulfilled thousands of years ago; Zion would have shone forth as a light unto the nations, and the peoples would have said: "Let us go with you, for we have seen that God is with you" (Zecharyah 8:23).”

Scientific Method

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 B-H

What is the scientific method?

Every day, we are inundated with media statements about what "scientists think" on a vast range of topics. The message often seems to be that if scientists say something, it is an indisputable truth. We've seen this particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At one point, many of us accepted that explanations provided by certain authorities or groups were final. Questioning them was seen as backward, even unscientific. However, I don’t want to delve into the specifics of COVID-19 here—perhaps that’s a discussion for another time. What I aim to explore is the perception of science itself and how we understand its role in our lives.

Of course, this is merely my personal perspective, though I welcome anyone who shares similar views to join the conversation.

To begin, let’s start with a basic definition. I’ll reference Wikipedia briefly at the start, but I encourage you to explore the full article for a more comprehensive understanding.

“The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.”

The definition presented is compelling, particularly the notion that our cognitive assumptions can distort our interpretation of observations. However, what if multiple individuals, rather than just one, are ensnared by these cognitive assumptions? What if bias is an inherent byproduct of our worldview, preventing any seemingly contradictory ideas from penetrating our minds, which may mistakenly consider themselves independent and unbiased?

What if scientific observations cannot be interpreted objectively? What if the peer review system is compromised, with participants sharing a common worldview that skews cognitive abilities into assumptions? What if researchers, whose livelihoods depend on conforming to a specific narrative, find themselves trapped in this cycle?

What if narratives serve as self-serving tools that keep our conscience dormant? What if "science" evolves into a "beautiful idea of design without a Designer"?

Rather than addressing each question individually, I will provide examples where proven scientific observations contradict established scientific hypotheses. No consensus or peer review can persuade me to accept something that has been demonstrated through the scientific method as impossible.

Let’s begin with the concept of entropy. To illustrate, I will reference the beginning of an article from Wikipedia.

“Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty. The term and the concept are used in diverse fields, from classical thermodynamics, where it was first recognized, to the microscopic description of nature in statistical physics, and to the principles of information theory. It has found far-ranging applications in chemistry and physics, in biological systems and their relation to life, in cosmology, economics, sociology, weather science, climate change, and information systems including the transmission of information in telecommunication.”

Everything made of matter eventually disintegrates, from biological organisms to individual atoms that over time transform into sub-particles of energy. This phenomenon occurs in both closed and open systems. The only instance where matter becomes more complex is through the emergence of life and the processes that sustain it. Once the life force departs from an organism, entropy sets in. Over time, what was once a living entity reverts to simple matter and ultimately energy.

I won't burden you with intricate computations or mathematics, as that is beyond my expertise. Many mathematicians and physicists have tackled this subject, some of whom can explain it in a way that is accessible to laypeople like myself, allowing for understanding through empirical observation.

Entropy is a concept we observe in life and in laboratory settings. Yet, in a galaxy far, far away, we are told that the opposite is occurring. Cosmic dust coalesces to form celestial bodies, with molecules spontaneously gathering to create planets, stars, and galaxies. This is how the universe has come into being.

Can this process be observed? Certainly, we can see that the world exists. Therefore, if it does not persist in its current form indefinitely, as was believed just a few decades ago, there must be a force in the universe that drives the transformation from simple to complex. However, what we observe is just the reverse process! This is where the leap of faith becomes relevant.

We witness the 'complex' devolving into the 'simple,' yet we are asked to accept the notion that somehow the 'simple' evolves into the 'complex' through a spontaneous process governed by unknown sources and laws. This perspective is convenient, as it allows us to claim that design emerged without a Designer. Any alternative suggestion is considered taboo. Is it not interesting that 'taboo' is a term often associated with religion?

 

Another example:

“Pasteur was responsible for disproving the doctrine of spontaneous generation. Under the auspices of the French Academy of Sciences, his experiment demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks, nothing ever developed; conversely, in sterilized but open flasks, microorganisms could grow.”(Wikipedia)

Abiogenesis is fundamentally impossible. Louis Pasteur was a remarkable scientist whose contributions saved millions of lives through vaccines and medical innovations that prevented early deaths from various diseases. He developed methods that effectively preserved life, employing rigorous scientific techniques. One of his significant achievements was conclusively demonstrating that life does not arise spontaneously from an inorganic matter. This principle has become an established axiom, widely accepted without the need for peer review. No rational individual would contest this truth, as it is not merely a matter of opinion or belief, but a verified fact of nature.

Despite this, we are told that life on our planet originated in a manner that contradicts Pasteur's findings and the scientific consensus that has followed. While science presents one perspective, the "scientific hypothesis" suggests an opposing narrative.

Now, let me share a story from my favorite anti-Darwinian mathematician, David Berlinski. Before that, I will refer to another work, "The Origin of Speeches" by Isaac E. Mozeson.

“Any studies considered anti-Darwinian will guarantee no tenure or employment according to the strict code of Academic Freedom.”

To gain a deeper understanding of "academic freedom," consider researching David Berlinski. Below is the anticipated narrative by Berlinski, extracted from "The Deniable Darwin."

“Postscript: On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don Quixote IMAGINE THIS STORY BEING told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe. His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irish-man James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote." I raise my eyebrows. Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer. "The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket. "Asyou know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576." I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed. "Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Ho yo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Un-able to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text hut, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Po;- Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the nineteenth century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined." I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your under-standing, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?" "Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."

I appreciate the story crafted by a mathematician and narrated by a renowned writer. It is hard to believe it is true. No scientific method was required or employed—just straightforward observation and simple analysis. We just KNOW that this story CANNOT be true.

From a mathematical perspective, the DNA of an amoeba is millions of times more complex than all those remarkable literary works. Yet, we are told that DNA code formed itself through a series of mistakes during a slow transformation, leading to existence of Darwin and his followers.

Oh, woe is me, a man of no faith!

It is not that I require a Designer in the equation of life; life itself is a testament to His Name and His love! I don’t believe – I Know.

 

Now, let us delve into a bit of history. Unlike Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and even Biology, History relies more on research than on scientific methods. Indeed, the conclusions drawn from partial observations in History cannot be treated in the same manner as scientific conclusions.

The Jewish people are not only observers and preservers of history but also significant actors within it. Our sages have received and developed rigorous tools for preserving the knowledge passed down through generations. They acknowledge that some content has been lost amid the turbulence of Jewish history, which is precisely why, during many crucial moments, the Law and its context—i.e., history—were preserved in written form.

 

Jews utilized the alphabet earlier than any other nation in the world. Yet, this fact is often overlooked by those who cloak themselves in the guise of science.

Gretz and Wellhausen arrive, welcomed with eager eyes and thirsty ears, and their every folly is published under their names. Consequently, they inspire thousands of imitators and followers.

It goes without saying that most of these individuals possess limited skills in the Hebrew language and methodology, not to mention their ideological biases.

Bias—why does it all boil down to bias? Why is there seemingly a single underlying ideology across these subjects? Why does it appear that a significant portion of what is deemed science, which has undeniably enriched humanity—such as Pasteur's contributions to saving and extending the lives of millions, if not billions—seems to be focused on discrediting Jewish history and worldview, or at least undermining or compromising it?

Who decided, and when, that science must be atheistic? As if accepting the idea of Creation by a Creator would render the invention of penicillin or smartphones impossible.

Science and the scientific method were not atheistic from their inception in the 17th century; this shift occurred only in the latter half of the 18th century. This historical fact alone indicates that the exclusion of Creation from “science” is unrelated to the essence of Science itself. Instead, it was ideological bias that fueled the ongoing conflict of “science” against Creation.

But why?

I believe I have found the answer. It seems quite evident if you are honest with yourself.

And no, I will not conclude this essay with my own convictions, which may already be apparent. I will leave you with the freedom to conduct your own analysis.