Both Arabic and Hebrew are central Semitic languages, with Arabic most likely originating in the interior of southern Levant (around modern-day Jordan), before gradually expanding southward into the Arabian peninsula. According to Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, Arabic and Hebrew split from a common language around ~2500BC.
The Nabataeans were essentially the remnant Arabs still living in their original homeland.
Ironically, you could say the early Islamic Arabians who conquered the Levant were simply making aliyah back to their homeland...
Not knowing mishna like the epikors I am, I didn't know of the mishnaic context of ספרא וסייפא. I was led to believe that it was a phrase used by haskalists to signify they could pursue book learning but also fence like all the cool kids in 19th c. universities.
It probably was something like that. Hard to know if the coiner took the words because it sounded cool or because he wanted to make a subtle dig against rabbinic Judaism, and I suppose that once the term was coined it didn't make much difference.
In mine opinion, the criticism from Yehoshua is valid. You are like contemporary version of Ahad Haam, with plenty of criticism towards anything you find distasteful but no actual vision for an alternative that is practical or scalable. I welcome you to become a man in the arena and produce a vision for Israel and religious zionism that would be better than the current incarnation.
Excellent analysis, the IBS comparison made me chuckle. I'm curios what your full translation of 'ספרא וסייפא במלחמה על הארץ' reveals about the author's underlying logic?
Since you “love” the Zohar so much 😅here is a Christ with the Biblion and the Sword, from Ávila (Spain) where the Zohar appeared for the first time. Zohar predates this piece but definitely… it is a great constellation of what I was referring to!
Since no one has bullied me, I have dared to speak again, peacefully but full of courage. First, let me say: your text is beautifully written and very lucid. Now, I’ll try to be brief.My thesis is simple: the whole theology of the Sword and the Book Safra ve-Saifa interpreted as the imposition or protection of the Book through power, violence, and blood, is not Jewish at all. It is Christian "Revelations" in action, Pauline, even Roman...but what kind of Jew was Paul? Certainly one very similar to today’s religious Zionists, whether we can admit it or not. Let’s leave Paul aside for now.The Talmud says it once, and that should have been enough:Safra ve-Saifa ityahivu behadei hadadi, the Book and the Sword were given together. Meaning: the Book must be kept, or the Sword will come, and from here the Gospel messianic message: "I win bring Peace but the Sword" (Mathew). The Gospels never contradicted completely Jewish ethics of covenantal responsibility. It is moral, not imperial; a warning against forgetting Torah, not a theology of domination. But history has a cruel sense of irony. The Christians took this rabbinic saying and turned it into an apocalypse. Look at the Book of Revelation: Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth, the Word as weapon, the mouth as battlefield, logos turned into machaira. And Paul, of course, made it universal: “The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Ephesians). Thus the rabbinic proverb of obedience became the Pauline and Gospelian theology of conquest: the perfect fusion of Revelation and Empire. Here is where everything turns upside down. In Judaism, the Book could be seen as Judea: covenant, observance, and divine speech (some of this is still kept in the gospels). The Sword is Rome, empire, violence, and outward dominion. To unite them, to say Safra ve-Saifa in earnest, is already a deeply Christian Messisnic move; Pauline through and through. But again, Paul was Jewish, and religious Zionism today mirrors that Paulinism soooo much 😭: change Rome for the American army, and you have the same theology of power sanctified by faith. And even if you wrap the whole thing in Aramaic, as in the Zohar, it doesn’t make it more Jewish. Like Latin in the Middle Ages, Aramaic becomes a veil of mystery concealing authority, I do agree with that. The authors of the Zohar knew this game well. And yet, despite all this, they never turned the Book into the Sword; I need to defend the Zohar in this case. They took the gnostic fire of their age, Cathars, Albigensians, Mozarabs, Christian mystics, and circled it around the Torah like moths around a flame. The Zohar never says Safra ve-Saifa, but it feels it: the Book as the Tree of Life, the Sword as Gevurah, the fiery guardian of Eden. Not for conquest, but for purification. Apostolic Rome (Paul, basically) resolved her heresies with the sword; the kabbalists resolved theirs through study and ecstasy. The monk-soldier, the religious-soldier, is a Christian archetype, not a Jewish one. From Paul to John, from Revelation to the centuries of Crusades, the fusion of spirit and violence is the mark of Rome, not of Judea. So yes, when religious Zionists (and worse, Christian Zionists) chant Safra ve-Saifa, they are not quoting the Talmud: they are echoing Revelation, messianic violence, repeating Paul’s actions. And the tragedy is that the Jewish state born from historical necessity is now tempted to crown itself with eschatology, to become the very thing it once resisted. I won't enter into the Amalek topic.
Closer to home, Baruch defines the state of Israel as the main enemy waging covert war against the Jewish people (https://substack.com/@postkahanism/p-63420669) and the post you linked to by your former iteration says that it is basically heresy to think that "State of Israel represents a fulfillment of Judaism in any respect."
At what point would you say that this hilltop/kahanist group and Religious Zionism are completely different things?
It's like the relationship between Nazis and German nationalism more broadly. They posture about rebelling agains the state, but all their tactics are predicated on knowing that the state has their back, which is why they have expanded their activities in line with increasing support from the state.
Principled anti-[whatever you want to call it] Religious Zionism is Alon Shevut, half of Tekoa and various people who aren't Religious Zionists at all, but identify as such because there is no Modern Orthodoxy in Israel institutionally speaking.
I can write competently in Israeli, but not stylishly and certainly I don't think I could pull off certain rhetorical allusions (maybe I don't pull them off in English either, hard to tell). Another reason is that if I actually did pick up a substantial sabra audience I would have to start taking the anonymity thing a lot more seriously or start toning things way down.
Every time I finish a piece of yours I'm left wanting to weep and 😂 at the exact same time. I don't know how you pull it off so consistently.
I'd short your pessimism
Interestingly the word סייף is shared with Arabic سيف but with سين/שין
Need to learn to read Arabic. I feel like such an imbecile.
Both Arabic and Hebrew are central Semitic languages, with Arabic most likely originating in the interior of southern Levant (around modern-day Jordan), before gradually expanding southward into the Arabian peninsula. According to Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, Arabic and Hebrew split from a common language around ~2500BC.
The Nabataeans were essentially the remnant Arabs still living in their original homeland.
Ironically, you could say the early Islamic Arabians who conquered the Levant were simply making aliyah back to their homeland...
Well, of course. They don't have a samekh.
lol, i was trying to think up of an answer, thats most probably the simplest.
Not knowing mishna like the epikors I am, I didn't know of the mishnaic context of ספרא וסייפא. I was led to believe that it was a phrase used by haskalists to signify they could pursue book learning but also fence like all the cool kids in 19th c. universities.
It probably was something like that. Hard to know if the coiner took the words because it sounded cool or because he wanted to make a subtle dig against rabbinic Judaism, and I suppose that once the term was coined it didn't make much difference.
In mine opinion, the criticism from Yehoshua is valid. You are like contemporary version of Ahad Haam, with plenty of criticism towards anything you find distasteful but no actual vision for an alternative that is practical or scalable. I welcome you to become a man in the arena and produce a vision for Israel and religious zionism that would be better than the current incarnation.
But Ahad Haam was cool and right about everything!
Excellent analysis, the IBS comparison made me chuckle. I'm curios what your full translation of 'ספרא וסייפא במלחמה על הארץ' reveals about the author's underlying logic?
Since you “love” the Zohar so much 😅here is a Christ with the Biblion and the Sword, from Ávila (Spain) where the Zohar appeared for the first time. Zohar predates this piece but definitely… it is a great constellation of what I was referring to!
Shabbat Shalom!
Since no one has bullied me, I have dared to speak again, peacefully but full of courage. First, let me say: your text is beautifully written and very lucid. Now, I’ll try to be brief.My thesis is simple: the whole theology of the Sword and the Book Safra ve-Saifa interpreted as the imposition or protection of the Book through power, violence, and blood, is not Jewish at all. It is Christian "Revelations" in action, Pauline, even Roman...but what kind of Jew was Paul? Certainly one very similar to today’s religious Zionists, whether we can admit it or not. Let’s leave Paul aside for now.The Talmud says it once, and that should have been enough:Safra ve-Saifa ityahivu behadei hadadi, the Book and the Sword were given together. Meaning: the Book must be kept, or the Sword will come, and from here the Gospel messianic message: "I win bring Peace but the Sword" (Mathew). The Gospels never contradicted completely Jewish ethics of covenantal responsibility. It is moral, not imperial; a warning against forgetting Torah, not a theology of domination. But history has a cruel sense of irony. The Christians took this rabbinic saying and turned it into an apocalypse. Look at the Book of Revelation: Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth, the Word as weapon, the mouth as battlefield, logos turned into machaira. And Paul, of course, made it universal: “The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Ephesians). Thus the rabbinic proverb of obedience became the Pauline and Gospelian theology of conquest: the perfect fusion of Revelation and Empire. Here is where everything turns upside down. In Judaism, the Book could be seen as Judea: covenant, observance, and divine speech (some of this is still kept in the gospels). The Sword is Rome, empire, violence, and outward dominion. To unite them, to say Safra ve-Saifa in earnest, is already a deeply Christian Messisnic move; Pauline through and through. But again, Paul was Jewish, and religious Zionism today mirrors that Paulinism soooo much 😭: change Rome for the American army, and you have the same theology of power sanctified by faith. And even if you wrap the whole thing in Aramaic, as in the Zohar, it doesn’t make it more Jewish. Like Latin in the Middle Ages, Aramaic becomes a veil of mystery concealing authority, I do agree with that. The authors of the Zohar knew this game well. And yet, despite all this, they never turned the Book into the Sword; I need to defend the Zohar in this case. They took the gnostic fire of their age, Cathars, Albigensians, Mozarabs, Christian mystics, and circled it around the Torah like moths around a flame. The Zohar never says Safra ve-Saifa, but it feels it: the Book as the Tree of Life, the Sword as Gevurah, the fiery guardian of Eden. Not for conquest, but for purification. Apostolic Rome (Paul, basically) resolved her heresies with the sword; the kabbalists resolved theirs through study and ecstasy. The monk-soldier, the religious-soldier, is a Christian archetype, not a Jewish one. From Paul to John, from Revelation to the centuries of Crusades, the fusion of spirit and violence is the mark of Rome, not of Judea. So yes, when religious Zionists (and worse, Christian Zionists) chant Safra ve-Saifa, they are not quoting the Talmud: they are echoing Revelation, messianic violence, repeating Paul’s actions. And the tragedy is that the Jewish state born from historical necessity is now tempted to crown itself with eschatology, to become the very thing it once resisted. I won't enter into the Amalek topic.
In the spirit of nitpicking, does it really make sense to hold up Elisha Yered and friends as your go-to examples of Religious Zionism?
These guys have been for decades singing about מדינת הציונים מתפוררת (https://youtu.be/dtBt8ALqCzM?t=119) and writing pamphlets planning literal rebellions against the state of Israel (https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4687158,00.html).
Closer to home, Baruch defines the state of Israel as the main enemy waging covert war against the Jewish people (https://substack.com/@postkahanism/p-63420669) and the post you linked to by your former iteration says that it is basically heresy to think that "State of Israel represents a fulfillment of Judaism in any respect."
At what point would you say that this hilltop/kahanist group and Religious Zionism are completely different things?
It's like the relationship between Nazis and German nationalism more broadly. They posture about rebelling agains the state, but all their tactics are predicated on knowing that the state has their back, which is why they have expanded their activities in line with increasing support from the state.
Principled anti-[whatever you want to call it] Religious Zionism is Alon Shevut, half of Tekoa and various people who aren't Religious Zionists at all, but identify as such because there is no Modern Orthodoxy in Israel institutionally speaking.
Excellent post.
Have you considered producing versions of your essays in Hebrew?
I imagine there is a non trivial potential audience which is not already on the English substack.
I can write competently in Israeli, but not stylishly and certainly I don't think I could pull off certain rhetorical allusions (maybe I don't pull them off in English either, hard to tell). Another reason is that if I actually did pick up a substantial sabra audience I would have to start taking the anonymity thing a lot more seriously or start toning things way down.
Whatever you do, don't tone things down, that's what we love you for.
Great post.
This is what Rav Amiel meant when he referred to Purah, the angel of forgetfulness: https://the-divine-comedy.fandom.com/wiki/Purah
More likely he was referring to פורה שר השכחה mentioned in סדר ר' עמרם גאון [מוצאי שבת] and פרי עץ חיים [סדר שבת פרק כ"ד]
👑
That makes sense! I figured he probably got it from a Jewish source.