Three demonstrably very wrong ideas

that are endemic in Religious Zionism

This morning I read an interview of Rabbi Avraham Grossman by

Elliot Friedland

. Regarding Rabbi Grossman’s general political views, there is not a great deal of point in me commenting. It is evident by now that I disagree and why. However, there are three egregious, but common mistakes made in the interview, all of which point in the same direction and which need to be addressed as a matter of some urgency. This is as good a time to do it as any. Before beginning, I should say that, while these mistakes are genuinely terrible, Rabbi Grossman, as well as being possessed of fine personal middot, is a talmid hacham of some calibre who could knock the average DL Rav into a hat. He is also one of us mekoriist weirdos and well aware that many ‘known knowns’ within Orthodoxy are actually just made up. The fact that he repeats these dangerous untruths as if they were evident facts is good indication of how messed up Religious Zionism is, and the very acute need to purge this madness from the Jewish people before it’s too late to pick up the pieces.

Esau hates Jacob

Esau hates Jacob and always will work to undermine him, no matter how badly Amalek and Ishmael behave toward Jacob. Hasbara will never work, only victory.

The statement that Esau hates Jacob is a reference to Rashi on Gen 33:4, which reads:

נקוד עליו ויש חולקין בדבר הזה בבריתא דספרי יש שדרשו נקדה זו שלא נשקו בכל לבו, אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי הלכה היא בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב, אלא שנכמרו רחמיו באותה שעה ונשקו בכל לבו

The debate here concerns the dots on the word וישקהו (‘he kissed’). According to the majority opinion, this is taken to be an indication that Esau’s embrace of Jacob was incomplete. However, according to Rabi Shimon, the opposite is true: our starting assumption is that Esau hates Jacob and so we would think his embrace was insincere, but the dots tell us to challenge that assumption and conclude he did in fact, if only briefly, feel genuine love and forgiveness.

That’s actually quite a nice message. However, in the last century, certain figures who, for the sake of their honour, I shall not name, isolated six words out of the Rashi הלכה היא בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב to make a rather different point. The wording here is quite unusual, indeed unique: it uses the term halacha to describe Esau’s disposition towards Jacob. Since, in rabbinic literature, Esau is frequently used as a sobriquet for the Roman empire and then Christendom, the inference they made is that the Christians/Europeans (Esau) hate the Jews (Jacob) as a matter of fixed law, i.e. halacha. It’s not something you can change or ameliorate; it’s like the weather or gravity. Thus, applied to our own day, there’s no point either in trying to kill fewer civilians in Gaza, or to explain why you are killing so many civilians, because the nations will just hate you anyway.

The [purported] use of the term halacha here has no parallel anywhere in hazalic sources.¹ That’s a good tip off something is up, and, indeed, something is up. As Rashi indicates, he is simply quoting Sifrei and, in every manuscript of the Sifrei, the passage reads הלא בידוע, that is to say ‘is it not a given?’ which is a very common idiom in these sources, and also fits perfectly in context with no interpretative issues at all. As to Rashi’s girsa, we know from numerous places that Ashkenazi Rishonim worked with versions of Sifrei in particular that were worse than useless, filled with thousands of serious mistakes. The correct reading of this passage already appeared in Horowitz’s rather flawed edition of Sifrei in 1917, and there was never any real excuse for inventing the modern political meta-aggada upon it. However, we can forgive those who were reeling from the Holocaust, and also couldn’t just look stuff up on the internet. Regardless, it is not a healthy mindset to believe large swathes of the world irrevocably hate you for reasons out of your control (or no reason at all), and it is far worse than an unhealthy mindset for people who have any influence over public affairs. In contrast to this pseudo-midrash, Hazal taught many actual halachot that are premised on the concept of mipnei eivah and darchei shalom, which plainly means that our actions influence how others think of us, which is anyway evident to anyone who isn’t traumatised or a sociopath. These are things that should not be thought, and should not be said, so stop saying them.

Everyone Jewish I don’t like is erev rav

On one hand, it's the globalist agenda of the ruling class. The deep state. The regime. The "souls of the erev rav" as some educated religious scholars put it.

The term erev rav is used in Ex. 12.36, and is understood in all of rabbinic tradition to refer to Egyptians who left Egypt with the children of Israel, whether for religious motivations or otherwise. There are some sources where they are depicted positively, such as Shemot Rabah 18:10, or neutrally, such as Melchilta d’Rabi Shimon 12, but the general rule is to depict them negatively, and assert their responsibility for unfortunate episodes in the wilderness that, according to the plain meaning of the text, were the responsibility of the children of Israel generally.

In the middle ages, however, the kabbalists seized upon the concept of erev rav to hallucinate into an existence a permanent alien body within the Jewish people, constantly reincarnating primeval forces of evil that seek to counteract the theurgic rituals (as they understood them) of Judaism. This tendency is particularly pronounced in Raya Mehemna, the author of which had pronounced antinomian tendencies, where the erev rav is identified with the Rabbinical and lay establishment of the Jewish community in Spain who refused to give kabbalists enough money and prestige in exchange for their delirious and obscene ravings.

However, with the advent of the Sabbatean movement, the use of erev rav acquired a new factional definition. Nathan of Gaza שר''י declared that the minority of Jews who did not accept Shabtai Tzvi’s messiahship were ipso facto members of erev rav. The fundamental opposition of erev rav to the maaminim (believers) who sought to bring about the messianic age was a central and consistent element of Sabbatean theology as it got progressively more weird and sick in the head. Skipping forward, it is well known that, for many decades, Kookist Rabbis have declared anyone who obstructs their plan to bring the Messiah by building housing units in the Shomron as erev rav, but familiarity should not blind us to the outrageousness of the allegation. It doesn’t take the worlds biggest genius to see Sabbatean motifs all over Kookist theology, as well as the Breslev and Lubavitch theologies that have been more recently synthesised with it in the various West Bank insane asylums. Those who have attended these yeshivot will sometimes whisper a little about the ‘interesting’ things they heard their maggid shiur say about Shabtai Tzvi. The invocation of erev rav as a factional insult should, at the very least, be treated as a massive red flag. The fact that it is so endemic to Religious Zionism that even Maimonideans will repeat signature Sabbatean doctrine shows the rot is total; the air you breath is heresy. There is nothing left to do with Religious Zionism other than flee.

Everyone goyish I don’t like is Amalek