Chabad Lubavitch & 911, Ushering in that Man of SIN


Folks, I am not the only researcher who have discovered Satan’s Sinai-Gog, there are many other researchers who have also compiled the Facts. However, I totally disagree that Chabad are zionist, in fact they are vehemently opposed to the secular state of zion.


Keep in mind that Chabad was instrumental to reviving Sanhedrin who boast that they have the authority to anoint their Moshiach, False Christ, Son of Perdition.



(Italics mine…RP)

Chabadniks and Zionists are 9/11 “perpetraitors”



By M.K. Styllinski (

“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.”

– Voltaire

ETK Introduction:

The following three part article, written in 2015 by M.K Styllinski, incorporates and summarizes much of the material already presented on this website. The articles also considerably extend the information and expertly lead us to a better understanding of the forces and individuals that shaped Operation 9/11.

Topics included are Zionist/Jewish involvement in and the occult nature of Operation 9/11, the probable use of mind-controlled operatives in places of governmental influence, and the significance of the Noahide Laws in the Jewish/Zionist game plan. The author also notes the German-Jewish connection as locus of subversive infiltration and activities.

Styllinski somewhat distinguishes the Chabad Lubavitcher sect from Zionists. He states:

“Lubavitchers- or Chabadniks- draw their beliefs from the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud and other classical works of Judaism with a strong emphasis on apocalyptic redemption which they hope will pave the way for a distinctly Jewish theocratic World Order.” The “spiritual guru” of the Chabad, of course, is the arch Jewish supremacist, the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who has stated that Jews and gentiles belong to different species, that non-Jewish souls are Satanic whereas Jews’ souls are holy, that this fundamental difference makes it permissible for Jews to kill non-Jews.

In Styllinski’s analysis, “Chabadniks” directly or indirectly involved in Operation 9/11 include former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Senator Joseph Lieberman, former Senator Carl Levin, Orthodox Jewish rabbi and former Pentagon comptroller, Dov Zakheim, and former White House Chief of Staff, Ari Fleisher, former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, and former White House official Joshua Bolton. The network of powerful Jewish billionaires that helped set the stage for Operation 9/11 include Chabad Lubavitch-Zionist supporters:

1) Larry Silverstein, owner of most of the World Trade Center,
2) Frank Lowry, of the Goldman Sachs cartel and owner of Westfield America, Ronald Lauder,
3) Lewis Eisenberg, Goldman Sachs and former chairman of the Port Authority of New York during the 9/11 attacks. (Most of the board of directors of the Port Authority board of directors were/are Jewish/Zionist.)
4) The late Peter “Zvi” Malkin, former Israeli intelligence officer and the security consultant and intermediary between Atwell Security and the Port Authority,
5) Port Authority director Stephen Berger,
6) Stanley Brezenoff,
7) Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, CEO of AIG,
8) Jules Kroll of Kroll Inc.,
9) MOSSAD agent Shaul Eisenberg
10) Former managing director of Kroll Inc., Jerome M. Hauer, who also ran New York Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM, located in WTC Building 7) from 1996 to 2000.
11) Robert Kelman, CEO of Hugo Neu Schnitzer Company, that removed and shipped 230,000 tons of steel from the demolished WTC to Asia.
12) Individuals in Giuliani Partners Consulting Company that played crucial roles in the coverup and destruction of physical evidence. These include Pasquale J. D’Amuro, FBI inspector in charge of the 9/11 investigation, and Richard Sheirer, the “Jewish knight” who oversaw removal and destruction of crucial steel evidence by sending it to Zionist-run scrap yards in New Jersey.
13) Scores of Israeli agents near the scene of the crime as well as future Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.
14) Former Israeli military officer and CEO of Comverse Technology (which took over Odigo, Israeli software company, which pre-warned its 4000 predominantly Jewish employees not to go to work in the WTC complex on 9/11).
15) General Richard Bowman Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In addition, “Zionist appointees were scattered all over 9/11 panels, commissions, and committees which sprang up immediately after the attacks…”

The important details provided in the following article provide the basis, I believe, for a broad-based criminal investigation and prosecution of these arch-criminals. The author attributes these details to a host of independent 9/11 researchers. Generally, this information corroborates and extends the information I have already provided on this website.

Part 3 of “Chabadniks, Zionists, & 9/11 Insiders” examines the Jewish Talmudic and Kabbalistic framework for the radically Zionist/Jewish “neo-conservative movement” which organized, executed, and are still covering up Operation 9/11. Key players in this movement, of course, include Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Albert Wohlstetter, and their “neo-con” colleagues that have controlled the last three Presidencies. Corporate/Zionist enablers of the plan obviously also included Vice President Dick Cheney, President George W. Bush, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Styllinsky explains:

“(Paul) Wolfowitz and his (neo-conservative/Jewish) colleagues managed to fuse corporatist, Zionist, Chabad Lubavitch and other highly influential Zio-Conservative-based think-tanks into a powerful force for war. The Wolfowitz Doctrine lay behind (the Israeli) “Clear break” and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC’s) “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” which defined the blueprint for Zio-Con conquest well into the future. The latter document was written in September of 2000, one year before the 9/11 attacks, where they acknowledged: “Further, the progress of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor…” And just one year later, their most pressing desire was fulfilled.

Paul Wolfowitz played a major role in the genesis of the 9/11 attacks…. This was an ideology of Straussian authoritarianism inspired by the Hegelian solution. By using the U.S. as a proxy war machine the Zionists had pulled of a major coupt in toppling Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq with their sights on monopolizing oil reserves, the driving interest for corporatists like Rumsfeld and Cheney. But the full force of a religious-occult imperative would be revealed in the 9/11 false flag ritual which heralded the destruction of Iraq- the first phase of biblical and Chabad-led, Talmudic prophecy.

As reported by Munich-based author and journalist Wolfgang Eggert an “occult summit” was convened on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, February 21st, 2003. In attendance were:

‘… the head of the Operations Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose name wasn’t published and seven leading representatives of military intelligence, amongst them the three-star general Lowell ‘Jake’ Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Wolfowitz’ deputy Dr. Linton Wells who manages the ‘nerve centre’ of the Pentagon” and mostly notably “Bible code specialist” Michael Drosnin and Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz.’ [12]

The fact that top members of US government would be willing to trust the advice of Drosnin’s highly controversial study of predictive word codes is worrying enough. What is more concerning is the reliance not only on Biblical prophecy but the fusion of both Christian Evangelism, Jewish Messianism and occult Zionism. Eggert explains that there was “only one item on the agenda” and that was to discover what the Bible said:

“… about the present situation in the Middle East, terrorism and about the fate of Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden … It is said that a special interest was taken in decoding when devastation was expected to descend upon the Iraqi president. Result: the Jewish year of 5763 which corresponds to the year 2003 of the Christian calendar. The outcome of this conference is said to have been analysed immediately after by American and Israeli intelligence. The Americans “took it very seriously”, Drosnin later said. The White House started the campaign “Iraqi Freedom” within the prophesied time frame.” [13]

And they “took it seriously” because Zio-Conservatives and military-intelligence apparatus is saturated in occult workings all of which are underpinned by the Jewish Kabbalah in some form. One of these is based around the Jewish calendar of the Shemitah, its origins in the Old Testament. Originally a form of agricultural divination focused around debts and blessings to it is now used as a tool of prediction for world events and calamitous occurrences. As Eggert observes, Chabad Lubavitch saw 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq as one long mythical war prophesied long ago and even cited in the sect’s magazine Emes News which stated: “While the press doesn’t foresee such a move and while the US State Department is denying any plan of attack against Iraq, those who know about the Lubavitcher Rebbe know quite well, that when he said, America would wage war against Basra [a city in Iraq], nothing in the world could stop such an event coming true.” [14] It is for this reason that the Christian Zionists and Fundamentalists are so crucial to the Chabad’s messianic drive since they are well aware that they make up around 37 percent of voters in America. Head of the World Jewish Congress Ronald Lauder reaffirmed this strategic link in a recent interview where he said: “Evangelicals … are the critical support for Israel…We have one great friend: Evangelicals.”

Crucial to the End Times tribulation is the yearned for second coming induced by conflict at Temple Mount. The Iraq war started one and half years later on March 20th 2003, the Holy Day of Purim care of one of the main instigators of a Chabad ritual and the needed outbreak of war: Paul Wolfowitz. During the aftermath of the Iraq war, Chabad supporters Joseph Lieberman and Senator John McCain were the allotted PR figureheads for announcing that: “… the Iraqi conflict-based-strategy followed exactly that line which he himself together with his colleague had imposed in the US Congress by pushing through the ‘Iraq Liberation Act’.” [16]

At this point, the reader may be forgiven for thinking that all these war-mongering corporatists, Zionists and rapacious banksters are simply in it for the money and the power. Important as those things are for essential psychopaths there is also the underlying foundation of the military-occult complex suffused with a masonic branch of Existential Satanism which have traditionally relied on psychological warfare to achieve their ends. Within the Zionist Establishment, the Mossad hierarchy and Chabad Lubavitch is a form of Kabbalistic Satanism with links to Order of Zion freemasonry, in turn, connected to the overall global occult elite. Those whose personalities have been irrevocably altered and fragmented as a part of MK-ULTRA programs (which are the ones we know about) have undoubtedly been carefully positioned within the political establishment.

Yikes…. Here is proof of the unholy alliance between fanatical Zionist/Jewish supremacists and their lackeys, the Freemasons and the Christian Evangelicals as well as the Bush II White House, and the U.S. Defense Department! And their goal, as per the “Bible Code Specialist, Michael Drosnin, and Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz?: To fulfill Biblical prophecy and bring on the apocalypse! Holy Genocide!

My opinion and conviction: America must bring these arch criminals to justice or these insane psychopaths will “stage” the apocalypse predicted in the Book of Revelation in order to establish their longed-for “Jewish Utopia”/”Jewish Universal Empire.”

The Article: Chabadniks, Zionists & 9/11 Insiders by M.K. Styllinski

We have explored the influences of Dominionism and Authoritarianism in the United States, and there was also a brief look at the powerful Jewish sect of Chabad Lubavitch presently embedded in Europe, the US government and part of the rising tide of religious extremism currently jostling for supremacy.

Lubavitchers – or Chabadniks – draw their beliefs from the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud and other classical works of Judaism with a strong emphasis on apocalyptic redemption which they hope will pave the way for a distinctly Jewish theocratic World Order. Recall that many high-level US officials are still keen supporters of Chabad Lubavitch such as Paul Wolfowitz, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator / retired General Carl Levin, and Orthodox Jewish rabbi Dov Zakheim whom we met previously.

(It is Chabad Lubavitch which also set up the Prophesied Sanhedrin as per Revelation Chapter 13. Little do they understand that Jesus Christ is in complete control of all which they do to fulfill prophecy….RP)

On March 11, 2002, Zakheim gathered with over 500 emissaries of Chabad from all corners of the world in order to celebrate the birthday of the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the spiritual guru of Chabad. The big bash took place just opposite the Pentagon 9/11 crash site. Considering what we have discovered so far about Chabad Lubavitch and Zionism it is more than a little ironic that there was a party for a guru who extolled the virtues of a messianic Jewish theocracy hosted by insider Dov Zakheim who had managed to furnish Israel with more weapons than any other Jewish individual in the history of arms brokering. As Journalist and historian Caroline A. Valentine observes: “Islam is the most vigorous religious rival to Judaism. How does the ‘peace for Israel’ sung about in ‘Oseh Shalom’ relate to 9-11? Think back to the massive slaughter of Palestinians (and other Muslims) Israel has been able to effect since 9/11. There is no sweeter peace to be found than at the graveyard of one’s enemy …” [1]

Let’s just remind ourselves of the nature of the “spirituality” being taught by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson whose beliefs remained consistent throughout his long life and which gave rise to the official Lubavitch-Hassidic doctrine so prominent in US politics and Chabad centres round the world. In his book Gatherings of Conversations (1965) we get to read exactly what the Rabbi believed.

The “Great Rebbe” states:

The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species.
This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world…

…An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.

We therefore ask: Why should a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jewish embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jewish embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews.” [2] [Emphasis mine]

There is little doubt that the vast majority of Jews have no idea what this man has been saying on their behalf. Yet, further analysis of these statements isn’t necessary since anyone who is able to to think rationally can see that the above takes the notion of Jewish tribal exclusivity and supremacy to new heights, specifically mentioning that anyone who isn’t Jewish naturally has one’s spiritual origins in “satanic spheres”. It will become apparent just how serious these statements are as we proceed.

In 1995, a year after the death of Schneerson the yearly commemorations took off with a posthumous award by Congress: the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honour possible for a civilian in the United States. The Baltimore Jewish Times, (who it seems, were equally perplexed) reported: “More than a year of intensive lobbying by Chabad forces generated some 225 House co-sponsors of the authorizing legislation” which made it possible for Schneerson to become the first religious leader to be the recipient of the coveted award. Furthermore, it seems the lobbying had a financial incentive whereby: “Copies of the gold medal — which was underwritten by donations from admirers of Rabbi Schneerson — are being sold by the Treasury Department. According to Washington sources, that could be a big money-maker for the federal government.” [3]

Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Chief, circa 2007.

In 2006, Chabad Lubavitch supporters and Zio-Conservative Michael Chertoff, then Homeland Security secretary and Joshua Bolton, the White House chief of staff had high-level talks with Chabad emissaries during a two-day commemoration of the 12th anniversary of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s death. Bolton and other White House officials “… assured Chabad representatives that President Bush would never force Israel to concede territory to the Palestinians without a quid pro quo,”… where Bolton admitted that: “Bush would follow Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s lead in deciding what concessions to support.” [4] Since Olmert is a militant Zionist that wouldn’t give Palestinians much to hope for. One might also ask the question right there: if the preceding information wasn’t known, how it is that that an honour of this kind can be given to Schneerson who presided over a sect that is evidently, at its root, one of the most racist and fascist movements on the planet?

(Olmert was zionist who was jailed by Talmudic Judaism.see two whores  


The only change which has occurred under Barack Obama is that Chabad Lubavitch has grown stronger.

The American Friends of Lubavitch (AFL) was set up by leading Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi Abraham Shemtov, one of the closest aides to the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Shemtov’s interests are adopted by the National Security Council and the State Department in that he has regular access and contact with a few dozen ambassadors. [5] It is ostensibly a humanitarian, educational and Jewish facilitation hub, but in reality, it is a Chabad indoctrination outfit extending deep into the heart of international politics with its: “… 3000 affiliated centres across the country and around the world,” and where:“… requests for assistance from the Washington Office arrive in a steady stream, often urgent in nature.” [6]

This urgency takes on new meaning when we recognise how much influence Israeli lobby groups an religious organisations have over American politics. If we are to believe the “Great Rebbe” Schneerson is revered as the New Jewish Messiah, then it is his doctrine that pervades Chabad Lubavitch’s religious imperative as the following statement by a Lubavitcher confirms:

“Our supreme obligation is to submit to the orders. Only later on we can ask for explanations. As was said at the Sinai mountain, we will do and then listen. […] Today, we should insist and demand and not to ask and try to convince or negotiate, but demand. Demand as much as it is possible to obtain, and the most difficult part is, everything that is possible to obtain, the more the better.” [7]

In June 2012, the lobbying continued under the AFL conference named “The Living Legacy” which saw Congressional leaders and top Obama administration officials rubbing shoulders with “… several hundred Chabad emissaries from across the United States.” Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the majority leader in the US House of Representatives, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the House minority whip; lawmakers such as Jeremy Bash, the Chief of Staff to Defence Secretary Leon Panetta; Bruce Reed, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief were all in attendance and dolling out the required applause. [8] Most importantly, all this socialising was to make sure that the US administration kept the “… bipartisan commitment to the US-Israel relationship” firmly handcuffed to fiscal policy and the need to keep that money flowing. [9]

Rabbi Abraham Shemtov speaks to supporters at the Hilton New York. (wikipedia)

In September 2001, Chabad Lubavitch already had its supporters in politics way before Bush or Obama and who may have proven to be crucial lynchpins in the 9/11 cover up. Remember Larry Silverstein, owner of Silverstein Properties, most of the World Trade Centre and close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu? Like Bibi, presently gunning for a conflagration with Iran as per Lubavitch prophecy, it seems Silverstein is also a closet Lubavitcher, at least when it benefits his financial goals.


If Jewish businessmen and Chabad supporters suffered during 9/11 and the 2008 crash, after his billion dollar pay-out, Larry was certainly not amongst them. Nonetheless, never one to turn down a freebie, he turned up for some kosher nibbles at the Chabad House on Wall St. run by Rabbi Katz and his wife Rachel who, according to Chabad Lubavitch’s official website: “… maintains a dawn to midnight schedule of classes and tefillin regulars in some of New York City’s most high-powered corner offices. His Chanukah menorah lighting venues have become something of a legend.” Before 9/11, Rabbi Katz invited Silverstein to light the Chabad Wall St. Menorah (which must have been the most supremely ironic moment, even for Larry). This was followed by many other prominent Wall St. big-wigs showing their support for Chabad such as philanthropist George Rohr in the New York Stock Exchange boardroom and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who hosted a menorah lighting ceremony in 2007. [10]

Silverstein is just one part of a substantial network of Zionist-Lubavitcher businessmen who may have enabled the corporate-logistical elements of the 9/11 attacks to take place. They represent the “asset assistance” group for Zionist operations. Frank Lowy owner of Westfield America, one of the biggest shopping mall conglomerates in the world; Ronald Lauder of Estée Lauder fame and Lewis Eisenberg who was the Chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey during the attack on the World Trade Centre – all feature as businessmen whose wealth has been put to great use for the Chabad-Zionist cause in America.

Frank Lowy 2011 (wikipedia)

Ranked as #2 in’s list of Australia and NZ’s richest individuals, ex-Goldman Sacs Lowy, partnered Silverstein in the 99 year leasing arrangement and rented a shopping concourse area called the Mall at the WTC. Made up of approximately 427,000 square feet of retail floor space it was just one in a number of retail outlets based in the US and Australasia. Bull-horned in one of their own press releases, Westfield America assets is: “… worth $59 billion, representing 124 shopping centres in four countries with over 10 million square meters of retail space. It is the world’s largest retail property group by equity market capitalization”. [11] Nothing unusual there, but it takes on a slightly different hue when we realise Lowy was also a member of the Jewish terrorist group Haganah and fought in the Israeli war of independence as a member of the Golani Brigade, one of the most highly decorated infantry units in the Israel Defence Forces – and the most questionable when it comes to Zionist fanaticism. [12]

With a military-corporate history like Lowy’s it will not come as a shock that he has fingers in both banking and politics. Having immigrated to Australia in the 1950s where he became chums with another tycoon Zionist Rupert Murdoch, he has been moving in banking circles for decades ending up on the board of Australia’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, which are effectively Australia’s Federal Reserve System and issuer of Australian dollars. Founded with his own money Lowy presides over the Israeli Institute for National Strategy and Policy, based at Tel Aviv University in Israel, an extension of the kind of academic Zionism that Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz would appreciate. Spending a few months of the year in Israel it gives him time to catch up with old friends which used to include Ariel Sharon and now Benyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, all of whom are Chabad supporters and right-wing Likud Party militants. It was Avinoam Brog, Barak’s brother, who told the Sydney Morning Herald that Lowy’s “influence is such that if he wanted to talk to any politician in Israel, then he could. And they will listen.” [13]

While Lowy has kept a very low profile indeed in relation to his involvement with 9/11 he has been busy behind the scenes in gathering together those that would have benefited from the attacks. The Lowy Institute for International policy is another “who’s who” of Zio-Conservatives, military intelligence, banking, corporate directors CEOs and Elite families coming together to direct global policy from an Australian perspective. It is the Asian stronghold of Brezezinskian economics. The RAND corporation, Brookings Institute, JP Morgan, Chevron, former Goldman Sacs executives and Homeland Security officials – they’re all there and more besides. [14] Most notably, Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel, President and Director of the Foreign Policy Program at the pro-Israel Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. Indyk’s right to use classified information was re-instated by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright in 2000 citing the turmoil in Israel and the Gaza Strip and “…for compelling national security reasons.” Nonetheless, the FBI still considers Indyk to be one of the prime suspects in the hunt for the Israeli spy known as “Mega.” [15] [16]

Assuming that the hunt wasn’t compromised from the start…

Martin Indyk

But should there be any PR problems then Likud supporter and media mogul Zionist Rupert Murdoch is always on hand. He has been associated with all three men and the recipient of awards from the ADL, the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), and the New York-based Museum of Jewish Heritage, mostly due to the substantial donations he has given to the organisations over the years.

Investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn quoted Sam Kiley, veteran journalist on the Middle East for the London Times who wrote about the mogul’s involvement of the newspaper:

“‘Murdoch is a close friend of Ariel Sharon.’ Kiley said Murdoch’s friendship with Sharon, led senior staff at the paper to rewrite important copy. ‘Murdoch’s executives were so afraid of irritating him that, when I pulled off a little scoop of tracking down and photographing the unit in the Israeli army that killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece ‘without mentioning the dead kid,’ ” Kiley wrote. “After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit.’ [17]

The visit with Sharon included a trip for Murdoch and his editors from New York and London that ‘took them on a bird’s-eye tour of Israel aboard a helicopter gunship, flying over the Golan Heights, West Bank and settlements.’”

The late Ariel Sharon (left) and media tycoon Rupert Murdoch were close friends

Like Lowy, another employee on the Goldman Sacs cartel conveyor belt and currently working as a senior adviser at a private equity firm, Lewis M. Eisenberg is an ardent Zionist and member of the planning board of the United Jewish Federation pro-Israeli pressure group. A financial supporter of the Bush-Cheney campaign and Dov Zakheim’s 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Eisenberg is your classic PNAC, Zio-Conservative and Wall St. predator. He believes that bankers have had a hard rap and unfairly “demonised” which should give you some idea as to where his loyalties lie. [18]
The crucial role that Eisenberg played as New York Port Authority Chairman was to make sure that Silverstein Properties had an exclusive deal on the 99 year-old lease for the WTC, dropping at the last minute a higher bid from opposing company Vornado Realty Trust and imposing a news blackout to safeguard discussions. He managed to give his view immediately after the 9/11 attacks claiming: “I just saw my two towers fall. I’m devastated beyond belief. In many respects this is significantly worse than Pearl Harbor, and we don’t know who the enemy is.” [19]

An early example of the Pearl Harbour script once again…

Lewis Eisenberg former Chairman of the Port Authority of NY/NJ, Chairman at the time of the September 11, 2001 attack of the World Trade Centre.

How devastating could it really be when Governor George Pataki appointed yet another Goldman Sacs chief John Whitehead in 2001 as chairman of the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corp., who then received a $2 billion of New York’s $8.2 billion federal aid? It was obvious from the start the rebuilding of lower Manhattan was a lucrative exercise for the Zionist tag teams, much to the dismay of civic groups, and the families of victims and survivors of the attack. Understandably, they thought Silverstein wanted to avoid their own development plan which may have limited his profits.

When Silverstein went ahead and begin construction on the site of WTC Building 7 in July of 2002, Eisenberg was appointed head of the LNRC in order to keep things in the family. [20] (It is also interesting to note that on Sep 10, 2001, the Tokyo branch of Goldman Sachs warned its American employees to steer clear of American buildings). MOSSAD explosives experts were crawling all over the site immediately after the destruction of the Twin Towers. Was the security management of the WTC complex designed to be in the hands of the controllers who could then allow access to all necessary areas of the WTC complex for preparation?

The attempt to gain control of the New York Port Authority (PA) had been an on-going project since at least the 1980s. Recalling Isser Harel’s “prescient” prediction in 1979, it was just seven years later that would see an intelligence team of senior agents – who had worked directly under Harel for decades – obtain the security contract for the Port Authority of New York. That company was Atwell Security from Tel Aviv. It was not to last however, when Edward J. O’Sullivan, director of the Office of Special Plans at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, cancelled the contract shortly thereafter when it was discovered that it was merely a front for the MOSSAD. [21] Even before the contract had been awarded, most of the board of directors of the PA were Jewish with Zionist affiliations.

The late Peter “Zvi” Malkin was the security consultant and intermediary between Atwell Security and the PA, negotiating on the company’s behalf. Malkin had long been known as an Israeli intelligence officer famous for kidnapping notorious Nazi Adolf Eichmann from Argentina in 1960. Bollyn surmises that: “Malkin’s artist disguise is probably the inspiration for the ‘art student’ operation to infiltrate DEA offices in 2001. … Michael Chertoff’s mother, Livia Eisen, one of the first MOSSAD agents, owned an art gallery in Elizabeth, New Jersey, when Malkin was posing as a painter in nearby New York”. [22]

Like so many Zionists involved in PA security and transport infrastructure, PA executive director Stephen Berger and later Stanley Brezenoff, (1990-1995) Deputy Mayor for Operations and First Deputy Mayor under Mayor Edward Irving Koch, must have been fully aware of Malkin’s background and Atwell Security’s history but allowed the contract through, nonetheless.

Maurice “Hank” Greenberg

The recipient of millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money for the bailout scam before it was sacrificed, AIG Corporation and its CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg joined forces with Silverstein buddy Israeli intelligence spook Jules Kroll and his investigative and security consulting firm Kroll Inc., becoming partner and co-owner in 1993. This took place prior to Greenberg forming a joint venture with the owner of MOSSAD run Amdocs telecommunications and provider of White House tele-software. [23] Greenberg is up to his neck in Chabad, Zionist and Israeli intelligence friends including Henry Kissinger who sat on the board of AIG and MOSSAD agent Shaul Eisenberg who had been responsible for the Asian division of Israel’s intel operations. He was also the owner of Atwell Security.

Jules Kroll

Kroll Associates have many friendships and business connections, all of whom have links to Zionist think-tanks, Israeli intelligence fronts and Jewish organisations, in turn leading back to the Goldman Sacs cartel. It has thus been described as a “private CIA.” [24] Which makes it all the more suspect when, following the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, Jules & Jeremy Kroll of Kroll Inc. was asked by the New York Port Authority to help design new security measures for the WTC complex paying them $2.5 million for the privilege. (Shades of the Silverstein formula?) Included in this massive overhaul was an extensive analysis of future terrorist threats and how they might be addressed, with assessments concluding that a second terrorist attack against the WTC was probable. Even more incredible, is the specific citing of terrorists deliberately flying a plane into the WTC towers. [25]

John O’Neill, former New York FBI Counter terror chief responsible for the investigation into Osama bin Laden.

The managing director of Kroll at the time was militant Zionist Jerome M. Hauer who just happened to be the candidate chosen to run Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s office of emergency management (OEM) from 1996 to 2000. It was here that former FBI chief of counterterrorism and specialist on Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden John O’Neill was invited by Hauer, then Managing director of the Kroll security, to be head of security for the World Trade Centre.
What makes this even more curious is that O’Neill was:

“… Not only the world’s leading expert on bin Laden, but he was also regarded as a ‘loose cannon’, because of his record of working outside normal channels when normal channels were ‘blocked’. He knew FBI investigations into bin Laden and al-Q’aeda had been shut down in the summer of 2001 and it is extremely unlikely that he would have remained quiet about it. He also knew whether or not Osama bin Laden was capable of inflicting the amount of damage the US suffered on 9/11. In other words, if the conspirators were hoping to spread a Big Lie about Osama bin Laden, they would have had a short list of things they absolutely had to do.

Surely, one of the items on that list would be to silence John O’Neill. And what better way than to entomb him at the scene of the crime? [26]

O’Neill’s investigations into the roots of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen – proven to have been carried out by MOSSAD – all led him into serious confrontations with the FBI and federal government. He was sacked from the Bureau in 2001 and by the end of the year he was dead, killed on his first day at work on September 11th. O’Neill is memorialised at the North Pool, on Panel N-63.

Not only was Hauer responsible for placing O’Neill in his own forensic crime scene and thus getting rid of a major detractor of the official story, he managed to be an “expert” on that official story even before it was public knowledge. On the morning of September 11th, 2001 Hauer read the same script to anchor man Dan Rather on CBS News, dutifully remembered though nervously imparted:

Dan Rather: Based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts, is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings, or would it have required the, sort of, prior positioning of other explosives in the, uh, in the buildings? I mean, what do you think?

Jerome M. Hauer

Jerome Hauer: No, I, uh, my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, uh, that burned, uh, the velocity of that plane, uh, certainly, uh, uh, had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, uh, probably weakened the structure as well, uh, and I think it, uh, was, uh, simply the, uh, the planes hitting the buildings, and, and causing the collapse.

Dan Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he’s been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence, uh, people at very high levels who say, listen, you can’t have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.

Jerome Hauer: Yeah, well I’m not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden. [27]
A fairly shoddy example of the “Arabs-did-it” script backed up with the official story even before most people had barely the time to process these events. All presented by non-expert Hauer for prime-time TV. After being brainwashed by these associations, what the public didn’t know was that Hauer was introduced to TV audiences as a former director of NYC’s Office of Emergency management (OEM). In fact, he was the managing director of the security company responsible for the Twin Towers.

Now, that would have been interesting to know.

Two months later, along with “peace” experts like Henry Kissinger, Jerome Hauer went on to capitalise on the all-knowing, all-seeing nature of his expertise by participating in the CFR sponsored white paper called “Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism.”

Their objectives were to explain:

“…our goals and rationale for the war in Afghanistan, and [outline] the evidence that the Al-Qaeda network was responsible for the 9/11 attacks; disseminate stories of particular victims to convey the range of people killed in the 9/11 attacks — stress range of religions, races, income levels, etc.; counteract [the] myth that Mossad was behind the attacks by showing Jews killed, etc.” and “Routinely monitor the regional press in real time to enable prompt responses.”

They did a fine job. We never hear any mention of Israel and 9/11 in the same sentence. And thanks to the ADL, B’Rin B’Raith and AIPAC, the spectre of anti-Semitism accusations and expert propaganda is a tight nut to unscrew.


[1] ‘Senator Carl Levin, NORAD, and Chabad Lubavitch’ by Carol A. Valentine, President, Public Action, Inc. June, 2002.
[2] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson quoted from pp.58-62; Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky Published by Pluto Press, 1999.
[3] ‘Washington Honors Lubavitcher Rabbi,’ By James Besser, Baltimore Jewish Times, June 6, 1995, p.32.
[4] ‘White House to Chabad: Bush won’t press Israel.’ Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) June 27, 2006.
[5] The Jerusalem Post October 22, 2000.
[7] The Man and Century Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson
[8] ‘Chabad emissaries meet with lawmakers, Obama officials’ – The keynote speech was by Talmud scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz., The Times of Israel, June 25, 2012.
[9] Ibid.
10] ‘Chabad of Wall Street Moves On, Does Not Forget 9/11’ by R. C. Berman – NYC, NY, September 10, 2008, Chabad Lubavitch World HQ,
[11] ‘The Westfield Group’s shopping centre portfolio is one of the largest in the world.” (Press release). Westfield Group. 20 August 2011.
[12] “Following the deployment of Golani soldiers in Hebron in December 2011, it has been reported that city residents have sensed a ‘manifest worsening of soldiers behavior’, as a result of ‘detention, intimidation, provocation and arrest of children and teenagers; arbitrary detention of Palestinians or blocking access to roads; beating or threatened beating of detained residents; religion-based provocation and insults; forcible entry into homes and violation of Palestinian property’ and ‘reprisals against local and international human rights activists.’” – ‘IDF brigade leaves an impression in Hebron’. Haaretz, By Amira Hass, Feb.13, 2012.
[13] ‘The quiet benefactor: Lowy’s close ties with Israel’ The Sydney Morning Herald, September 29, 2008.
[15] ‘U.S. Envoy to Israel Regains Clearance–for Duration of Crisis’ By Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2000
[16] ‘Israeli Spies: ‘Mega Was Not An Agent; Mega Was the Boss’ by Jeffrey Steinberg EIR, August 31 2001.
[17] ‘Media Mogul’s Sinister Links to September 11: The Aussie Connection’ to – Exclusive to American Free Press, By Christopher Bollyn, July 10, 2003.
[18] ‘Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall Street’ (video) Huffington Post
[19] ‘World Trade Center Deal Remains in Doubt’ By Charles V. Bagli, The New York Times, March 17, 2001.
[20] ‘Downtown Renewal Head Vows Independent Effort’ By Charles V. Bagli, The New York Times, December 20, 2001 | ‘Developer’s Pace at 7 World Trade Center Upsets Some’ By Charles V. Bagli, The New York Times, January 31, 2002.
[21] op. cit. Bollyn.
[22] p.156; Solving 9/11: The Deception that Changed the World. By Christopher Lee Bollyn. Published by Christopher Bollyn, 2012.
[23] Extract from Christopher Bollyn’s 2012 book: Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World showing the dizzying connections of financial benefits accrued by the Kroll family prior to, during and after the events of 9/11:
• Maurice Greenberg and Jules Kroll became partners in 1993, the same year Kroll Associates “was chosen over three other companies to advise the Port Authority on a redesign of its security procedures.” “We have such confidence in them that I have followed every one of their recommendations,” Stanley Brezenoff, the Port Authority executive director, told the New York Times in 1994.
• Kroll controlled security at the World Trade Center complex in 2001 and was responsible for hiring John O’Neill, the former chief of counterterrorism for the FBI, who died on 9/11, reportedly his first day on the new job.
• Jerome M. Hauer, the former director of Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management, was responsible for having the command bunker built in Larry Silverstein’s WTC 7. Hauer was a managing director for Kroll in 2001.
• Kroll revamped security at the World Trade Center after the 1993 terrorist bombing. Kroll was reportedly responsible for security at the World Trade Center on 9/11. “Over the last two years, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has paid Kroll $2.5 million to overhaul security at the World Trade Center and evaluate procedures at the agency’s bridges, tunnels and airports,” the New York Times reported on September 1, 1994.
• Kroll was hired by Kuwait in October 1990 to find the hidden wealth of Saddam Hussein.
• Kroll began profiting from the war in Iraq in April 2003 when it received contracts to provide protection and security for government agencies and companies in Iraq.
• Jeremy Kroll serves on the board of the Israel-based Challenge Fund with Israeli government officials from the highest level, including Israel’s National Security Advisor and Head of the National Security Council, a former head of Shin Bet, former Directors General of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense, former Commanders of the Israel Air Force, Central Command, and the Technology and Logistic Branch of the IDF, as well as the head of Boeing (Israel) and the son of Yitzhak Shamir. The Challenge Fund uses money raised through the Bronfman and Andreas (ADM) families to fund Israeli companies, like ViryaNet.
[24] op.cit Bollyn
[25] ‘The Secret Keeper: Jules Kroll and the world of corporate intelligence.’ by William Finnegan. The New Yorker, October 19, 2009. /
[26] op. cit. Bollyn.
[27] ‘Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment’ February 26, 2007


““Megabucks, rather than forces of Cabala, move the events in the Middle East.”

– Israel Shamir

Once the security had been taken over then planning could proceed accordingly. When the Towers did come down then ALL the evidence had to be cleared away and dispensed with, which indeed it was. The 9/11 terror architects had to be very sure that their meticulous operation was not discovered in the aftermath. The steel had to be quickly cut up, shipped off to Asian smelters so that it could be dealt with far from the prying eyes of forensic investigators. Christopher Bollyn’s meticulous research detailed in his book Solving 9-11 (2010) pinpoints several characters who spirited away any damning evidence that would connect them to the scene of the crime, all of whom were surrounding New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani like spokes to a wheel.

The Hugo Neu Schnitzer company run by Robert Kelman received, processed and shipped almost 230,000 tons of steel from the World Trade Centre with some of the steel transported directly from ground zero to waiting barges which were then ferried to Kelman’s New Jersey junk-yard. It was here that everything was cut, mixed and shipped to Asia including countries such as Malaysia, China, South Korea and Japan. Hugo Neu processed 250,000 tons (88%) of WTC steel in a severely depressed scrap market. As Bollyn remarks: “The price of scrap steel for export in 2001-2003 was at its lowest level in 50 years, between $70-80 per ton. Why would a steel trader in New Jersey spend $25 per ton to ship the WTC steel to distant Asian smelters when it could have been shipped for a fraction of the cost to U.S. steel companies?” [1]

Ten years later Hugo Neu has major shares in Agua-Agro Fund, an Israeli venture capital outfit. Managed by Nir Belzer who is co-founder of Israel’s Millennium Materials Technologies Funds with Oren Gafri who is particularly interesting in light of nanotechnology:
From 1979 to 1989, Gafri served as an executive of the Israeli Aircraft Industries Ltd (IAI), Bedek Division, as the Manager of Materials and Process, in charge of the Chemical, Metallurgical, Composite and Non Destructive Testing (NDT) facilities, Labs and R&D. He trained at Israel’s Nuclear Research Center (Dimona) in the Negev Desert. Gafri is a specialist in energetic nano-composite coatings exactly like the one that pulverized the 220 acres of concrete floors in the World Trade Center. Belzer and Gafri’s MMT Fund is invested in several companies that produce such coatings. [2]
Hardly coincidental one would think.

Evidence at Ground Zero being destroyed and shipped away as scrap metal (Source:

Other less well-known individuals in the Giuliani Partners consulting company all seemed to play crucial roles in the cover up and destruction of evidence. Two of these players were: “Pasquale J. D’Amuro, the FBI inspector in charge of the 9/11 investigation, who supervised the ‘non-investigation’ at the World Trade Centre, and Richard Sheirer, the ‘Jewish knight’ who oversaw the removal and destruction of the crucial steel evidence by having it sent to Zionist-run scrapyards in New Jersey…” [3] The Mayor had been a long time Zionist tool and Neo-Conservative war-hawk on Iraq and Iran for some time, regularly back-slapping the Israeli lobby and ADL. As Paul Craig Roberts asserts: “… practically every Giuliani advisor is a member of the Lobby.” [4] It is not an exaggeration to say that without Giuliani much of the 9/11 cover up could never have run as smoothly as it did.

At a press briefing on the recovery operations at the World Trade Centre disaster area September 21, 2001 at the Emergency Operations Centre in New York City, Giuliani was accompanied by then Jerusalem Mayor and future Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert. Bollyn raises a vital question: when scores of Israeli agents were already being found to be running around military infrastructure of the United States, why did Giuliani hide: “… the fact that Olmert had been in New York City on the day before 9/11 and probably on the day itself.” And further: “Why was Olmert in New York City on 10 September 2001, and why has his visit been kept secret?” [5] (Since corruption is a normal state of affairs in politics, Olmert must have ruffled someone’s feathers since then, as he was given a six year sentence and fined $290,000 for accepting bribes).

Ultra-right wing trio: Likud’s Ehud Olmert mayor of Jerusalem with mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani and Republican Sen. John McCain at the Emergency Operations Center in New York on September 21, 2001. What was Olmert doing in a secret meeting one day before the 9/11 attacks? Why no mention of this apparent coincidence?

None of this would have been able to happen if Billionaire Chabad Lubavitcher Ronald Lauder of perfume corporation Estée Lauder had not been on the New York State Research Council on Privatization and lobbied for the privatization of the WTC. [6] An active member of the Jewish National Fund, American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, the ADL, Jewish Theological Seminary and elected President of the World Jewish Congress in June 2007, Ronald Lauder was well-placed within the sayanim support network. The MOSSAD’s use of the art world as cover crops up again with Lauder who, as former US Ambassador to Austria: “…has a fabulous collection of paintings that has made him one of the most envied and influential figures on the world art market.” [7] Enter Lauder’s secretive mistress Daniella Luxembourg and her business partner Amalia Dayan, both from art auctioneers Phillips, de Pury & Luxembourg. Dayan is the grand-daughter of Moshe Dayan, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces in the 1950s and later Defence Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel.

Ronald Lauder

The descendants of PNAC, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy think tanks are part of Lauder’s ideological base. As is the case with all his colleagues – he has the financial and military intelligence clout to assist the MOSSAD machine. As another Bush supporter who praised his “ideological vision,” a principle of Chabadism that demands an active ideology to supplant all else, Lauder reiterates the force tabled by the Great Rebbe:

“I am convinced that Israelis desire, and have a right to ask for, such a newly-invigorating ideological vision. They demand it from their leaders. Israelis want to know – Jews the world over want to know! — not only how the army is going to be strengthened or the financial system reformed, but where Israel is going. Why we are going there. What do we believe in – and how this is manifested in policy. Israelis need to believe in the justness, correctness and moral superiority of their path, and this can only come from a shared and well-tended ideological vision.” [8]

This “moral superiority” is still being “manifested in policy” to a most dangerous degree from the likes of Lauder and his immense political leverage within Zionist and Lubavitch circles. With close ties to Benjamin Netanyahu and family links to the Federal Reserve, the cosmetics magnate is currently president of the World Jewish Congress, with multiple interests in real estate and Israeli media. As a dedicated follower of Chabad Lubavitch, he helped set up many Lauder Chabad elementary and high schools in Vienna, Austria. In 2009, he inaugurated the first Jewish University in the city “with a curriculum drawing on methods and courses used at the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania” and which includes a heritage centre directed by a Chabad rabbi. One article on the Chabad Lubavitch website reported on dinner in his honour following the event where he stated: “… that he owes all of his accomplishments in establishing Jewish education to the merit of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory. ‘Without me meeting his emissary, Rabbi Biderman, 20 years ago in this city (Vienna),’ said Lauder, ‘all of that I have done would not have happened.’” [9]

It was also Lauder’s Chabadism which led him to endorse propaganda think-tank EMET which was aimed at buttressing support for Likudnik Ariel Sharon’s plans to scupper the Middle East peace process. Lauder: “… met with Sharon in September 2000—just before the latter staged his provocation at the Islamic holy sites on the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, triggering the on-going violence.” [10]

(Sharon was poisoned by the Orthodox Chabad settlers for Oslo land for peace attempt…RP)

The foundation to EMET was drawn from billionaire members of the Zionist spy-group “Mega” headed by Edward Bronfman to which Lauder had direct links due to his fanatical devotion to the ideology of Lubavitch war. Or as Israel Shamir described: “The megabucks call themselves ‘Mega group.’ This name appeared in the media … as a name for the secret Israeli mole in the upper reaches of the U.S. establishment. It came up in an overheard phone conversation, later denied by the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. The newshounds and spook watchers got it wrong. ‘Mega’ was not an agent, Mega was the boss.” [11]

President of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald Lauder in September 2014
(Photo: Michael Thaidigsmann via Wikimedia Commons)

It was in May 2001 at the Manhattan mansion of Edgar Bronfman, the head of the World Jewish Congress, where Lauder found himself amongst 50 of the “… richest and most powerful Jews of the U.S. and Canada. There was no press coverage, no limelight, just a few lines in the newspapers… They agreed to launch a PR program under the Orwellian codename of ‘Truth’ with the purpose of influencing American public opinion regarding Israeli policies.” Shamir goes on to say: “Megabucks, rather than forces of Caballa, move the events in the Middle East.” [12] However, this would be to hugely underestimate the power of Zionism in the world today. Yes, there is a lot of money involved from the likes of 50 billionaires but this is only half the story as we consider the events of 9/11.

Not to be outdone by Frank Lowy’s Institute, Lauder founded the Lauder School of Government Diplomacy and Strategy based in Herzliya, Israel. It is one of the most prestigious Universities in Israel and the US. With a great emphasis on psychology and counter-terrorism. With more than an obvious Israeli bias it effectively acts as a recruitment university for the IDF and the MOSSAD whose headquarters are just down the road. Uzi Arad is director of the institute of policy and strategy at the school after being a senior official in MOSSAD for 25 years. [13]

As with so many Israeli software companies, Odigo’s Research and Development (R&D) centre is based in Herzliya, North of Tel Aviv. It was the Israeli Odigo company who received at least two warnings two hours before that the 9/11 attacks were imminent and failed to alert the authorities. In fact, South East Asia News Corp tells us that more than 4000 Hebrew-speaking persons were warned of the impending attacks by Odigo’s messaging system. Nationality and religion had nothing to do it, despite the ADL attempting to paint such “conspiracy theories” as anti-Semitic rants. According to Bollyn: “Shortly after 9/11, Odigo was taken over by Comverse Technology, another Israeli company. Within a year, five executives from Comverse were reported to have profited by more than $267 million from ‘insider trading.’” A former Israeli military officer, the CEO of Comverse, Jacob “Kobi” Alexander, was charged on several counts of fraud but allowed to escape. (This did not stop him wiring $7 million to his his account before absconding to Nambia). [14]

Yakobi Alexander

As explored in The Z Factor series many scores of Israeli-based telecommunications and software companies are operating in the United States which are: “… sponsored by Mossad funding sources such as Cedar Fund, Stage One Ventures, Veritas Venture Partners, and others.”

Bollyn continues, that unsurprisingly:

“… the portfolios of these Mossad-linked funding companies contain only Israeli-based companies, such as Odigo. Reading through the strikingly similar websites of these Israeli ‘VC’ funds and their portfolio companies, one can’t help but notice that the key ‘team’ players share a common profile and are often former members of ‘Israel’s Intelligence Corps’ and veterans of the R&D Department of the Israel Air Force or another branch of the military. Most are graduates of Israel’s ‘Technion’ school in Haifa, Mossad’s Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) [15]

And under the Interdisciplinary Centre (IDC) also based in Herzliya, a private, non-profit university with a “research institute” which was headed by Shabtai Shavit, former head of the MOSSAD from 1989- 1996 is called the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. The Lauder school comes under its auspices. With assets like this straddling the telecommunications and software infrastructure of Israel and the US what other utilities were monopolised during 9/11?

Quite a lot, it seems.

Ptech Software systems had the FAA, NATO, USAF, Congress, the White House and virtually all US Federal departments as clients during September, 2001. MITRE an important defence contractor were deeply connected to CIA/ MOSSAD front outfits and dual nationality, Zionist personnel. In fact, it seems: “Ptech software [was] loaded with trapdoors and Trojan Horses … sold and loaded onto the MOST sensitive computer systems that failed miserably, or performed well (depending on your view), on September 11, 2001. Ptech was with the MITRE Corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11. Their specific job was to look at inter-operability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency.” [16]

NORAD emblem

It was the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and the FAA who presided over so many delays and failures of procedure in tracking, intercepting and communicating the hijackings to relevant authorities. Claiming there were “oversights” or “errors of judgment” do not stand up to even the lightest scrutiny. NORAD has still not explained its role in the serious time lags and breakdown in protocol during the 9/11 attacks and remains one of the most suspect players in the whole charade. Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; CFR member and Chabad supporter Sen. Carl Levin is of central importance on this issue. When Time Magazine named him “one of America’s 10 best senators” this was the moment that Levin had official Establishment approval, and it is not difficult to see why. The Michigan Senator is empowered with legislative oversight of the nation’s military, including military research and development, nuclear energy and the Department of Defence, National Security, military benefits and the Selective Service System. He is also an ex-officio on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and most importantly perhaps – the Select Committee on Intelligence. That’s a lot of power for a man who has publicly lauded Chabad Lubavitch in the Senate and has made a pastime of covering up Israeli financial transgressions. [17] It appears these skills were honed during the 9/11 operation and beyond.

Senator Carl Levin during a Senate confirmation hearing

On September 13, 2001, when Vice-Chairman of the JCS, Gen. Richard Myers, and NORAD Commander Ralph Eberhart were meant to be grilled as to why, how and what went wrong regarding the hijacked flights, it was Sen. Carl Levin’s committee that allowed them to walk away without so much as a reprimand. Caroline A. Valentine was one of the first to alert us to the behaviour of Levin and rightly points out that a major part of the 9/11 hearing was vectored away from finding the truth just as it was with every other tightly controlled internal “commission” and “inquiry.”
Valentine includes a letter in her 2002 article “Senator Carl Levin, NORAD, and Chabad Lubavitch” [18] from her fellow 9/11 investigator Dick Eastman who, on June 10, 2002 wrote an open letter to the editor of The Village Voice clearly showing how Levin “shielded” General Myers from critical questions from other panel members. General Myers appeared to be bumbling, unsure and could barely remember his name. But it was not a question of nervousness. Myers is not a delicate wall-flower but approved as one of the most capable men in the US military. Therefore, this was a case of intentional and disingenuous stalling fully aware of the stakes at hand. Valentine notes the discrepancy in her own forthright and humorous way:

Note how Levin jumped in to save Myers from Senator Nelson’s pointed questions getting at the heart of the matter of “what happened to the response of the defense establishment,” of WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED THAT THE MILITARY SUCKED EGGS FOR 40 MINUTES AFTER TOWER TWO WAS HIT LETTING THE PENTAGON EVENT HAPPEN. Levin very cleverly takes over the conversation — gets Myers off the spot — and diverts everything onto the trivial small picture detail question of the time of specific phone calls from Specific agencies — rather than the all-important broad system questions Nelson was going for. In fact, Levin, thinking that he was quicker than Myers, here jumped in with an answer that Myers could use to evade the really important and critical questions of Sen. Nelson. […] Senator Levin, you would not have jumped in with that remark if you were at all interested in getting to the bottom of the mystery of the 40 minute failure of the Air Force to intercept a plane attacking the Pentagon in Washington D.C. [19]

The dialogue effectively saved Myers from any more nonsensical blustering with Senator Levin’s remark drawing a line under any more questioning: “And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that information.” The subject of why jets were not scrambled; who phoned whom and when, and why NORAD did nothing as two jet-airliners cruised into the Twin Towers obviously wasn’t of sufficient importance for Myers to remember the basic facts. He was allowed to march happily away and criminality was set free. Needless to say, no other information was ever forthcoming, thanks to Levin.

Richard Bowman Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in September 2002.

The fact that General Myers’ behaviour was so odd and the whole committee meeting a waste of time prompted another cardboard cut-out, military brass-tack to be shoved into the spot-light to provide a get-out clause for all the non-answers.

Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie, the French-Canadian second-in-command of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, suspected “… there might have been more than just the four aircraft involved.” Suspicions were drawn from the fact that: “… passengers left a grounded plane on Sept. 11, somewhere in North America.” And could the good Lieutenant-General provide the committee with answers as how 40 minutes of thumb-twiddling preceded two jet-airliners crashing into what should have been the most heavily defended location on globe? The General too, it seems, thought this quite normal stating: “From our perception, we think our reaction on that day was sufficiently quick that we may well have precluded at least one other hijacking. We may not have. We don’t know for sure.” [20]

One thing of which we can be sure, those “perceptions” didn’t include anything approaching the facts at the time of the attacks nor in front of the committee, which made the General’s testimony of no use at all. This may have been the real goal. But Pennie made another blunder. If, as the General mentioned: “In the minutes after the Sept. 11 attacks, control of the continent’s airspace was turned over to NORAD” and the last attack occurred at 9:38am, then as Valentine points out: “… it means NORAD did not respond until after the last hit, until after 9:38 a.m. Ahhh, so that means… Oui? Lt. Gen. Pennie thus contradicts American generals Myers and Eberhart. The operations officer at the time that control of North America’s airspace was transferred to NORAD happened to be a Canadian naval captain, Gen. Pennie said.” [21]

What was a Canadian Naval Captain doing responding to an air attack on the United States? The General wasn’t there just to look after his own skin but follow the implicit cues from Carl Levin, General Myers and Ralph Eberhart.

Let us also remember that it was Senator Levin and co-conspirator John McCain who were given the job of drafting the National Defence Authorization Act bill, (NDAA) which permits the worldwide provision of indefinite detention without charge or trial of those far from any battlefield. The bill was passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without a single hearing. This gives us some idea as to whom such a bill would benefit: exactly the players who pulled off 9/11. [22] McCain’s lobbying companion Chabad-Zionist Joe Lieberman – who thankfully retired the Democratic party at the end of 2012 – is a supporter of the Iraq war and like all Likud accolytes, has urged action against Iran. Vehemently opposed to freedom of speech and any form of dissent, equating it with “terrorism” and drafting bills to hack away citizens’ rights, Lieberman was also famous for ordering search engine giant Google to flag blogs with a “terrorist content” icon. [23] Not content with supporting warrantless spy-tapping against American citizens, during a July 2012 press conference on Capitol Hill, Lieberman: “…urged fellow lawmakers to pass his Internet spying bill in order to prevent what he dubbed ‘a cyber 9/11 or a 9/11 Pearl Harbour.’” [24]

Joe Lieberman

Where have we heard that before?

It was the actions of Levin and NORAD which prompted panel members Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton to begin to question the whole premise of the 9/11 Commission Report. Kean stated: “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.” [25] Whilst senior counsel to the Report John Farmer, Jr. supported the misgivings of his colleagues going further by stating that “… what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when—was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.” Farmer believed that “… the (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public.” [26]
Zionist appointees were scattered all over 9/11 panels, commissions and committees which sprang up immediately after the attacks, so it is not surprising that the heat remained directed toward Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and later the less than innocent Saudi Royal family. Meanwhile, Zionists and their relgious fanatics on the Chabad and Evangelical divide provide the perfect cover.


[1] ‘Hugo Neu and the Giuliani Partners Who Destroyed the Steel of 9/11’ By Christopher Bollyn, April 18, 2011 |
[2] Ibid.
3] Ibid.
[4] ‘Leaderless and Clueless: America Heads for the Trash Can of History’ By Paul Craig Roberts, Information Clearing House, November 28, 2007.
[5] Ibid.
6] Governor George Pataki, Acting governor Di Francesco Laud Historic Port Authority Agreement to Privatize World trade Center, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Jul 24, 2001, Press Release Number: 101-2001.
[7] ‘Estee’s son and heir on the scent of a new life’ Daily Mail, March 14, 2006.
[8] Lecture Summary, 7th Conference 2007, Amb. Ronald S. Lauder, Founder, Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy, IDC Herzliya. |
[9] ‘Cosmetics Magnate Inaugurates Vienna’s Only Jewish University’ By Shmulik Laster, October 29, 2007.
[10] ‘Israeli Spies: ‘Mega Was Not An Agent; Mega Was the Boss’’by Jeffrey Steinberg, Aug. 31, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[11] ‘Kugel Eaters’ By Israel Shamir, May 6,
[12] Ibid.
[14] ‘Mossad – The Israeli Connection To 9/11’ By Christopher Bollyn, Exclusive to American Free Press April 14 2005.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] ‘Senator Carl Levin’s,Arlen Specter’s ‘Naked Short Fannie Mae Theory’ vs JFK ‘Magic Bullet’ Assassination Theory’ by Tony Ryals, Philidelphia Independent Media Centre, August 20, 2009.
[18] ‘Senator Carl Levin, NORAD, and Chabad Lubavitch’ by Carol A. Valentine, President, Public Action, Inc. June 15, 2002.
[19] Ibid.
[20] ‘General suspects Sept. 11 plot was wider’ By Tu Thanhha, Montreal, Globe and Mail, Jun. 13 2002 / Apr. 22 2009.
[21] op. cit Valentine.
[22] “On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.”
[23] ‘Joe Lieberman Wants Terrorist Labels on Blogs’ |
[24] ‘Lieberman claims his Internet spying bill would prevent ‘a 9/11 Pearl Harbor’’ By Stephen C. Webster, The Raw Story, July 24, 2012.
[25] The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11. By John Famer Jr.; Published by Riverhead Books. 2009. | ISBN 1-59448-894 (intro).
[26] Ibid. (p. 261) | ‘The Ground Truth’. By Harry Levins, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 6, 2009.


“Over the past decade, the influence of Chabad cultists in the world has not only grown but also entrenched. This is the only Jewish religious sect, which, assuming the role of leader of world Jewry, climbed into world politics. Its presence greatly affected American politics. In addition, the heads of state of the former Soviet Union are listening to Chabad.”

– Ukrainian author /activist Rabbi Baron Eduard Hodos

Factions of those in the domination game include persons within Chabad Lubavitch and Zionist infiltrators. A Messianic Jewish theocracy is very much part of the overall, top level psychopathic designs merging into the totality that is Pathocracy. More importantly, these factions are nodes within an overarching global occult influence as will discover in greater detail further along. As one faction of this emergence, these would-be-leaders of Chabad working within Judaism have definite objectives tied to foundational beliefs. Let’s remind ourselves what some of those beliefs are:
▪ The abolition of Christmas.
▪ The labelling of Christians or Gentiles as “idol worshippers.”
▪ The instruction to all Christians to give up their religion or be put to death.
▪ The education and instruction of a belief that Jesus practiced sorcery; worshipped stone idols and was sexually immoral.
▪ To establish a caste system in the US based on heredity and religion.
▪ The forcing of US citizens to adopt a synthesized “religion” invented for a servant class.
▪ A World theocratic Jewish State [1]

As bizarre as it may sound, these are all part and parcel of Chabad Lubavitch literature, most typically the Noahide (or Noachide) Laws which are revered, respected and taken very seriously indeed. As German author and journalist Wolfgang Eggert reminds us:

“By 1723 freemasonry had already incorporated the Noachidic statutes into its Constitutions… Charges & Regulations; freemasons have always called themselves ‘Noachids’. In 1991 when the first war on Iraq was started, George Bush Senior forwarded this peculiar “blessing” to the whole nation: The seven Noachidic laws were solemnly declared to be the foundation of the United States by the Congress and the President.” [2]

Which may, in part, offer an insight as to why the Jewish Kabbalah has been so important in freemasonry and how Zio-Conservatism has comprehensively infiltrated US politics. Lubavitchers – or if you prefer, Chabadniks – are also embedded in the socio-political infrastructure of the United States.

Now, doesn’t that feed into the red herring “conspiracy theory” of Jews hoping to control the world?

Hopefully, at this stage the reader will know it is much more complex than that. Ponerology dictates which cluster of psychopaths will mount the best defence of their realm, and it appears the religious authoritarian megalomaniacs within the rabbinical hierarchy of Chabad Lubavitch and Ashkenazi Revisionist Zionism are major candidates for that particular mantle. So, to imply that it is strictly a “Jewish conspiracy” across the military-corporate and media complex is to do a huge injustice to ordinary Jews. Similarly, the conspiracy at work is largely public having been normalised by a variety of puppets and players within the 3EM. In order to see their various strains of psychopathy within our culture, entrenched beliefs and parallel taboos cannot be ignored. Hence the exploration of Chabad Lubavitch.

With Chabad Lubavitch rabbis from around the world, U.S. President George W. Bush signs a presidential proclamation in honor of Education and Sharing Day, highlighting the important work of the Chabad Lubavitch movement. | Joyce N.
Boghosian—Offical White House Photo

While many Hassidic Jews would not associate themselves with such beliefs. Others go further, interpreting Lubavitch doctrine in the strictest terms. Chabad Rabbi Manis Friedman made an interesting comment in 2009 from the Jewish magazine Moment perfectly illustrating the minds of elder Chabadniks: “I don’t believe in Western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral. The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).” [3] It seems that Friedman has taken his bizarre inspiration from the Yahweh-driven bloody wars of the ancient Israelites. The rabbi issued a statement not long after – in all probability at the request of Chabad hierarchy – so that he could “clarify” his initially, revealing prose. He was at pains to say that his opinion was his alone and that it did: “… not represent the official policy of any Jewish movement or organization.” [4]

Despite this, his statements are mild compared to what we would find in classical Jewish doctrine of the Talmud, the Tanya and a succession of Grand Rebbes’ proclamations. It seems he also forgot the legacy of Schneerson. Though he paid lip service to “compassion” it was clearly the words rather than the basic premise that gave rise to the invective which was “irresponsible” and “misleading.” Another fine example of paralogical and paramoralistic discourse at work. Like the banking, oil and weapons and hedge fund billionaires of today, philanthropy conceals a multitude of sins. With the Establishment hierarchy it is a conscious means to and end which has little to do with alleviating humanity’s suffering rather, philanthropy offers a way to keep the illusion of altruism in place and to buffer the disconnect between what they say and what they do. Organized Religion, with its cults and sects are no different. The hierarchical structure comes first regardless of whether the moral and ethical pillars have long since been eaten away by parasites. The vast majority of responses from presumably Jewish readers condemned the Rabbi’s views in the strongest possible terms. Though there were scattered posts praising or excusing what are essentially statements celebrating a cold-bloodied religious psychopathy.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

For high level Chabadniks and Zionists who lobbied the Bush Administration and now Barack Obama, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson was more than a spiritual inspiration, he was perfection embodied; the Messiah or “Moshiach”. Accordingly, what he said was taken very seriously and encouraged to be interpreted literally. The “Great Rebbe” told his followers “The main avodah of this generation is to go out to the final war of the Golus,* to conquer and to purify all the gentile countries.” [5] Schneerson was telling the present generation of Jews to go out and “conquer and purify” the Gentile (non-Jew) nations as laid down in the Noahide Laws. Lubavitcher Bryan Ellison tells us that Chabad followers have a special duty; the generation of Jews after the creation of Israel:

“… is the last generation of exile and darkness, and the first generation of Moshiach and the Redemption. All of us — Jews and Noachides — have an urgent responsibility to transform the world immediately in order to bring Moshiach, and this involves going well beyond the minimum of the Law.” [6]

During the Bush Administration key positions were taken up by Chabadniks. Among those handed the keys to Office were Press Officer Ari Fleischer, Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton and Vice-Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz. All three were great admirers of Schneerson and believed in his Messianic vision. Though Fleischer, Bolton and many others were highly effective in contouring political opinion and military support for Chabad designs it was Lubavitcher devotee Wolfowitz who was considered one of the key intermediaries between, Chabad, the Israeli-Zionist lobby and Neo-Conservative ideology and practice.

Paul Wolfowitz (wikipedia)

Whereas Dov Zakheim’s task was to oversee US Depart of Defence fiscal policy tipping the balance toward weapons shipments into Israeli hands, Wolfowitz’s influence and power extended into higher realms of foreign policy and geo-political strategy. His major contribution to the militarisation of the American energy policy necessarily included foreign interventions which were integrated into Cheney’s much quoted doctrine of perpetual war to defend and protect newly acquired resources. Wolfowitz was renowned for being the intellectual force behind radical Neo-Conservatism, the maturing of which was fostered by the late Albert Wohlstetter during his doctorate at the University of Chicago in the late 1960’s. Wohlstetter worked for the cold war strategy think tank the RAND Corp, [7] and besides being steeped in Zionist ideology, was a believer in the view that nuclear deterrence was not a satisfactory basis for strategic doctrine; the United States actually had to be not only the best in nuclear strategy but prepared to unleash the dogs of war in order deter the enemy –no doubt wiping out Israel’s perceived enemies in the process. (Consequently, the craziness of Wohlstetter was one of the inspirations for the film Dr. Strangelove.)

As Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were transforming a largely Jewish, right wing agenda into Neo-Conservatism, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith – both fanatical Zionists – had already worked in high level positions in both the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Perle was also a protégé of Wohlstetter, bringing together two minds with a singular purpose: an Israeli-driven world revolution and a personal association that would remain through the intervening years. It was Wohlstetter, with the encouragement of Zionist insider and intellectual Bernard Lewis that lurked in the shadows encouraging Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz to help create the Iraq WMDs deception and the installation of CIA-stooge Ahmed Chalabi who would later become Prime Minister in Iraq. [8]

Albert Wohlstetter 1969 – (Source: wikipedia)

In the mid-1980s working as Middle East analyst at the National Security Council Douglas Feith was found to be passing classified information to the Israelis and was fired after a low-key FBI investigation. The fact that Neo-Conservative allies had multiplied in federal agencies, think-tanks and government it meant that Feith was back into power in just a few years, this time as undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon. Similarly, with Feith’s help Perle was able to attain a position at the Defence Policy Board.

Like Feith, Perle had long been seen as a possible Israeli agent since he had been doing exactly the same as Dov Zakheim and attempting to move all armaments purchasing to Israeli companies. The only differences to be seen was in the somewhat more prominent position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration and that he made sure he received a direct cut of profits. [9] As a veteran advisor he was able to transform Neo-Conservatism into a radical expression of Revisionist Zionism. He was a latter-day Jabotinsky with a supremely Machiavellian take on politics and warfare. The Zio-Conservative networks came alive through Perle and others, mostly through flagship lobbying think-tanks such as the Heritage Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) Hudson Institute, Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf and Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, to name but a few. Slowly, Zio-Conservative radicals were moving into key positions, with foreign policy as the prize. Conveniently, when the New Pearl Harbour arrived, the PNAC dreams of pre-emptive attack were realised.

Douglas Feith (left) and Richard Perle

Richard Perle was to be the mentor for both Feith and Wolfowitz. As September 11th 2001 came and went, Feith and Wolfowitz worked together to make the invasion of Iraq and other countries a sure-fire reality by creating an official philosphical and ideological mandate for Empire. Yet, the evolution of what was to be called the “Wolfowitz doctrine” started long before the invasion policies of the Bush Reich and the police state which followed. This particular plan for American military domination came to fruition during the administration of George H.W. Bush Sr.

In 1992, Wolfowitz was working in the Department of Defence and was asked to write the first draft of a new national security strategy, a document entitled “The Defense Planning Guidance.” It was here that the full force of Neo-Con ideology took shape, pushing for dramatic increases in defence spending, pre-emptive attack and the use of unilateral military force with or without the support of allies. Perle had been working for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was Prime Minister of Israel by 1996. “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” was their policy which set out a game plan that would solve Israel’s security problems in the Middle East by emphasising “Western Values.” It was another example of using the USA as a proxy nation to its bidding. The removal of Saddam Hussein and aggressive policies of invasion in the Middle East were advocated. One particular passage from the document openly reveals its agenda where “peace” was transformed into economic support from US taxpayers in order to increase a political ideology: “While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform.” [10]

By the year 2000, George W. Bush Jr. had taken office and the foundation of Jewish, Neo-Conservative power fused with the National Security State and its military-intelligence apparatus. This was to oversee the rise of ruthless corporate psychopaths Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, and Chabad supporter Deputy Secretary for Defence Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom had cut their teeth on the past administrations of Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr.

Paul Wolfowitz at a Friends of Israel meeting 2009

Zionist enablers out for all they can get – former Vice President Dick Cheney talks with his partner in crime the then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during a video teleconference, 2006. (White House photo by David Bohrer)

As Michael Chertoff was busy reordering America’s fear and loathing into the Homeland Security State, 2005 saw the departure of Douglas Feith leading eventually to the Directorship of the Center for National Security Strategies and as a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. Wolfowitz headed to the World Bank in order to do further incalculable damage to any hint of normal human progress.
Having honed his knowledge of globalisation by redefining American dominance so that international treaties, the United Nations and World economic policy could benefit US neo-liberalism and Israeli economic and foreign policy. He was able to implement economic configurations such as “public-private partnerships” which not only placed corporations in the front line of a socio-cultural imperialism but allowed global warming legislation to mix with corporatism. The plan was scuppered just two years later resulting in: “Wolfowitz’s resignation and departure in disgrace over a sordid corruption scandal involving his role in securing improper salary raises for his mistress, and trying to cover it all up.” Columnist Dr. Srdja Trifkovic explained: “According to the Bank insiders, however, her employment contract was used as the handy pretext to get rid of Wolfowitz, the true reasons being gross mismanagement, utter misunderstanding the Bank’s role in the world, and an extreme display of arrogance.” [11]

The Wolf marking his territory once again?

Wolfowitz and his colleagues managed to fuse corporatist, Zionist, Chabad Lubavitch and other highly influential Zio-Conservative-based think-tanks into a powerful force for war. The Wolfowitz Doctrine lay behind “Clear break” and PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defences” which defined the blueprint for Zio-Con conquest well into the future. The latter document was written in September of 2000, one year before the 9/11 attacks, where they acknowledged: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. …” And just one year later, their most pressing desire was fulfilled.

Paul Wolfowitz played a major role in the genesis of the 9/11 attacks either in its creation or taking full advantage of all the opportunities such a “catalysing event” could offer. What the Doctrine proved that this was an ideology of Straussian authoritarianism inspired by the Hegelian solution. By using the US as a proxy war machine the Zionists had pulled off a major coup in toppling Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq with their sites on monopolising oil reserves, the driving interest for corporatists like Rumsfeld and Cheney. But the full force of a religious-occult imperative would be revealed in the 9/11 false flag ritual which heralded the destruction of Iraq – the first phase of biblical and Chabad-led, Talmudic prophecy.

As reported by Munich-based author and journalist Wolfgang Eggert an “occult summit” was convened on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, February 21st, 2003. In attendance were:

“… the head of the Operations Directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose name wasn’t published and seven leading representatives of military intelligence, amongst them the three-star general Lowell ‘Jake’ Jacoby, Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency and Wolfowitz’ deputy Dr Linton Wells who manages the ‘nerve centre’ of the Pentagon” and mostly notably “Bible code specialist” Michael Drosnin and Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz.” [12]

The fact that top members of US government would be willing to trust the advice of Drosnin’s highly controversial study of predictive word codes is worrying enough. What is more concerning is the reliance not only on Biblical prophecy but the fusion of both Christian Evangelism, Jewish Messianism and occult Zionsim. Eggert explains that there was “only one item on the agenda” and that was to discover what the Bible said:

“… about the present situation in the Middle East, terrorism and about the fate of Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden … It is said that a special interest was taken in decoding when devastation was expected to descend upon the Iraqi president. Result: the Jewish year of 5763 which corresponds to the year 2003 of the Christian calendar. The outcome of this conference is said to have been analysed immediately after by American and Israeli intelligence. The Americans “took it very seriously”, Drosnin later said. The White House started the campaign “Iraqi Freedom” within the prophesised time frame.” [13]

And they “took it seriously” because Zio-Conservatives and military-intelligence apparatus is saturated in occult workings all of which are underpinned by the Jewish Kabbalah in some form. One of these is based around the Jewish calendar of the Shemitah, its origins in the Old Testament. Originally a form of agricultural divination focused around debts and blessings to it is now used as a tool of prediction for world events and calamitous occurrences. As Eggert observes, Chabad Lubavitch saw 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq as one long mythical war prophesised long ago and even cited in the sect’s magazine Emes News which stated: “While the press doesn’t foresee such a move and while the US-State-Department is denying any plan of attack against Iraq, those who know about the

Lubavitcher Rebbe know quite well, that when he said, America would wage war against Basra [a city in Iraq], nothing in the world could stop such an event coming true.” [14] It is for this reason that the Christian Zionists and Fundamentalists are so crucial to the Chabad’s messianic drive since they are well aware that they make up around 37 percent of voters in America. Head of the World Jewish Congress Ronald Lauder reaffirmed this strategic link in a recent interview where he said: “Evangelicals … are the critical support for Israel…We have one great friend: Evangelicals.” [15]

© infrakshun

Crucial to the End Times tribulation is the yearned for second coming induced by conflict at Temple Mount. The Iraq war started one and half years later on March 20th 2003, the Holy Day of Purim care of one of the main instigators of a Chabad ritual and the needed outbreak of war: Paul Wolfowitz. During the aftermath of the Iraq war, Chabad supporters Joseph Lieberman and Senator John McCain were the allotted PR figureheads for announcing that: “… the Iraqi conflict-based-strategy followed exactly that line which he himself together with his colleague had imposed in the US Congress by pushing through the ‘Iraq Liberation Act’.” [16]

At this point, the reader may be forgiven for thinking that all these war-mongering corporatists, Zionists and rapacious banksters are simply in it for the money and the power. Important as those things are for essential psychopaths there is also the underlying foundation of the military-occult complex suffused with a masonic branch of Existential Satanism which have traditionally relied on psychological warfare to achieve their ends. Within the Zionist Establishment, the Mossad hierarchy and Chabad Lubavitch is a form of Kabbalistic Satanism with links to Order of Zion freemasonry, in turn, connected to the overall global occult elite. Those whose personalities have been irrevocably altered and fragmented as a part of MK-ULTRA programs (which are the ones we know about) have undoubtedly been carefully positioned within the political establishment. This brings us back to the testimony of Kay Griggs and which will prepare us for the final series of posts exploring the occult significance of 9/11.

The Hebrew Kabbalah or Tree of Life / © Infrakshun

As you may recall, Griggs endured 11 years of bizarre behaviour and emotional abuse from her Navy SEAL husband, who was a victim of mind control operations inflicted on children of the military-intelligence apparatus from the 1950s to the 197os. Evidence has been mounting over the years that such programs resulted in a large number of assassins programmed to kill, commonly known as “Manchurian candidates.” After her husband went missing Griggs decided to go public after receiving death threats and psychological intimidation from members of military intelligence.

In 1996 she took her story to Sarah McClendon, a former senior member of the White House press corps and gained protection, as well as a wise confidante who gave her experienced advice on how to stay alive when dealing with military intelligence agents. By 1998 Griggs had sufficient confidence to make an eight hour video recording of her experiences for Pastor Strawcutter which found their way to the internet adding vital pieces of the puzzle regarding the hidden workings of military-intelligence groupings. Griggs, a committed Christian, gave evidence that was at times clearly difficult for her to relate due to the nature of the information. This included confirmation of government hit squads, Zionist cabals, brain-washing, murder and organised sex-cults of “Cap and Gown, and Skull and Bone society,” though not exclusive to the US Navy to which her husband and other high level Marine officials belonged.
Griggs’ information is derived from her discussions with the wives of US Army and Navy personnel, the harrowing experiences with her tragic husband and the details she was able to glean from his diary which was left behind following his disappearance. From the knowledge she was able to piece together Griggs believes that the handlers of these covert cults as well as the programmed child-victims who do their bidding for many decades: “…are first generation German sons, mostly who run things in the military through tight friendships made in Europe and at war colleges.

PSYOPS is a controlling group and Paul Wolfowitz is a major player.” Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld are also named as those with German-Jewish origins, chosen for their psychological make-up to be handlers and/or operators assigned with particular roles. Recall the testimony of Dr. Corey Hammond and his revelation of Greenbaum mind programming which provided evidence of a Hassidic element to “Dr. Green” – a probable codename for a group of programmers across the spectrum of mind control operations and which continues to this day. At root, the pathogenic nature of this psychological deviance manifested through a direct transference of Zio-Nazi black arts and their technology of mind. In other words, via Operation PAPERCLIP and the installation of numerous intelligence officers, psychologists and scientists, most importantly perhaps, the Nazi SS General Reinhard Gehlen, who was head of German intelligence operations. Under the cover and success of this Nazi brain drain he went on to be one of the leading architects of the modern CIA. The General was only one of numerous high level Germans who were to define the future of America.

Wolfowitz on 9/11 Commission: How we laughed.

Finding out who the various kingpins of the September 11th attacks is an impossible task as they will always be one step ahead, as the present disinformation and managed perceptions within the 9/11 truth movement attests. What we do know is that any well-known public figures which have been mentioned throughout this blog are likely not the true perpetrators of this crime against humanity. What we do have is a Catholic-based Nazism, tied to a Anglo-American Liberal-collectivism further complicated by Zionism – all of whom have their own take on building a New Order Empire, that will lock in once and for all a Golden Age of neo-feudalism where psychopaths rule.

9/11 was the global turning point.

The occult lies behind all major cabals, religions and organisation in the 21st Century ranging from the amateur to the sophisticated; forms of freemasonic Satanism, the maturation of various brotherhoods of Rosicrucian Illuminism and occult Zionism. Dispense with all the manufactured labels and “- isms” and the simple truth is a increasing psychopathy with its long term plan to dominate ordinary humanity. THAT is the real Secret of the Ages and the only conspiracy worth considering, everything else is just window-dressing. It is the probable mass inculcation of disturbed, pathological individuals who are insinuated into the social fabric and attached to suitable ideologies so that they may act as channels for ponerogenesis.

In one sense, all that has gone before in this series represents a careful, methodical prelude before presenting this information on occult Zionism since it is a tough one to contemplate, not least because it is using Judaism and the Jewish tribe as its vehicle. Zionists and Ashkenazis – Khazars – are not the ordinary Jewish people. Palestinians and Jews lived together for centuries, and there is good reason to believe that ordinary Jews and Muslims are still keen to live together in peace. They hold much more in common than we may think – not least their shared Semitic genes. Zionists however, by brainwashing Jews in particular, have effectively encouraged moral blindness and victimhood. Peace between these peoples is anathema for the pathological aggression that is the life-blood of Zionist existence.

Those psychopaths who lie within the middle and higher tiers of the Chabad/Zionist pyramid thrive on maximising conflict between the two Semitic peoples. History and myth reveal that they have socially-engineered Jewish culture to accept this conflict as a fight for survival while in reality it is merely another geo-political ruse to extend their rule over ordinary people. Consequently, it is metaphorically correct to call such actions “Satanic.” Futhermore, as we look deeper into the nature of occult forces which surround the nationalistic violence of Zionism and the theology of the upper most hierarchy within Chabad Lubavitch, we will see quite clearly that it is the influence of the Babylonian Talmud with its Levitical roots in Black Magick and Satanic lore which informs their operations in the 21st Century.

Admittedly, this is a very hard fact to swallow for most, since a) we have been awash with cultural conditioning and a superficial history told by the victorious that prohibits such discussions of occult practice, though its presence lies directly or indirectly behind all of our socio-political and economic institutions; and b) the Jewish culture of victimhood and inculcated ethnocentrism has similarly prevented any constructive criticism, reinforced by the Jewish cultural Marxism of political correctness. Once we accept such a hypothesis as at least a possibility, we will then be better able to absorb the information regarding the events of September 11th as the grand occult ritual that it was.

Before we do so, we need to take a closer look at the Talmud.

* Golus is Hebrew for “exile” usually referring to the exile of the Jewish people from their perceived homeland. The word avodah means “work” and of a type that is carried out as a service to God.


[1] Paraphrased from ‘Merry Christmas, and Off With Your Head!’ by Carol A. Valentine, President, Public Action, Inc., May 15, 2002.
[2] op. cit. Eggert | See also: ‘Patronymic Paralogy’ – Excerpt: “March 20, 1991 President Bush signed into law a Congressional Joint Resolution entitled, “A Joint Resolution To Designate March 26, 1991, As Education Day, USA”. This joint resolution became Public Law 102-14. Public Law 102-14 states emphatically that all civilization from the beginning has been based upon a set of laws entitled “The Seven Noahide Laws” and thus officially put the United States under Noahide Law. These seven supposed universal laws, according to the Encyclopedia Americana, p. 737, state that they are “a Jewish Babylonian Talmudic designations for seven biblical laws given to Adam and to Noah before the revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai and consequently, binding upon all mankind.” The Encyclopedia Americana continues its explanation of the Noahide Laws, “Throughout the ages, scholars have viewed the Noahide Laws as a link between Judaism and Christianity, as universal norms of ethical conduct, as a basic concept of international law, or as a guarantee of fundamental human rights for all.” They are meant to be a substitute for the Ten Commandments. They are a set of seven moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind. According to Judaism any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and is assured of a place in the world to come (Olam Haba), the Jewish concept of heaven.[2] Adherents are often called “B’nei Noach” (Children of Noah) or “Noahides” and may often network in Jewish synagogues.”-
[3] ‘Ask the Rabbis: How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors?’Moment Magazine, May/June 2009. Rabbi Manis Friedman, Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies, St. Paul, MN.
[4] ‘A Statement from Rabbi Friedman’ June 5, 2009 by maxinesp, Moment Magazine|
[5] Shabbos Parshas VaYelech, 5746. |
[6] ‘The Law is Only a Minimum’ By Bryan J. Ellison.
[7] [RAND] had established itself as the leading think-tank for Pentagon, and had access to all its secrets. They were mainly economists by training, and had developed a vocabulary for ‘thinking about the unthinkable’ which had all the weaknesses of economic jargon. The universe of nuclear strategy was so difficult to comprehend, and the horrors it contained were so repugnant to normal people, that its study required the same clinical detachment as the study of venereal disease. But that very detachment tended to blind the experts to the human realities, and to enslave them to abstract concepts, the validity of which had never been tested.” – Denis Healey, The Time of My Life . Published by Penguin, 1989 ( p.246).
[8] p. 287; Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire by Alex Abella. Published by Harcourt, 2008.
[9] “Aide Urged Pentagon to Consider Weapons Made by Former Client”, By Jeff Gerth, New York Times, 17 April 1983.
[10] ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ – “Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000.” The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.” – The Institute for Advanced and Strategic Political Studies, Jerusalem, Washington.|
[11] ‘Wolfowitz the Undead’ by Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles Magazine February 7, 2008. |
[12] op. cit Eggert
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
‪[15] Ronald Lauder: ‘We have one great friend: the Evangelicals’ World Jewish Congress‬
‪[16] Ibid. Wolfgang Eggert quoting Rainer Apel, Eurasien ist gegen Irakkrieg, in: Neue Solidarität, February 6th, 2003.‬


Eretz Itsreallyhell, Greater Israel, Mother Harlot of the Earth

KJV REVELATION 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Hillary’s sickness on Iran

A leaked Hillary Clinton email confirms that the Obama administration, with Hillary at the helm, orchestrated a civil war in Syria to benefit Israel.
The new Wikileaks release shows the then Secretary of State ordering a war in Syria in order to overthrow the government and oust President Assad, claiming it was the “best way to help Israel”. reports:

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.
The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.

Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran’s “atom bomb” program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to “justify” destroying Syria in the name of Israel.

She specifically links Iran’s mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Iran’s “atom bomb” program threatens Israel’s “monopoly” on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other “adversaries of Israel” such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to “go nuclear as well,” all of which would threaten Israel’s interests.


Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

(Send more goyim to die for ITSREALLYHELL…RP)

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.

Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:

In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.

It is also a sobering thought to consider that the “refugee” crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq—all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the “rebels” and stoking the fires of war in Syria.

The real and disturbing possibility that a psychopath like Clinton—whose policy has inflicted death and misery upon millions of people—could become the next president of America is the most deeply shocking thought of all.

Clinton’s public assertion that, if elected president, she would “take the relationship with Israel to the next level,” would definitively mark her, and Israel, as the enemy of not just some Arab states in the Middle East, but of all peace-loving people on earth.

To: Them Who Know Their God



(Italics mine…RP)


Do you know your God?

Or could it be that you have a strange god, one that no man knoweth? a strange god, which no man has ever seen? a god of the jews and a god of the Islamist?

Could it be that you KNOW YOUR GOD? Could it be that you know Jesus is Christ the LORD God Almighty, the Image of the Invisible God, who none upon the earth knows but the Son? And they of whom the Son has revealed his Father to ?

With the ensuing chaos now upon the earth, who can comprehend what is occurring?

Read the utter tabloid rabble of the MSM and even the so called major alternate media websites, i.e., ,,, The Ugly Truth, David Duke, Bro. Nathaniel of Real Jew News, etc.etc.

The world is washed this way and that way, the crashing waves drowning the inhabitants by the cares and the worries of their flesh. Fiery darts cast from every direction from Lucifer to inundate the masses with absolute fear.


These who bombard the unsuspecting readers with such fantastical fictitious rabble rousing accusations that the ultimate conspirators are “shape changing lizards from other planets, Bilderbergers, Bohemien Grover’s, Invisible, untouchable, unknowable “Illuminati” “Extremist Islamicist” zionist, the list goes on and on and on to the point that none can discern who the true enemy of mankind is, thus the enemy grows stronger over mankind each moment. Lucifer and his minions who have gotten their power and authority from that old Dragon prevails upon them who do not know their God.

Who can comprehend the scripted play of this presidential election scam?

Siding with this candidate or that candidate, but never understanding, that both bow and submit unto them who hate the EVERLASTING Covenant, Jesus who is the Christ forevermore. Both so called parties who serve the anti-Christ jews and their religion unto that Old Devil.

Anger, hate, spite, racism, violence coming from both sides, either demoncrats, or publicans, who both bow to the posterity of the jews, unto the jews religion, and forsake us Christ believer’s who follow behind those men who founded this country under the Natural Law of the Creator, and to HIS Posterity.

Just simply research the News sites and the Alternative websites. Go and hear the mass confusion coming from the pulpits across America, their conflicting so called prophecy translations. Who can understand the TRUTH ofthe EVERLASTING COVENANT today?

I have expressly attempted for years to explain the Prophecy of the two whore sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, Ezekiel 23. Aholah, is Samaria, Dan, Orthodox jews, Pharisees,  Sanhedrin, Babylonian Talmudic judaism who boast the support of their two fold children of hell proselytes, the Publican Party, endorsed heavily by the evangelicals  who also worship this god of the jews, that god who has no image, no Son, no Savior, Christ Jesus. Those who only give Jesus lip service, but have watered down Jesus, and who say their god is the god of the jews, who serve that old Dragon the devil. The implementers of the anti-Christ Noahide Laws of Lucifer,anti-Zionst, Hasidic Talmudic Babylonian jews, who serve Mystery Babylon Mother Harlot of the earth.

Aholibah, secular zionism, after the manner of Hagar of the flesh, Galatians 3-4, jerusalem that flesh spiritual Sodom and Egypt, where our LORD was Crucified. Secular, Saducees, atheist, unbelieving any God, Marxist, socialist, communist. Anti-God, anti-Christ, demoncrats.

These two sisters vie for the control of that spiritual bloody whore flesh city, jerusalem and ultimate control over the earth, subjugating all mankind unto Satan that Old Dragon, who both serve.

I would bid that any who is reading this, bow into submission unto Christ Jesus the Lord God Almighty and consider in prayer so that in hopes the Holy Spirit come unto you from the Lord God Almighty, so that you might KNOW YOUR GOD, in these last days.

Close your ears from the un-scriptural teachings of the Scofield-ite cemetarian’s, who are full of DEAD MEN’S BONES, and who serve their masters the jews, who deliver you to be afflicted and slain in the jews Sinai-Gogs and their Freemason Temples (US courts).


KJV Daniel 11

Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

(Grecia, i.e., the western world….RP)

And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.

And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

(George Herbert Walker Bush, “A New World Order” and we will have it”….RP)

(HJR 104, PL 102-14, not to our posterity, but to others………RP)

(The Talmudic Hasidic jews, Chabad Lubavitch, who hate Jesus Christ the EVERLASTING COVENANT….Aholah..RP)

And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

(Arik Shinerman, AKA, Ariel Sharon..secular zionist, Aholibah..RP)

And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.

(Oslo Peace accord, land for peace, splitting that whore flesh city spiritual Sodom and Egypt, jerusalem after the manner of Agar of the flesh bond servants. Arafat was assassinated by Chabad Lubavitch orthodox Hasidic Talmudic sheva settlers, Sharon later poisoned and who recently died after years in a coma. Netanyahu of the Camp of Aholibah of Dan, orthodox Talmudic Judaism, of the Chabad camp now strengthens that great city, who boast she sits a Queen and is No Widow, for she rejects the Bride Groom, Christ Jesus the LORD God Almighty….RP)

But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:

(The North, led by Aholah Dan, Chabad Lubavitch, who GHW Bush surrendered posterity to, March 26, 1991 via HJR 104, PL 102-14. Whose symbol of strength, financial power, Aholah’s twin Towers (Samson) was destroyed by Sharon’s mossad and the inside proselytes of the CIA, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their Talmudic neo-cons…RP)

And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north.

(First mass murder war GHW Bush, Iraq…RP)

So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

10 But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

11 And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.

(Mossad, CIA, G.W Bush finishes off Iraq in the Talmudic quest for Eretz Israel…RP)

12 And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.

13 For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.

(Sanhedrin of Chabad Lubavitch of the Devil, Lucifer that Old Dragon, orthodox Talmudic Hasidic jewry and its current leader, Netanyahu has total control of the racist evil jewish country, which serves Satan….RP)

16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

(Soon they boast…Sanhedrin, to reveal their false Christ, Moshiach, that man of Sin, 2 Thes. 2…….RP)

22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

(Jesus who is Christ the Everlasting Covenant, via HJR 104, PL 102-14….RP)

23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

(Sanhedrin, Chabad Lubavitch Hasidim….RP)

24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.

(War in Israel…RP)

26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

27 And both of these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

(The Holy Everlasting Covenant between Jesus the Christ the Lord God and his saints, Rev 20….RP)

29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.


31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

(Sanhedrin reveals Moshiach as God in Holy of Holies..RP)

32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

(Saints of Jesus the Christ the Lord God Almighty…RP)

33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

(KJV 2 Thes.And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Folks, If you have understood thus far, you are doing well into your recovery of discernment.

Now, be advised that this flesh profits a man nothing. Why do you anguish over the shem sham of who will become the next pawn of Satan and his Sanhedrin, and who will gain the White House of the jews god?

Hillary is of the evil Marxist atheist camp of Aholibah.

Trump is of the anti-Christ Talmudic camp of Aholah.

Hillary seeks to lead the nation into the secular zionsit communism, whereas Trump will serve his Hasidic Masters and deliver this nation into Noahide Enslavement.

Obama is against Aholah and seeks to counter their pitting the Islamic countries against the west, therefore refrains from labeling them Radical Muslim.

Trump playing along with his Hasidic Masters and their proselytes the evangelicals who also reject the King of Kings and Lord of Lords for their flesh kingdom wannabe.. Their plan of Lucifer………..

The children of Ishmael [i.e. the Arab nations] will cause great wars in the world and the children of Edom will gather against them and wage war against them, one on the sea, one on the dry land, and one near Jerusalem. And they [the children of Edom]will rule over them [the children of Ishmael], but the Holy Land will not be given over to the children of Edom. [The children of Edom is the Christian West, for Edom is Rome (see Num. 24:19, Rashi) and Rome signifies Greece-Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, the foundations of Western Civilization]

At that time, a nation from the end of the earth will be aroused against evil Rome and wage war against it for three months. Nations will gather there, and [Rome] will fall into their hands, until all the children of Edom will gather against it [that nation]from all the corners of the world. Then G‑d will be roused against them. This is the meaning of: “For G‑d has a sacrifice in Botzrah“. (Isaiah 34:6) And afterwards, it is written: “That it might take hold of the ends of the earth…” (Job 38:13) He will destroy the descendants of Ishmael from the land, and break all the powers of [all the nations’ guardian angels] Above. There will not remain any power of any people on earth, except the power of Israel alone.




Satan’s Talmudic Judaism & the Occupation of the USA


Make no mistake about it, the jews control the USA from Satan’s lair of Sanhedrin in jerusalem, that whore city of the earth.

The jews make it clear that Islamist are already their obedient Noahide Proselytes and that they will use Islam to destroy the Christian Church and slay true Christ Believers who do not bow and serve the jews.

To understand the true enemy of mankind and the onslaught against America today, it would be wise to invest a little time to come to this knowledge. Keeping in mind that HJR 104, PL 102-14 was and is a very real Talmudic anti-Christ Treasonous law of the so called “New World Odor”. But it is no new Order, but a very old order, Mystery Babylon.

If you understand that Jesus is the Christ, God with us, you will be able to understand. If you do not know who Jesus is, you in no wise will comprehend.

The below paper is a very real discussion of the intent of the Jews and their proselytes. Scripture is clear as to the jews evil intentions upon mankind. You may naysay and reject if you feel this knowledge is unnecessary, but you may do well to be advised what the Lord said…

Hosea 4 (KJV)

Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.

By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.

Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.

They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.

And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings.

10 For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the Lord.

11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.



(Italics mine…RP)


The Obligation of Jews to Seek Observance of Noachide[1] Laws by Gentiles: A Theoretical Review

by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde[*]

Table of Contents


  1. Introduction
  2. The Noachide Laws
  3. Preliminary Issues
  4. The Content of Noachide Laws

III.          The Obligation of “Laws” or “Justice”

  1. The Obligation to Teach or Judge Noachides
  2. The Obligation to Compel Observance
  3. Maimonides’ Approach
  4. The Approach of Ravad, Nachmanides, Tosafot and others
  5. When a Noachide will Certainly Violate the Law, May Jews Assist in the Violation?
  6. The Responsa of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
  7. Conclusion
  8. Postscript





This paper addresses the scope of Jewish law’s mandate upon Jews to enforce the Seven Noachide commandments, as well as any other rules Jewish law mandates that Gentiles should keep. Part One of this article outlines what are the Noachide commandments, and their place in a halachic system. Part Two discusses the obligation of both Jews and Noachides under the rubric of the commandment called dinim (literally: “laws” or “justice”). Part Three reviews the various opinions on the obligation of Jews to enforce the Noachide commandments. Part Three will consider not only whether enforcement must be sought, but in situations where enforcement is not possible, whether Jewish law mandates Jews to seek to persuade Noachides to obey their commandments. It will also consider whether — when such persuasion fails — Jewish law, at the minimum, requires that one may not assist a Gentile in violating the Noachide commandments.


This article concludes that notwithstanding a minority opinion to the contrary, Jewish law accepts that Gentiles are obligated to keep the Noachide laws, and they are obligated even for unintentional violations. So too, Jewish law recognizes that Gentiles are obligated to create a system of laws designed to — at the minimum — enforce the Noachide laws.

(Freemason and statutes, Roman Civil Law..RP)

Finally, while Maimonides appears to accept that Jews as well as Noachides are obligated to enforce the Noachide laws, many authorities, early and late, reject this rule of Maimonides and deny that there is a halachic obligation on individual Jews to compel Noachides to observe their laws.

(Jews and their proselytes who are made two fold the children of hell…RP)

Finally this article noted that whether there is (or is not) a halachic obligation to affirmatively enforce the Noachide laws, it is nonetheless still biblically prohibited to enable or entice a Noachide to violate the Noachide laws (if absent a Jew’s assistance, the law would not be violated). However, in a situation where the Noachide is able to violate the law without the assistance of any Jew, many authorities rule that there is no obligation to prevent a Noachide from sinning and thus one may even assist the Noachide in sin.

(Thus false witness by “one”……RP)


  1. Introduction


This paper will address the scope of halacha’s mandate upon Jews to enforce the Seven[2] Noachide commandments, as well as any other rules Jewish law mandates that Gentiles should keep. It will do so from a purely theoretical perspective, without any attempt to apply the rules developed to America in the 1990’s or any other particular (factual) setting.[3] Rather, the purpose of this article is to determine which options concerning enforcement are halachically acceptable. In the field of “Jewish public policy” the first question that must be asked is which (if any) of the theoretical options are, in fact, prohibited by Jewish law. After that question is answered, then one can consider which of the remaining options most closely accomplishes whatever Jewish goal is sought.[4]


Part One of this article outlines what are the Noachide commandments, and their place in a halachic system. Part Two discusses the obligation of both Jews and Noachides under the rubric of the commandment called dinim (literally: “laws” or “justice”). Part Three reviews the various opinions on the obligation of Jews to enforce the Noachide commandments. Part Three will consider not only whether enforcement must be sought, but in situations where enforcement is not possible, whether Jewish law mandates Jews to seek to persuade Noachides to obey their commandments. It will also consider whether — when such persuasion fails — Jewish law, at the minimum, requires that one may not assist a Gentile in violating the Noachide commandments.


  1. The Noachide Laws


  1. Preliminary Issues


Before one can explore the obligation upon Jews to enforce Noachide law, it is necessary to determine if Jewish law accepts that these commandments are still binding on Noachides. The talmud recounts, as one possible resolution of an unrelated tort law problem, that:

God observed the Gentiles of the land — What did He see? He saw that the seven commandments He gave the Noachides were not observed and thus He permitted these seven commandments to them.[5]

(Derived from the Babylonian Talmud, perversion and commandments of men….RP)

Based on this assertion, Bach,[6] Rabbi Chaim Abulafia,[7] Penai Yehoshua,[8] Maharit[9] (and perhaps Chatam Sofer[10] and a version of Tosafot[11] ) all indicate that Gentiles are no longer legally obligated even to keep the Noachide commandments and those who do keep them would be in the status of one “not obligated and observing.”[12] This can perhaps be inferred from the comments of Rashi, as well.[13] As noted by Penai Yehoshua, if these commandments are no longer binding on Noachides, the problems associated with assisting a violation or not encouraging observance would greatly decrease, and indeed Penai Yehoshua rules that the only thing that would still be prohibited would be actually enticing them to do something that Noachides cannot do without the assistance of a Jew.[14]


Most authorities reject this insight and accept that the Noachide commandments are fully binding.[15] They argue that it is difficult to accept that all of the talmudic discussions concerning Noachide law are predicated on the unstated assumption of the abrogation of the Noachide obligation or even the abrogation of the biblical obligation.[16]

(Talmud is not the Bible..See Texe Marrs “Holy Serpent of the Jews”…RP)

Indeed, this position appears to be rejected by every single one of the early authorities (rishonim) who codified the Noachide laws[17] and the numerous later authorities (achronim) who did so.[18] Thus, it is safe to state that Jewish law treats the Noachide laws as binding.[19] Indeed, there are numerous discussions within the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries which simply assume that the Noachide laws are fully binding.[20]


A second preliminary issue is whether the unintentional violation of one of the Noachide commandments leads to legal culpability in Jewish law. Based on a statement of Maimonides,[21] Minchat Chinuch rules:

When is it prohibited to hand a Noachide something forbidden to him? This is only when he knows that it is prohibited; but when he does not know that it is prohibited, there is no prohibition, since in this case there is complete un-intentionality (lit: shegaga gemorah) and a Noachide violates no rule when his violation is completely unintentional.[22]

If this Minchat Chinuch is correct, a case could be made that Noachides are, in fact, better served by not teaching them laws.[23]


Many authorities disagree with the Minchat Chinuch and limit the permissive ruling to a situation where the Noachide recognizes the category of activity as prohibited, but merely does not recognize this particular action as in violation.[24] However, when the Noachide does not recognize the whole category of activity as prohibited, his actions still rise to the level of legal culpability.[25] Others simply reject the whole insight of the Minchat Chinuch and base their view on an explicit Tosafot[26] that appears to do the same.[27] These authorities rule that Noachides are always obligated to obey the law and culpability is thus always present. Thus, it is well established that Gentiles benefit from being taught the Noachide laws.


  1. The Content of Noachide Laws


Having established that the Noachide commandments are binding on Gentiles, and that lack of knowledge does not excuse obligation, it is necessary to explore what the commandments are. The talmud[28] recounts seven categories of prohibition: idol worship, taking God’s name in vain, murder, prohibited sexual activity, theft, eating flesh from a living animal, and the obligation to enforce laws.

KJV John 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


As is obvious from this list, these seven commandments are generalities which contain within them many specifications — thus, for example, the single categorical prohibition of sexual promiscuity includes both adultery and the various forms of incest.[29] As has been noted already, these Noachide laws appear to encompass nearly 60 of the 613 biblical commandments incumbent on Jews, which is nearly one in four of those biblical commandments generally applicable in post-temple times.[30] What might make the practical application of the Noachide laws sometimes difficult is the frequently wide divergence of opinion found within the various Jewish authorities concerning details of many Noachide laws. A simple example illustrates this:


The Jerusalem Talmud recounts that there is no formal divorce according to Noachide law.[31] The rishonim understand this in three completely different ways. Some claim that this means that divorce is legally impossible for a Gentile and once married there is no way to end the marriage.[32] Others maintain that the Talmudic passage means that there is no formal process of divorce, and either spouse can end the marriage by simply leaving the family unit.[33] Yet other authorities insist that in Noachide law a man may never divorce his wife — but she may divorce him at will.[34] Similar disputes touch many core areas of Noachide law, leaving the resolution of many hard cases very difficult to determine.[35] Indeed, before one seeks to apply the details of Noachide law to issues in current society, it is necessary to determine what precisely is the Noachide obligation.[36]


However, disputes about the details should not be overstated to undermine the clarity of the general principles. The application of Noachide law to many general areas is relatively clear. Homosexuality is forbidden,[37] as is adultery[38] and bestiality.[39] Murder is prohibited, and subsumed in the prohibition of murder is abortion.[40] So too, most forms of theft are prohibited, as is eating the flesh of a living animal.[41] Indeed, the general Noachide laws share a common base of “ethics” that most religious peoples would share.[42]

(See Orlando mass killing at the Pulse, Homosexual Bar.June 11, 2016…RP)


III.          The Obligation of “Laws” or “Justice”[43]


The final commandment in the Noachide code is dinim, commonly translated as “laws” or “justice”. Two vastly different interpretations of this commandment are found among the early authorities. Maimonides rules that the obligations of dinim require only that the enumerated Noachide laws be enforced in practice. Maimonides states:

How are [Noachides] obligated by dinim?. They must create courts and appoint judges in every provence to enforce these six commandments . . for this reason the inhabitants of Shechem [the city] were liable to be killed[44] since Shechem [the person] stole[45] [Dina], and the inhabitants saw and knew this and did nothing.[46]

According to Maimonides it is logical to assume that other types of regulations that society might make are subsumed under the rubric of either “laws of the land” or “laws of the king.” Their binding authority is quite different.[47]

(Thus they await that Son of Perdition, the Man of Son, their Moshiach, who will enforce the so called law of Lucifer and slay those who will not bow unto him and the jews….RP)

Nachmanides argues with this formulation and understands the obligations of dinim to be much broader. It encompasses not only the obligations of society to enforce rules, but it also obligates society to create general rules of law governing such cases as fraud, overcharging, repayment of debts and the like.[48] Within the opinion of Nachmanides there is a secondary dispute as to what substantive laws Noachides are supposed to adopt. Rama, writing in his responsa,[49] states that according to Nachmanides in those areas of dinim where Gentiles are supposed to create laws, they are obligated to incorporate Jewish law into Noachide law unless it is clear contextually that it is inappropriate.

Justice Scalia As Talmudic Scholar



Most authorities reject this interpretation and accept either Maimonides ruling or that according to Nachmanides those rules created under the rubric of dinim need only be generally fair, and need not be identical to Jewish law.[50] This author cannot find even a single rishon who accepts the ruling of Rama, and one can find many who explicitly disagree.[51]


The dispute concerning the nature of the commandment called dinim is extremely relevant to explaining the obligation of Jews to provide guidance and seek enforcement of the Noachide laws. It would appear to this author that Maimonides accepts that the biblical commandment of dinim (or some Noachide cognate of it) compels enforcement by all — Jews as well as Gentiles –– of these seven laws, perhaps because Jews too are bound by them.[52] Maimonides in his explanation of the laws of dinim does not appear to limit them to Noachides only. Indeed, writing much more recently, Rabbi Yoseph Engel,[53] Rabbi Meir Simcha MeDivinsk, Rabbi Yecheil Yakov Weinberg, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach,[54] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein[55] all seem to indicate that there is some residual jurisdictional impact upon Jews from their Noachide obligation. For example, Rabbi Meir Simcha recounts that if a Jewish child who is not yet bar or bat mitzva, and thus not an adult according to Jewish law, comprehends the nature of right and wrong,[56] he or she[57] is obligated according to torah law in the Noachide commandments, since according to Noachide law he is an adult.[58] In a similar vein, Rabbi Weinberg states that a marriage entered into between two Jews which is technically invalid according to Jewish law still creates a Noachide marriage between the couple.[59]


The opposite claim could be made according to Nachmanides (as interpreted by those who disagree with Rama). Since the obligation to create dinim according to Nachmanides includes in it other obligations clearly not applicable to Jews (such as the creation of a general civil or secular law system governing all other than Jewish) it would appear that Nachmanides could not accept a Jewish obligation to participate in dinim.[60] That is not to say that Jews need not obey dinim or other aspects of the Noachide code according to Nachmanides. Indeed, it is clear that a number of authorities find some connection between the obligation of dinim and the halachic mandate of dina demalchuta dina, the obligation of Jews to obey the secular law.[61] If Noachides are obligated in the creation of general secular law and not only the enforcement of these six specified commandments, it would seem logical that Jews must too obey these dinim, at least in interactions with Noachides.[62] However, a crucial observation must be made. Merely because Jewish law rules that one is obligated to obey Noachide law does not mean that one is necessarily obligated to assist in its enforcement.[63] The two are not necessarily interrelated.[64]


Indeed, as noted by Chazon Ish, Jewish law requires respect of the Noachide legal pronouncements even in a situation where the Noachide judges themselves do not fully observe Noachide law.[65] Chazon Ish was asked concerning the obligation to accept legal pronouncements from a Noachide court that does not generally observe (or enforce) all of the seven commandments, but “observes the law concerning sanctity of life and theft of property.” Chazon Ish replies that if they are enforcing even a section of the Noachide laws properly, it is halachically necessary to respect those pronouncements.[66] However, respect does not necessarily mean that full participation is mandatory.


In sum, there certainly is an obligation upon Noachides — at the minimum — to create a legal system designed to enforce Noachide law. Jews have an obligation to recognize and respect this system, even if it is incomplete in its observance of Noachide law. According to many, there would appear to be a residual impact of Noachide law in Jewish law.[67]



  1. The Obligation to Teach or Judge Noachides

KJV Titus 1:

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.


Maimonides states:

Moses, our teacher, only willed Torah and mitzvot to the Jewish people, since it states “An inheritance to the community of Jacob.”[68] . . . One [who is not Jewish] who does not wish to, we do not compel to accept Jewish law. So too, Moses our teacher was commanded by God to compel the commandments to the Noachides. All who do not accept are killed. One who accepts them [voluntarily] is called a ger toshav [literally: resident alien]. . .[69]

So, too, Maimonides recounts that:

A Jewish court [beit din] is obligated to appoint judges for ger toshaves [literally: resident alien] to judge them in order that the world not be destroyed. If the Jewish court wishes to appoint judges from within their midst, it may; if it wishes to appoint judges from the Jews, it may.[70]

Finally, Maimonides rules that:

One who takes an adult slave from an idol worshiper, and the slave does not wish to be circumcised one may delay up to twelve months . . If one agreed concerning this slave with his previous owner not to circumcise him, it is permitted to keep the slave uncircumcised; however, the slave must keep the seven commandments obligatory on Noachides and if not, he is killed immediately.[71]

This article will address three basic issues that flow from the formulation of Maimonides. They are:

(1)          Is there an obligation upon each individual Jew to coerce compliance; or is the obligation only on beit din and if so, which court; or perhaps classical halacha rejects this ruling of Maimonides.[72]

(2)          When a Noachide will violate these rules no matter what posture Jews take, may Jews assist in the sin or at the least must a Jew decline to assist in a violation of Noachide laws.

(3)          Is there an obligation to induce or persuade a Noachide to comply with the Noachide laws, or even to teach Noachides about their obligations, or (if there is an obligation) is it limited to the obligation to coerce (lekof).

Indeed, the answer to each of these three inter-related questions is in dispute, and each of these disputes is quite central to many of the issues raised in this paper.



  1. The Obligation to Compel Observance


  1. Maimonides’ Approach


A simple reading of the rules of Maimonides’ would indicate that Jews or a Jewish court are obligated in (at the minimum) coercing Noachides to observe their laws. Such is not the only way, however, to interpret Maimonides’ statements. Maharatz Chayut in his responsa[73] seems to adopt a formulation of Maimonides ruling that makes this law a mere historical recounting of facts. He states (quoting the Rashbash[74]):

Sanhedren 56b recounts that the Jews were commanded in ten commandments at Marah[75]; these ten commandments were the seven laws of Noah, the Sabbath laws, dinim, and respect for one’s parents. Why did the Jews need to be commanded again [on the seven Noachide laws] since Jews were already commanded from the time of Adam and Noah…Since we conclude that commandments that were given prior to Sinai to Noachides, and not repeated at Sinai, are obligatory only for Jews, the seven commandments had to be repeated at Sinai to obligate Noachides.[76] Based on this Rashbash, the assertion of Maimonides that “Moses, our teacher, only willed Torah and mitzvot to the Jewish people, since it states ‘An inheritance to the community of Jacob.'” …[77] and his assertion that ‘Moses our teacher was commanded by God to compel the commandments obligatory to the children of Noah’ appear logical. Why was Moses also the messenger to the rest of the world to compel observance of the seven commandments, perhaps they are obligated by Adam or Noach? Rather we see that Moses being commanded at Marah on the seven Noachide commandments, even though Gentiles were already commanded, was done to make Noachides obligated in the mitzvot even now.

(Talmudic anti-Christ fables of the jews….RP)

Thus, according to Maharatz Chayut, there is no obligation for any specific Jew, in any circumstance to compel observance by a Noachide. Rather Maimonides is merely explaining the jurisprudential basis for the obligation of Noachides to their seven commandments — absent Moses’ re-commandment at Sinai, only Jews would have been obligated in Noachide law. The most that one could claim according to Maharatz Chayut is that perhaps Moses himself was obligated to compel observance of the Noachide laws; Jews currently are not — apparently neither in the context of a beit din nor in the context of any specific individual. Maharatz Chayut would then limit Maimonides’ rule obligating Jews to establish courts and appoint judges to those Noachides who formally accept the obligations of a ger toshav (resident alien) and who live in the Jewish community and who are dependent on it for law and order “lest the world be destroyed”.[78]


Certainly in the diaspora there are few such communities of Noachides;[79] although if there were, and they could not see fit to enforce the law themselves, a Jew should guide them.[80] Similar claims that Maimonides’ rules do not create a practical legal obligation can be found in Aruch Hashulchan,[81] the writings of Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni,[82] Rabbi Shaul Yisrali[83] and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher,[84] the author of Torah Shelama, all of whom assert that the opinion of Maimonides itself is to be understood as limited to yemot hamashe’ach (or perhaps less ideally, full Jewish law in Israel).


However, all of these explanations of Maimonides’ ruling are difficult and the simple understanding of Maimonides is that (at the least) a person that is capable of forcing compliance, must. Indeed, while Rabbi Karo does appear to limit the application of Maimonides somewhat, he clearly understands Maimonides as requiring compulsion whenever possible, even by an individual.[85] This is similarly understood to be the opinion of Maimonides by Tzafnach Panaich, in his lengthy discussion on this topic.[86] A ruling similar to Maimonides’ is found in Chinuch 192, where it states:

The rule is as follows: In all that the nations are commanded, any time they are under our jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon us to judge them when they violate the commandments.


  1. The Approach of Ravad, Nachmanides, Tosafot and others


A large number of rishonim appear simply to disagree with the opinion of Maimonides, and rule that there is no obligation upon an individual Jew to impose Noachide rules on Gentiles. Included in this group is at least Ravad, Nachmanides, Tosafot and perhaps Rashi and Rashba. Ravad, in disagreeing with the rulings of Maimonides that a slave who refuses to accept one of the seven commandments ought to be killed states[87] “the slave should be sold. We cannot, now, kill a person.” While one could understand this assertion as merely practical,[88] it is more likely that Ravad is limiting the juridical power of the Jewish community in punishing Noachides for violations of the Noachide code.[89] Under this analysis, it would, according to Ravad, take an authorized beit din (Jewish court) of 23 functioning when the Sanhedren is legally empowered to impose capital punishment, to kill for violations of the Noachide code.[90] Thus Ravad disagrees with Maimonides, and at least limits the obligation of Jews to impose law on Noachides to situations that do not now (and will not in the pre-messianic era) exist.

(They await False Christ, AKA, Moshiach ben David….RP)

Proof that this is in fact the approach of Ravad can be derived from his ruling in Malachim 6:1 which allows the subjugation of Noachides to a Jewish nation in war time without the imposition of observance of the Noachide commandments, as Maimonides requires.[91] This would make the positions of Maimonides and Ravad, in their writings in Milah and Malachim consistent on this issue.

(See Palestinians..Collective punishment..RP)

Similarly, Nachmanides agrees with Ravad and does not require the imposition of the Noachide commandments as part of a negotiated peace between Israel and its Noachide neighbors.[92] He indicates that it is the military goals alone which determine whether peace terms are acceptable. According to Nachmanides, Jewish law would compel the “victor” to accept peace terms which include all of the victors’ demands except the imposition of Noachide law on the defeated society; Maimonides would reject that rule and permit war in those circumstances purely to impose these laws on a Gentile society. This indicates that Nachmanides too does not require the imposition of Noachide law by a Jewish government.[93]


Tosafot[94] also concurs with the rulings of Ravad and Nachmanides and deny that there is any obligation upon even a Jewish government to impose the Noachide commandments on nations under their control.[95] No systemic obligation is present. Rashi, too, perhaps appears to side with Ravad on this issue.[96] Rashba in his responsa also appears to agree.[97]


A similar approach is found in Hagaot Ashrei, which state:

A Noachide, even though he violates the seven Noachide commandments, and his warning is his execution and he does not need formal witnesses and warning, nonetheless every moment prior to his conviction in beit din, he is not liable for the death penalty and it is prohibited to kill him.[98]

KJV Matthew 24:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

This source clearly disagrees with the opinion of Maimonides discussed above and limits the obligation to punish Noachides to beit din.[99] Indeed, it would seem logical that the beit din needed for this punishment is the same type of beit din needed to execute Jews, which has not been extant since prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. This approach would make the comments of Hagaot Ashrei identical with Ravad. Even if this opinion is not accepted, and any regular beit din can function in this role, it is clear that no obligation is imposed upon individual Jews to punish Noachides for violations.


In the two areas where this issue is codified into the halacha, the obligation for Jews to compel observance by Noachides is clearly left out. In the laws relating to keeping slaves, there is an intricate discussion of the rules relating to the circumstances in which a Jew may keep a Gentile slave who does not undergo (partial) conversion. This matter is fraught with disagreement beyond the scope of this paper.[100] However, one thing is clear: neither Tur, nor Rama[101] nor any of the classical commentaries on Shulchan Aruch[102] quote the obligation to impose Noachide law upon Gentiles living — either as a conditional slave[103] or as an employee — in the house of a Jew (and over whom presumably one could have considerable influence).[104] This is true even though the whole area is generally subject to codification,[105] and Tur and Rama do quote and agree with the various other assertions of Maimonides found in Milah 1:6, but yet do not cite this one. Indeed, the notes to Rama clearly indicate that he accepts the rulings of Ravad on this matter.[106] The fact that Maimonides quotes an obligation to compel observance by Noachide slaves which is deleted by the later authorities is indicative that his opinion is not considered binding according to halacha.


[107] So too, in both Tur and Shulchan Aruch[108] when discussing the obligation to save Gentiles who do not observe the Noachide laws from life-threatening dangers, indicate that there is no obligation to punish violators of Noachide rules. For example, Beit Yosef[109] states that there is no obligation (mitzvah) to kill Gentiles who do not obey the Noachide laws; similar sentiments can be found in Tur,[110] Bach[111] and Drisha.[112] (Maimonides, in the sources cited above, clearly rejects this.) Rama, in Darchai Moshe He’Aruch adopts this posture also.[113] Shulchan Aruch explicitly incorporates this rule.[114] So too, Shach states “There is no obligation [mitzvah] to kill Gentiles even if they violate the Noachide laws”[115] and Taz agrees with this assertion.[116] This ruling — not mandating the punishment of Gentiles for violating Noachide law — stands in clear contrast to the assertion in Shulchan Aruch encouraging and certainly permitting the punishment (and even killing) of one who (is Jewish and) intentionally defies Jewish law.[117] It is thus clear that Shulchan Aruch and the other various commentaries rule (contrary to Maimonides’ assertion) that Gentiles need not be punished by Jews for violating Noachide law according to Jewish law.[118] There is no obligation or duty to compel observance of Noachide law by Gentiles.


On the other hand, even these authorities who reject the obligation could accept the assertion of Sefer HaChasidim,[119] that it is a meritorious thing to do which imitates God’s conduct towards the Noachides at Ninveh. Absent other factors, it seems obvious that it is laudatory to instruct a Noachide of his obligations, both for reasons mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid, for those mentioned by Maimonides in Malachim 10:11 and for those discussed in the Postscript.


Thus, while Maimonides is relatively clear that when possible Jews must impose Noachide law, one could reasonably conclude that the weight of the rishonim and codifiers disagrees with that conclusion and assert that there is no obligation for any individual Jew to compel a Noachide to cease violating the Noachide commandments or that the obligation is limited to messianic times or to resident aliens.



  1. When a Noachide will Certainly Violate the Law, May Jews Assist in the Violation?


In a situation where, no matter what a Jew or the Jewish tradition says or does, the Gentile will nonetheless perform an action which violates the Noachide code, is there an obligation to withdraw oneself from the situation? If there is an obligation to separate a Noachide from sin — as mandated by a broad reading of Malachim 8:10 and Milah 1:6 — certainly one cannot assist him in sin.


Pesachim 22b quotes the following statement of R. Natan:

  1. Natan said from where do we know that one may not extend a cup of wine to a Nazir nor a limb of a live animal to a ben Noach? The source is from the verse “before a blind person thou shall not put a stumbling block.”

Thus it is clear that one may not enable a Noachide to sin. If absent the assistance of a Jew[120] no violation could or would take place, it is a biblical violation of lifnei iver for a Jew to assist a Noachide in violating his law.

(See jewish mandated same sex marriage, abortions, pornography, etc.,…RP)

However, Avoda Zara 6b quotes R. Natan’s statement and limits its application to an instance of trei ibra d’nahara (literally “two sides of a river”). Thus only when the Noachide is on one side of a river and flesh of a living animal is on the other side so that he cannot obtain it on his own, is the one who extends it to him in violation of lifnei iver. On the other hand, if the Noachide and the flesh are on the same side of the river (chad ibra d’nahara), so that he could procure the meat on his own, then the person who gives it to him is not in violation of lifnei iver. The assumption is that the prohibition will be violated in any case and the assistance does not enable the sin.


This discussion relates only to the biblical prohibition called lifnei iver; however, is there a rabbinic prohibition to assist a Noachide in violating his seven commandments even when he can violate them independent of the helper? This issue is a crucial one, for it addresses whether there is a general obligation to separate a Noachide from sin (lehafresh ben noach ma’issur). It is impossible to accept Maimonides’ opinion that Jews must compel observance of the Noachide laws and simultaneously rule that one need not separate a Noachide from sin.[121]


Two schools of thought seem to exist. The first position is taken by Tosafot, Mordechai, Rama and Shach each of whom accepts that when one is not in a “two sides of the river” situation, there is no prohibition associated with assisting a Noachide who sins.[122] Rama states that there are those who rule that it is only prohibited to sell Noachides supplies used for their idol worship when others will not supply them; however, when others can supply them, there is no prohibition. He concludes by adding “The tradition is in accordance with this opinion; pious people (literally: spiritual people) should conduct themselves in accordance with the stricter opinion”.


Shach states this even more clearly:

In my humble opinion, all authorities agree with the opinion of Tosafot and Mordechai that it is permissible to aid a Noachide … [All those] who argue are discussing the case of a Jew whom one is obligated to separate from sin . . Such is not the case for a Noachide …[123] whom we are not obligated to separate from sin.[124]

This ruling has a significant impact on the issue of the Jew’s obligation to prevent a Noachide from violating his seven commandments. Essentially, this school of thought accepts that once one cannot actually prevent the violation from occurring, there is no obligation to dissuade or convince a Noachide from violating the law. Indeed, one may actively assist him by providing him with things that he can otherwise acquire on his own.

This approach — which rules that there is no obligation to prevent sinning by a Noachide or convince a Noachide to cease sinning — is accepted by nearly all authorities, including Magen Avraham,[125] Gra,[126] Levush,[127] Beit Shmuel,[128] Machatsit HaShekel,[129] Dagul Merevavah,[130] and Berchai Yosef.[131] Indeed, it is important to realize that a number of authorities reach the conclusion that it is permitted to assist a Noachide while prohibited to assist an unobservant Jew. This is based on their observation that there is no obligation to separate a Noachide from sinning.[132] (The precise rationale to distinguish between an unobservant Jew and a Noachide is beyond the scope of this paper.)[133]


While this author has seen no authority explicitly attempt to harmonize these rulings with Maimonides’ ruling cited above,[134] one could easily do so by limiting Maimonides’ ruling to a situation where one literally can compel observance of the law, which would then make the situation a “two side of the river case.” That would argue that the word “to compel” (lekof) used by Maimonides should be limited to just that situation.[135] Equally interesting, many of those rishonim who clearly argue with Maimonides concerning the obligation to enforce Noachide law discussed in section III, also clearly aver that there is no obligation to separate a Noachide from sin.[136] Their position too is consistent. Indeed, this author would note that any authority who rules that a Jew may assist a Noachide in a violation of the Noachide rules (when the Noachide can do the violation without the Jew’s assistance) must rule that there is no obligation upon any particular Jew to convince a Noachide to obey the commandments.[137]


The second position is taken by Rabennu Nissim (“RaN”). RaN states that there is a separate rabbinic prohibition, called mesaya yedai overai averah (literally: “aiding the hand of those who sin”) to assist a person — Jew or Noachide — in sin even in situations where the person can do the sin without the help of another.[138] While many authorities accept the opinion of the RaN concerning a Jew who is generally not observant,[139] as noted above this opinion essentially is rejected in Jewish law[140] concerning a Noachide — the classical exception being a lone Tashbetz who rules that it is halachically prohibited to assist a Noachide in sin, since Jews are obligated to separate Noachides from sin.[141]


According to RaN’s approach, Maimonides’ ruling, cited above, could be understood in two different ways. In situations where a Jew can literally compel observance of the law, that would be a biblical obligation. In situations where compulsion would not work, there would be a rabbinic obligation at least not to assist. This position is neutral on the proper understanding of Malachim 8:10 (which appears to compel observance), as even if there is no obligation to compel observance, one could readily imagine the Sages prohibiting actually assisting in a violation, even if there is no obligation to deter the sin. If one accepts Maimonides in Malachim 8:10, one must at the minimum accept RaN’s rule.


Maimonides, himself, however appears to be completely consistent. Maimonides appears to rule that one may never aid a person who is attempting to violate the law — Jew or Noachide — even if, when one declines to aid him, another will do so. This is true whether or not the next person who aids him is also obligated to observe the law. Thus, his position rejects the approach taken in Avoda Zara 6b and makes no distinction between one or two sides of the river.[142] Maimonides’ position is thus completely consistent. He prohibits assisting another in sin in all situations, and compels both Jews and Noachides actively to prevent others from violating Noachide law.[143]



  1. The Responsa of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson


When a Jew contemplates violating Jewish law, there is an obligation upon Jews not only to prevent him (physically if necessary and possible) from violating the law, but also there are obligations to teach him or her about the law and to induce or persuade compliance.[144] Indeed, in a post-emancipation society, limiting Jewish sinning rarely is done with coercion and force, and is typically done through persuasion and teaching. As noted above, in this author’s opinion, the halacha as generally understood by most authorities rules that there is no obligation to persuade and teach Noachides about the Noachide law. None of the classical commandments designed to deter sinning by Jews (except the biblical prohibition of lifnei iver, which was discussed in part 2 of this section)[145] is generally thought to applicable to Noachides. Thus, there is no obligation of tochacha (to rebuke) a Noachide who sins,[146] there is no notion of arvout (cooperative activity) that compels collective responsibility,[147] and no obligation to separate a Noachide from sin.


One modern responsa stands out as advocating an approach completely different from that generally accepted by Jewish law. The strongest case that a Jew is obligated to teach and persuade a Gentiles to keep the seven commandments is found in the writings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Lubavitch, in one of his classical responsa.[148] After quoting Maimonides, Malachim 8:10 discussed in part one, Rabbi Schneerson states:

It is obvious that this obligation [found in Maimonides, Malachim 8:10] is not limited only to a Jewish court, since this commandment is unrelated to the presence of a ger toshav (resident alien), and thus what is the need of a beit din. . . . Thus, this obligation is in place in all eras, even the present, when no gera toshav can be accepted and it is obligatory on all individuals who can work towards this goal. So too, this commandment is not limited to using force — where, in a situation we cannot use force, we could be excused from our obligation — since the essence of the obligation is to do all that is in our power to ensure that the seven Noachide commandments are kept; if such can be done through force, or through other means of pleasantness and peace, which means to explain [to Noachides] that they should accept the wishes of God who commanded them in this rules. This is obviously what is intended by Maimonides.

* * *


In Responsa Tashbetz (3:133) it states that even in a case where there is no prohibition of lifnei iver, such as two sides of the river, still it is prohibited to assist Noachides who wish to sin, since “we are obligated to separate them from sin.” In reality, we have no source for the obligation to separate a Noachide from sin, if it is not derived from the remarks of Maimonides discussed above [Malachim 8:10] that we are obligated to coerce them into accepting commandments, and thus, of course, we may not assist them in violating them.


Rabbi Schneerson concludes by stating:

From all of the above, it is clear that anyone who has in his ability to influence, in any way, a Noachide to keep the seven commandments, the obligation rests on him to do so, since that was commanded to Moses our teacher. Certainly, one who has connections with Noachides in areas of commerce and the like, it is proper for him to sustain the connection in order to convince and explain to that person, in a way that will reach that persons heart that God commanded Noachides to keep the seven commandments…[149]

In this author’s review of the literature, the weight of halachic authority is contrary to this analysis, although it certainly is morally laudatory (all other things being equal) to convince Noachides to keep and observe the Noachide laws. Three proofs can be adduced which indicate that the ruling of Rabbi Schneerson is not accepted by most authorities.[150] First of all, as he himself notes, his position assumes that there is an obligation to separate a Noachide from sin. As noted in detail in part 2 of this section, nearly all authorities reject that assertion. Second of all, it assumes the halachic correctness of the opinion of Maimonides concerning the general obligation to compel observance by Noachides; this author suspects that the normative halacha is codified in favor of those who disagree with Maimonides and thus rejects the rulings found in Maimonides 8:10.[151] Finally, it assumes that even within the position of Maimonides the obligation to compel observance includes within it the obligation to persuade. No support is advanced to that proposition, and by analogy, one could easily assert that merely because compulsion is mandatory (when possible) to prevent a violation, persuasion need not also be mandatory.[152] In addition, proof that there is no obligation upon any individual Jew to teach Noachides their laws can be found in the many responsa that permit the teaching of Noachides about their laws: these many responsa all permit this activity — but none rule it obligatory or compulsory.[153]


In addition, this author believes that systemic jurisprudential concerns within halacha for reciprocity (which are constantly present and which are beyond the scope of this paper) mandate symmetry of obligation between Noachide and Jew. Jewish law certainly does not compel Noachides to enforce their legal system on Jews and certainly does not authorize Noachides to punish Jews for violations of Jewish law.[154] To impose an un-reciprocal obligation upon Jews would violate jurisprudential norms found in Jewish law, where systemic obligations to act for the benefit of others is typically only imposed when those others are obligated to do the same were the situation reversed. Noachides are not obligated to enforce Jewish law; Jews thus are not obligated to enforce Noachide law.[155]



  1. Conclusion


This article started by reviewing the halachic obligation of Gentiles to obey the Noachide commandments, and concluded that notwithstanding a minority opinion to the contrary, halacha accepts that Gentiles are obligated to keep the Noachide laws, and they are obligated even for unintentional violations. So too, halacha recognizes that Gentiles are obligated to create a system of laws designed to — at the minimum[156] — enforce the Noachide laws and punish Noachide[157] violators[158]. This article then continued by noting that Maimonides appears to accept that Jews as well as Noachides are obligated to enforce the Noachide laws; however, many authorities, early and late, including Rama, reject this rule of Maimonides and deny that there is a halachic obligation on individual Jews to compel Noachides to observe their laws. Indeed, Rabbi J. David Bleich states without any equivocations “Jews as individuals are not required to secure compliance with the Noachide Code on the part of non-Jews.”[159]


Finally this article noted that whether there is (or is not) a halachic obligation to affirmatively enforce the Noachide laws, it is nonetheless still biblically prohibited to enable a Noachide to violate the Noachide laws (if absent a Jew’s[160] assistance, the law would not be violated). However, in a situation where the Noachide is able to violate the law without the assistance of any Jew, nearly all authorities rule that there is no obligation to prevent a Noachide from sinning and thus one may even assist the Noachide in sin. Clearly then, classical halacha does not compel a Jew to persuade or entice a Noachide to observe the law. Rama rules that one may assist, but pious people should abstain from this activity. Shach indicates that even pious people need not abstain from this activity. Rama’s assertion that pious people should abstain from this activity can be supported both as a minority opinion within halacha, and as the ethical direction of Sefer Hachasidim with which this paper opened.



  1. Postscript


It is the conclusion of this paper that generally halacha sees no technical obligation in most situations — even as it is morally laudatory — to insure that Noachides obey their laws. Two observations need to be made.


Initially, as with all issues, the outer parameters of that which is halachically permissible do not establish that which is morally laudatory (or perhaps even halachically encouraged). Thus the words of Perkai Avot need to be quoted:

[Rabbi Akiva] used to say, Humanity is precious since people were created in God’s image.

The remarks of Tosafot Yom Tov are also relevant. He states:

Rabbi Akiva is speaking about the value of all people…He wished to benefit all people including Noachides…Rabbi Akiva seeks to elevate all inhabitants of the world…

as are the remarks of Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid, with which this paper opened.[161] Indeed, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik continues the theme of Sefer Hachasidim concerning Ninveh when he states:

There may be an additional reason for Jonah’s association with Yom Kippur … Ninveh was the capital city of pagan Assyria … It was a country which would later, under Sennacherib in 722 B.C.E. besiege Jerusalem and exile the ten tribes. Yet God’s compassion embraces all of humanity … It is, therefore characteristic of the universal embrace of our faith that as the shadows of dusk descend on Yom Kippur day … the Jew is alerted … that all of humanity are God’s children. We need to restate the Universal dimension of our faith, especially when we are sorely persecuted and are apt to regard the world in purely confrontational terms.[162]

In a similar vein are the remarks of the Kuzari, which indicates that the moral relationship of the Jews to the nations of the world is similar to that of the heart to the rest of the body.[163]


Thus, there are many theological or halachic reasons why it might be proper to teach Noachide laws generally, and indeed, a claim can be made that halacha obligates a truthful response to an honest query from a Noachide concerning his obligation under the Noachide code.[164]


Secondly, this paper has left unexplored many other rationales for seeking enforcement of Noachide law. The words of Maharam Schick should be quoted:

[I]t appears that any situation that involves judging violators, even if they are Noachides, is a Jewish people’s concern, for others will learn from any wrong done in public and will follow suit and, in the least, the sight of evil is harmful to the soul. Thus, it is our concern. In any case, it is inconceivable that any person living among the residents of a given city be beyond the jurisdiction of the court.[165]

Rabbi Bleich puts it a little dif(By perversion and deception…RP)ferently. He states:

Despite the absence of a specific obligation to influence non-Jews to abide by the provisions of the Noachide Code, the attempt to do so is entirely legitimate. Apart from our universal concern, fear lest “the world become corrupt,” as Maimonides puts it, it is also very much a matter of Jewish concern and self-interest. Disintegration of the moral fabric of society affects everyone. Particularly in our age we cannot insulate ourselves against the pervasive cultural forces which mold human conduct. Jews have every interest in promoting a positive moral climate.[166]

(By Perversion and deception….RP)

Thus, there might be many practical reasons why it is a wise idea to teach vigorously the Noachide code, or selective parts of it,[167] to Gentiles.


On the other hand, the apparent absence o(Thus the b(Thus the burden is shifted to the Freemason useful idiots, proselytes of Lucifer…RP)urden is put upon their freemason Useful idiots…proselytes unto Lucifer…RP)f a general halachic obligation upon Jews to increase observance of the Noachide code by Gentiles allows for a balancing of Jewish interests to occur. The possibility that there might be circumstances where the unfettered teaching of the Noachide code in the United States, where distinctions based on religious affiliation cannot be governmentally defended, could be deleterious to the observance of halacha by Jews is not to be dismissed.[168] So too, the possibility that a clearly Jewish attempt to seek enforcement of Noachide laws could result in vast antagonism and backlash toward Judaism from those groups whose conduct is categorically prohibited by Noachide law is not to be dismissed.[169] Long term damage to broad Jewish interests might occur.

(Thus the burden is put upon their Freemason useful idiots the proselytes of Lucifer..RP)

All of the concerns — on both sides of the issue — are real. How to weigh the likelihood of each of these scenarios and there consequences, is beyond the scope of this paper and perhaps varies from issue to issue and case to case — although once it is established that no technical halachic obligation is present, a broad variety of realpolitik factors comes into play, each attempting to evaluate what will be in the long term best interest of the Jewish people. These political factors are much less relevant when technical halachic prohibitions are on the line, but are certainly significant when discussing the advisability of undertaking discretionary conduct.







*           Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law, Atlanta GA 30322. Telephone: 404 727-7546; Fax 404 727-3374; Email; Rabbi Howard Jachter commented on a version of this article, and his comments were appreciated.


For excellent works surveying issues concerning Noachide law generally, see Rabbi J. David Bleich, “Mishpat Mavet Bedenai Benai Noach,” Jubilee Volume in Honor of Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik 1:193-208 (5754); Rabbi J. David Bleich, “Hasgarat Posh’a Yehudi sheBarach LeEretz Yisrael”, Or Hamizrach 35:247- 269 (5747); Professor Nahum Rakover, “Jewish Law and the Noahide Obligation to Preserve Social Order”, Cardozo L.Rev. 12:1073-xxxx (1991); Professor Nachum Rakover, “Hamishpat Kerech Universali: Dinim Bebnai Noach” 15-57 (5748); Encyclopedia Talmudit, “Ben Noach” 3:348-362; Professor Aaron Lichtenstein, The Seven Laws of Noah (2nd Ed., 1986). (As a general matter, this article will attempt to provide citations, to both English and Hebrew versions of works when both exist for the convenience of some readers.)


This body of this paper will not address the merits of alternative rationales for enforcing the Noachide commandments, such as, for example, to teach and direct the Jewish community. It is a famous story, often recounted, that Rabbi Yisrael Salanter favored the translation of the Talmud into German and its introduction in the curriculum of German Universities; when asked to explain his support, he replied that if the Gentiles think talmud study is important, maybe the Jews will study it also! For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Dov Katz, Tenuat HaMussar 1:22-25 and Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems 2:319-320. So too, that rationale could be advanced to support enforcement of the seven commandments. See also the Postscript for more on this issue. This article was previously published in “Jewish Law and the Obligation to Enforce Secular Law,” in The Orthodox Forum Proceedings VI: Jewish Responsibilities to Society, (D. Shatz & C. Waxman eds.) 103-143 (1997).


The term “Noachide” is used in the rabbinic literature to denote anyone who is not Jewish. See generally Rashi, Nedarim 31a and R. Aaron Kirshenbaum “The Covenant with Noachides Compared to the Sinai Covenant” Dinai Israel 6:31-48 (5735). More specifically, as noted by Ritva Makot 9a, “noachide” denotes a gentile who keeps the Noachide commandments, “ger toshav” denotes a gentile who formally accepts the commandments, and “gentile” denotes one who has done neither. An eved kenani is generally not thought to be a Noachide; see Rashi, Sanhedren 58b. See also Rabbenu Gershom, Keritut 9b and Meiri 48a both of whom appear to classify a ger toshav as a partial convert; see also Rabbi Howard Jachter, “Kedushat Yisrael Lechatazin” Beit Yitchak 24:425-428 (5752).



As noted by Sefer HaChinuch 416, although classically referred to as “seven” commandments in the talmudic literature (see Tosephta A.Z. 9:4 and Sanhedren 56a), these commandments include far more than seven obligations. As noted in The Seven Laws of Noah supra note *, at 90-91, these seven commandments correspond to nearly sixty of the 613 mitzvot given to the Jews, or one in four of those obligations practical since the destruction of the Temple and exile from the land.


Even the Talmud readily acknowledges this fact; see Chulin 92a. In this author’s opinion, there is a dispute on how to understand this talmudic section. Are the thirty obligations mentioned there explanations and elaborations on the seven, or are they additional commandments not included in the seven? Rabbi Menachem Azaria Mepano, Asara Mamaorot, Mamar Chokar Din 3:21 clearly understands them as mere explanations. On the other hand, Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon seems to understand them as additional commandments; see his commentary on Genesis 34:12; see also Jerusalem Talmud, Avoda Zara 2:1 which states “These thirty commandments Noachides will accept upon themselves in the future.” This distinction leads to certain very practical differences; see Rabbi J. David Bleich, “Divine Unity in Maimonides, the Tosafists and Meiri” in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, Len E. Goodmann, ed. (1992) pp.237-254 who uses the opinion of Shmuel Ben Chofni to explain an insight of Meiri which has practical ramifications.



As with any specific halachic ruling, but even more so in this one, that application requires evaluation of the impact on society at large. Thus, there might be no halachic obligation to seek enforcement when it is clear that there is no possibility of success (however defined), or that profound harm would befall the Jewish community if enforcement was sought; for more on this, see infra at Postscript. For a discussion of this issue in the context of enforcement of Jewish law within a Jewish community, see Techumin 7:107-144 (articles by Rav Moshe Malka, Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein, Rav Simcha Kook, and Rav Yisrael Rosen).



For more on this issue, see Postscript.



Bava Kama 38a. For a use of this talmudic text in a different context, see Responsa of Rabbi Hildesheimer YD 259.



Hagaot HaBach, Chagiga 13a. The reference in Bach to Ein Yakov is to the version of Tosafot printed in Ein Yakov on Chagiga 13a. See also Responsa Rama Mepano 30.



Sefer Etz Chaim, beginning of Genesis chapter 37 quoting Maharash Algazi from Ahavat Olam.



Responsa Penai Yehoshua, YD 1:3 and EH 2:43.



Quoted in Makrai Kodesh 63a. For a discussion of the opinions of Rabbi Chaim Abulafia, Penai Yehoshua and Maharit, See Yabia Omer YD 3:17(10).



Commentary on OC 39; but see Chatam Sofer CM 185 where he indicates that he does not, in fact, accept this theory as correct.



Tosafot on Chagiga 13a quoted in Ein Yakov on Chaggiga 13a. This author has no explanation for the differences between the Tosafot on Chagiga 13a in Ein Yakov and the version of Tosafot in all of the various talmudic sources. The version of Tosafot found in Ein Yakov is not found in the other alternative versions of Tosafot commonly consulted.



See Kiddushin 29b-30b for a discussion of this status.



Avoda Zara 6a.



He understands even this only a as rabbinic prohibition; but see page 20 of this article which indicates that it is normally considered a biblical prohibition.



Responsa Beit Yehuda YD 17; Sedai Chemed 6:26:22 (in the name of numerous authorities); Yabia Omer YD 2:17(10); Yad Eliyahu 48 and many others.



Whether there could be any Noachide obligation based on a rabbinic commandment is subject to some debate; see Sedai Chemed 2:32-33. To this author it would seem logical that there can be no rabbinic obligation on Gentiles to keep the Noachide laws, as there is no obligation on Gentiles to keep rabbinic rules. That does not, however mean that there can be no rabbinic decrees ever governing Noachides; see id. However, the central obligation to observe cannot be rabbinic; Rashi, Sanhedren 58b (veleklal yisrael lo ba) clearly indicates that a rabbinic decree cannot govern one who is not Jewish. This issue is perhaps related to the question of whether Noachides must follow majority rule. Compare Pri Megadim, YD, Shaar HaTarovet 1:1(3) with Nodah Beiyehuda, Tanyana, Even haEzer 42 with Hatam Sofer, YD 70 and Maharam Shick, OC 104.



See e.g. Maimonides, Malachim Chapters 7-9 and various other rishonim discussed in part II-V of this article who refer to the seven commandments in a way which indicates that they are biblical in origin.



See e.g. Aruch HaShulchan He’Atid Malachim 78 and the numerous achronim cited in parts II-V of this article all of whom discuss the issue of Noachide obligation assuming that it is biblical in nature.



This author would be inclined to read the authorities cited in notes 6 to 10 (and the related talmudic text) as perhaps standing for a lesser proposition — Noachides are only obligated to obey the seven commandments based on logic or Natural law, and that they are released from adhering to them solely because of a divine revelation. This perhaps can be implied from Tosafot Chagiga 13a (which seems to indicate that observance of the seven commandments is possible independent of the study of torah), Rabbenu Nissim Gaon in his introduction to Talmud (printed as the preface to Berachot) (which discusses the obligations upon all people to obey logical rules) and Maimonides, Malachim 8:11 (which discuss whether Noachides who rationally observes the commandments are meritoriously acting assuming the text is changed from velo to ela, as indicated by Maharam Alshich). Supporting this alternative reading of Maimonides, Rakover, supra note *, at footnote 28, states in part:

The reading, “of their wise men,” (“ela mehakhmeihem”) is to be found only in manuscripts and not in printed editions of Maimonides’ Code. The same reading may be found at Y. ben Moshe, Introduction to Ma’aseh haEfod (1403) (Rabbi Yitzhak ben Moshe is also known as Profiat Duran haLevi of Catalonia); and at Y. ben R. Shem Tov, Kevod Elokim 29:1 (1556). See also Z. Hayyot, [1 Kol Sifrei Maharatz Hayyot 61], at 66; Maharatz Hayyot, 2 Kol Sifrei Maharatz Hayyot 1035 . . .; A. Kook, Iggrot Re’iyah, Iggeret no. 89, 100.




See, for example, Rama OC 156:1; Shulchan Aruch YD 169; EH 5:14 (and comments of Chelkat Mechokek). Many such citations could be brought.



See Malachim 10:1 which states “a Noachide who unintentionally violates one of the mitzvot is excused from them all.”



Kometz HaMincha 232 (reprinted as part of the text in the new Minchat Chinuch 232).



See also Pri Megadim OC 443:5 and 444:6 which is argued with by Drisha YD 297(1-2).



For example, it would be permissible for a Noachide to eat a piece of flesh from a living animal in a situation where he did not know that this meat comes from a living animal, but knows that if it had, he would not be allowed to eat it.



For example, it would be prohibited for a Noachide to eat a piece of flesh from a living animal in a situation where he knows that this meat comes from a living animal, but is unaware that such flesh is prohibited.



See Tosafot, Bava Kama 79a.



See Avnai Meluim EH 5; Seda Chemed 5:26:13; Terumat Hadeshen 299; Aruch HaShulchan YD 62:6; Responsa Rav Betzalael Askenazi 3 (in the name of Radvaz also).



Sanhedren 56a. Indeed, the source for these laws plays a role in their interpretation. As noted by Rama, Responsa 10 (to be discussed infra) if the source for these rules is biblical verses directed at Adam or Noach, they then are to be interpreted independent of the subsequent revelation at Sinai. Rama states:

It is recounted in Sanhedren 56b. Rabbi Yochanan states that the seven Noachide laws were given based on the verse ‘God commanded Adam stating: from all the trees in the garden you may eat’ [Genesis 2:16]. “veyetzav” is the source for dinim since it states . . .; “elokeim” is the source for berchat hashem, since it states …. Contrary to this is the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak who states that “veyetzav” is the source for the prohibition of idol worship; “elokeim” is the source for the dinim….

Rama continues:

Rabbi Yochanan, who learns dinim from “veyetzav” understands that Noachide law only obligates observing the customs of the community and judging people . . . However, Rabbi Yitzchak has a completely different approach and he learns dinim from “elokeim” as a gezera shaveh from the verse “and the litigant shall approach the judge (“elokeim”) [Ex. 20:3]. He rules that Noachide laws are the same as those laws commanded to the Jews at Sinai, and thus he learns them from a verse announced at Sinai.




According to Shmuel ben Hofni, 30 specific commandments are included; see generally appendix to Encyclopedia Talmudic 3:394-396 and supra note 2.



See The Seven Laws of Noah, supra note *, at 90-91.



Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:1; see generally Malachim 2:16.



See Chedushai haRaN Sanhedren 58b; see also Penai Yehoshua, Kiddushin 13b who insists that this applies even after the death of the spouse.



Maimonides, Ishut 1:1-2 and Malachim 9:8



Opinion of Rabbi Yochanan, Bereshit Rabbah 18:5 and see also commentary of Rashi on id for an elaboration on this.



For example, the nature of the monotheistic obligation and its application to contemporary religions; see Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 350-351 or the obligation of dinim discussed in part III; whether Noachides are prohibited to perform castrations or grow kelaim; Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 356-357, and many others.



This paper is not the place to address the details of the Noachide laws. For such an analysis, see The Laws of Noah, supra note *.



Encyclopedia Talmudic, supra note 1, at 353-354.



Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at 353-354.



Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at 354.



Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at pages 351. As noted by Rabbi Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer 9:51 (page 239), what flows from this assertion is that if a Jewish woman is permitted to have an abortion according to Jewish law, it is preferable that the doctor performing the abortion be Jewish and not a Noachide.



Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at pages 354-55.



However, many things that are considered general wrongs by both Jewish law and the general western legal codes, are not always considered violations of the Noachide code. For example, various forms of incest considered wrong by most western legal systems and Jewish law are permitted in the Noachide code; see Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 351-2.



For an excellent review of the Noachide commandment of dinim, see Rakover, supra note * (both articles).



See Genesis Chapter 34.



As to why Maimonides uses the word “stole” see Sanhedren 55a and Chatam Sofer YD 19.



Malachim 10:14.



See generally Teshuvot Chachmai Provance 48 which clearly distinguishes between regulations based on the Noachide laws and regulations based on the law of the land or the law of the king. For more on this distinction, see Arnold Enker, “Aspects of Interaction Between the Torah Law, the King’s Law, and the Noahide Law in Jewish Criminal Law”, Cardozo L. Rev. 12:1137-xxxx (1991).



Commentary of Nachmanides, Geneses 34:14.



Responsa of Rama 10. His ruling is also accepted by Chatam Sofer CM 91 and R. Yakov Linderbaum (melisa), Responsa Nachalat Yakov 2:3.



See Rabbi Y. Elchanan Spector, Nachal Yitzchak CM 91; R. Abraham Issaih Karelitz, Chazon Eish on Hilchot Malachim 10:10 and Bava Kama 10:3; R. Isser Zalman Meltzar, Even HaAzel, Chovel Umazek 8:5; R. Yecheil Michael Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan He’Atid, Law of Kings 79:15; R. Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Haamek Shealah 2:3; R. Abraham Kook, Etz Hadar 38, 184; R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, Har Tzvi, OC II, Kuntres Mili de Berachot 2:1; R. Ovadia Yosef, Yechaveh Daat 4:65; R. Yitzchak Yakov Weiss, Minchat Yitzchak 4:52:3. For a more complete analysis of this issue see N. Rakover, Jewish Law …, supra note * at 1098-1118, and App. I & II.



Most authorities do not accept Nachmanides’ opinion; see e.g. Maimonides, Hilchot Malachim 10:10; R. Yom Tov Ashvealli (Ritva), Responsa 14 (quoted in Beit Yosef CM 66:18); Tosafot, Eruvin 62a (“Ben Noach”). The comments of Albo are also worth citing:

One finds although torah law and Noachide law differ in the details, the principles used are the same, since they derive from the same source. Moreover, the two systems exist concurrently: while Jews have torah law, the other peoples abide by the Noachide code.

Sefer Haikarim 1:25.



Maimonides asserts in his commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 7:6) that the reason why these seven commandments are obligatory is because God commanded these seven laws as part of the divine revelation at Sinai. Based on this, the Bal HaTurim notes that 620 commandments were revealed at Sinai which he remarks is hinted at by the 620 letters in the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, Machzor Vitri notes that only 606 commandments were given to the Jews at Sinai, since the Jews were already commanded in the Noachide laws prior to that; this is also noted by Gra as derived from the word “Ruth”, whose value is 606, which Gra asserts is the additional commandments she became obligated in. See also Maimonides’s Sefer Hamitzvot Aseh 176-177. For a general discussion of the Noachide laws and the counting of commandments, see Noami Cohen, “Taryag and the Noahide Commandments”, Journal of Jewish Studies, 43:46-57 (Spring 1992).



See Rabbi Yosef Engel, Beit Otzar Marechet 1-1: ‘7, 9. “The seven Noachide commandments are still obligatory to Jews, and their authority derives from their pre-Sinai obligation. The Torah . . . merely added to Noachide laws . . .”



Rabbi Pinhas Hayyim Sheinman “Teshuva be-inyan yeladimn mefagrim legabe hinukh u-mitsvot” Moria 11:(9-10) pp 51-65 (1982). (This article contains an appendix written by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach).



Iggrot Moshe YD 1:6. Rabbi Feinstein there discusses whether one who is legally excused from observance of commandments generally because of blindness (according to one opinion) is nonetheless obligated in the Noachide laws.



Is a bar deah (understands right and wrong).



Although this goes almost without saying, there is no general difference in level of obligation in Noachide law between men and women; see Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at page 348.



Or Samach, Issurai Beah 3:2. This presupposes the correctness of the Minchat Chinuch famous assertion (Minchat Chinuch 190; also found in Chatam Sofer YD 317) that Noachides become adults — and thus obligated in obedience of the law — not when they reach any particular age, but then they reach intellectual maturity. It is likely that the correctness of this assertion is itself in dispute between Rosh and Rashi; compare Teshuvot HaRosh 16:1 and Rashi commenting on Perkai Avot 5:21. See also Yabia Omer YD 2:17.


See also Sefer Hamikaneh 1:8(5) which states “for violations of the seven commandments Jews certainly are to be punished . . .” Perhaps similar sentiments are expressed by Rav Kook when he states “in our time, when Torah is not upheld . . . still it seems that the principles of fairness applied by force of torah law of dinim to Noachides applies, since we are no worse than they” Etz Hadar page 42.



Seredai Eish 3:22; Rabbi Menashe Klein, Mishnah Halachot 9:278 also agrees with this.



This author has found no authority who explicitly notes this in the name of Nachmanides. However, it would appear logical to this author that there is no obligation to participate in the creation of a legal system that is not binding on one who creates it. Other factors, such as lifnei ever or its analogs, would be in place according to Nachmanides to prevent Jews from enticing Noachides to violate; indeed, even dina demalchulta might be such rule.



See Rashi, Gitten 9b and Rabbi Bleich, Jewish Law and the State’s . . . , supra note *, at 856.



See for example, Rashi commenting Gitten 9b. Rabbi Issar Zalman Meltzar Even HaAzel, Nizkai Mamon 8:5 freely mixes as near synonyms the terms dina demalchuta, din melech, benai noach metzuve al hadinim in a discussion about why a Jew must return property lost by another when such is required by secular law and not halacha. See also Rabbi Meir Dan Polachi, Chemdat Yisrael, Ner Mitzvah 72 Mitzvah 288. See also the discussion in section IV:3 of the position of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson on this issue.



This article does not address one very significant issue — the scope of a Gentile’s obligation (both as an individual and as a society) to enforce Noachide law. As is clear from Maimonides’ formulation (cited in text accompanying note 46), Gentiles are obligated not only in formulating a legal system, but also in actually enforcing it; after all the inhabitant od Shechem were punished because they declined to enforce the law. On the other hand, as noted by many authorities (see sources cited in notes 90 and 158 and more generally the sources cited in notes 90 to 99) it is clear that Noachides need not punish all violations with death. Indeed, a claim can be made that a Noachide system of law fulfills it’s mandate as a system of justice (dinim) even if it were to occasionally decline to criminally punish a clear violation of Noachide law (such as theft of a nickel). So too, it is reasonable to suppose that Maimonides’s formulation of the difference between the obligations of an individual to enforce law and the obligation of society to enforce law (see Rotzeach 1:5) has some place in the Noachide system also. This is even more so apparent according to the approach of Nachmanides that incorporates vast amounts of general law into Noachide law. Clearly not every violation of this general law requires death or even criminal punishment. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assert that the Noachide obligation is not fulfill merely by legislative action without any enforcement activity. What is missing from this discussion is the halachic parameters of the discretion, and that task shall be left to another time.



This was first noted in a different context by Rabbi Bleich, who was commenting on the permissibility to assist in the punishment of criminals. He states:

Nevertheless, one point requires clarification. Punishment of malfeasors may be a royal prerogative. That, however, does not establish an obligation [for Jews] to assist the king in exercising that prerogative. . . . Reason demands that a murderer be brought to justice and punished. Reason similarly demands that punishment be carried out only in accordance with legal procedures and only by duly constituted authorities because the alternative would similarly lead to a breakdown of the social order. Just as reason forbids a person to take the law into his own hands, it also mandates that there be no interference with the administration of justice by properly constituted authorities.

Rabbi Bleich, supra note 61, at 856.



Something that would be completely unacceptable in a Jewish court, where complete observance is mandated for service as a judge; See generally, Choshen Mishpat 35-37 for a list of disqualifications.



Chazon Ish Bava Kama 10:15. A similar situation is also discussed in halacha: Does Jewish law recognize the right of the Noachide government to punish Jewish violators of the Noachide code. Two distinctly different approaches have been taken by the authorities on the permissibility of a Jew aiding the secular government in criminally punishing Jews; For an excellent analysis of this issue, see Rabbi J. David Bleich, Hasgarat Posh’a . . , supra note *. The dispute revolves around the proper understanding of Bava Metzia 83b-84a which states in part:

  1. Eleazar son of R. Simeon met a police officer. R. Eleazar said to him, “How can you detect the thieves . . .? Perhaps you take the innocent and leave behind the guilty.” The officer replied “And what shall I do? It is the king’s command.” [R. Eleazar then advised this policeman how to determine who was a thief and who was not] . . . A report was heard in the royal court. They said, “Let the reader of the letter become the messenger.” R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon was brought to the court and he proceeded to apprehend thieves. R. Joshua son of Karchah, sent word to him, “Vinegar, son of wine! How long will you deliver the people of our God for slaughter?” R. Eleazar sent the reply, “I eradicate thorns from the vineyard.” R. Joshua responded, “Let the owner of the vineyard come and eradicate his thorns.”

Rabbi Eliezer was rebuked for assisting the government in the prosecution of criminals, thus indicating that this conduct is not proper or at least the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joshua.


A number of commentaries advance an explanation for this reprimand which changes its focus. Rabbi Tom Tov Ashvelli (RiTVA quoted in Sheta Mekubetzet on id.) states that even Rabbi Joshua admits that it is only scholars and rabbis of the caliber of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yishmael who should not assist the government as prosecutors or police officers — and even for these individuals such conduct was not prohibited, but only frowned upon. Many authorities agree with this explanation; See RaN, commenting on Sanhedren 46a; Rabbi Shimon ben Adret, Teshuvot Rashba 3:29; Rabbi J. Karo, Beit Yosef, CM 388; Taz, YD 157:7-8; R. Tzvi Hirsh Eisenstadt, Darchai Teshuva, commenting on YD 157:1; R. Simcha Medivinsk, Or Sameach, Malachim 3:10; R. Moshe Shick, Teshuvot Maharam Shick, YD 50. According to this analysis, it is only the pious who should not engage in this type of work as it is undignified for scholars also to be government agents — but all others may, since the secular government has “jurisdiction” over Jewish violators of its laws. Additionally, Rashi, commenting on the Talmud, seems to argue that any action which the secular government may take within the scope of the rule of dina demalchuta dina (the law of the land is the law) which is binding on Jews, the government may enforce; See e.g. Rashi commenting on Gittin 9b (dinim). Keeping law and order is unquestionably one such function. A proof to this proposition can perhaps be found in Rabbi Feinstein’s decision allowing one to be a tax auditor for the government in a situation where the audit might result in the criminal prosecution of Jews for evading taxes; Iggrot Moshe, CM 1:92.


The second approach rejects the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, and states that Rabbi Joshua, who rebuked Rabbi Eleazar, represents the normative opinion which prohibits this conduct; Such an approach can be found in Meiri, Bava Metzia 83b and can be implied from Maimonides, Hilchot Rotzeach 2:4 and Tosafot, Sanhedren 20b; R. Moshe Sofer, Chatam Sofer Likkutim responsa no. 14. If Rabbi Joshua’s opinion is the one accepted by Jewish law, then the only time it would be permitted to assist the secular government in criminal prosecutions is when the criminal poses a threat to the community through his conduct. This is based upon the rules of rodef (pursuer); see R. Shimon Duran, Tashbetz 3:168 and Rabbi Isserless, (Rama), CM 388:12. Obviously where the criminal poses a threat to the community through his conduct, it is proper to apprise the secular authorities of his activities; see e.g., R. Shmuel DeMidina, Responsa Maharashdam, CM 55:6; Rabbi Moshe Sternbach, Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:850. This threat need not be limited to the possibility that the criminal will actually harm another, but includes such factors as the possibility that in response to a Jew being apprehended committing a crime, other Jews will be injured or anti-semitism will be promoted; see Rama commenting on Shulchan Aruch, CM 388:12, 425:1. According to this approach it is only when there is a likelihood that the lack of punishment of this criminal will lead to other crimes, that the secular authorities should be informed. One authority has argued that on a functional level there is no difference between the two approaches because disobedience of the law generally will surely lead to anarchy and crime, and thus all significant violations of the law can be punished under the pursuer rationale. Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chayes (Maharatz Chayes) Torat Neviem Chap. 7.



Perhaps among the most significant impacts is whether Noachides are valid witnesses as a matter of biblical law or not; for more on this, see “Goy”, Encyclopedia Talmudit 5:337-343.



Devarim 33:4.



Maimonides, Malachim 8:10. In explaining the source for this ruling of Maimonides, Rabbi Karo states in Kesef Mishnah Mila 1:6 that “Rabbenu learned this rule from what is stated in Sanhedren 57a;” see also Yevamot 48a. The dispute between Maimonides and others revolve around the talmudic statement (Sanhedren 57a) that “on seven commandments Noachides are killed.” Maimonides understands this as not limited to judaical punishment in a court of 23 when the Sanhedren is functioning (as is required to execute a Jew for a violation) but includes “extra-judaical” activity. Those who argue (see section 2) limit this statement to judicially sanctioned executions.



Maimonides, Malachim 10:11. As noted by Radvaz, commenting on Malachim 10:14, ab initio it is preferable that Noachides serve as judges on there own tribunals. It is only be’devad that Jews should seek such roles. I would suggest that the rationale for that assertion is that it is generally better that a mitzvah be done by the principle and not through an agent. In this case the mitzvah is dinim, the Noachide is the principal, and the Jew is the agent.

It is worth noting that Maimonides explicitly adopts a universalistic formulation of the obligation to love our Maker in his Sefer Hamitzvot, Aseh 3.



Maimonides, Mila 1:6. Ravad notes “Nowadays we cannot kill a person.” See part IV:1:B for a discussion of Ravad’s assertion.



It is clear that once a person is actually a full ger toshav (resident alien) there is an obligation to judge that person (at least in Israel). Most likely, no such people exist in the United States. This paper will limit its discussion to Noachides. For a discussion of who is a ger toshav, see Rabbi Berel Wein, Chekrai Halachot 5-45 (Mossad Harav Kook, 5748 and Aruch HaShulchan He’atid Yovel 49.



Responsa 2.



Rabbi Shlomo Ben Shimon Duran, Rashbash 543.



See “Dinim” Encyclopedia Talmudit 7:396-397 for a discussion of this issue.



The general rule is that commandments apparently directed to all recounted in the bible prior to revelation at Sinai are binding only on Jews; commandments recounted twice in the bible, one before revelation and once after are binding on all; see generally Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 359-360.



Ellipses are by Maharatz Chayut.



Maimonides Malachim 10:11.



Although some Noachide communities do exist. See e.g., “Ex-Christians Drawn to Noah’s Law,” San Jose Mercury News, Saturday January 26, 1991 Page:11D. The article reads in part:

Some are former Christian clergymen who no longer consider themselves Christians. They use many Jewish practices, but don’t convert to Judaism. About 250 of them met in Athens, Tenn., recently, reports Ecumenical Press Service. James D. Tabor, member of an advisory council, says members tend to be “disenfranchised former Christians” who “do not denounce belief in Jesus” but the “most they would say is that he was a great teacher.” Tabor says members want to identify with the “ethical monotheism” of Judaism without converting to it. He says they uphold the “laws of Noah,” such as those against idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins and theft.

It is worth noting that these communities do seek rabbinic guidance; see “Tennessee Church Studies Judaism” Sun Sentinel, Friday May 31, 1991 Page: 5E discussing involvement of local orthodox rabbi.



Whether such is obligatory is dependent on issues discussed infra in this paper and the additional issue of whether such communities have the status of ger toshav communities or merely Noachide communities. This is a classical dispute between Maimonides, Ravad and many others. For a lengthy discourse on many details of ger toshav, see Rabbi Berel Wein, Chekrai Halachot 9-46 and particularly pages 44-46 which discuss whether such a status can currently exist.



YD 267:12-13. For more on the context in which Aruch Hashulchan is speaking, see infra, text accompanying notes 100 to 107. There is some tension between the remarks found in Aruch HaShulchan He’atid Yovel 49:1-3, Malachim 78:10-11 and YD 367:12-13. This author would be inclined to assume that the remarks found in Aruch HaShulchan He’atid are not intended for current practical use, and while that is not stated explicitly in them, that flows logically from the nature of the work generally. (Although even that rule is not without exception, as teruma and maser rules are found in He’atid, notwithstanding their clear relevance even in the life of the writer.)



Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni (Mishpatai Melucha 2d ed. pages 232-234) also understands Maimonides’ rule so as to impose no real obligation. He understands the force of the relevant rules as designed to limit what a Jewish court can do, and not to expand on it. He understands Maimonides as ruling that Noachides are commanded from Moses only in these seven laws, and a Jewish court, while it might think that it can impose on Noachides additional obligations or portions of the remaining 613 commandments, it cannot. He argues that Maimonides’ statement (“So too, Moses our teacher was commanded by God to compel [only] the commandments obligatory to the children of Noah”) should be understood as a limitation on that power. The same he states is true for the second example (“A Jewish court is obligated to appoint judges to ger toshaves (resident alien) to judge them for these laws …”). This interpretation is quite novel and original to him.



Amud Yemini 12:1:12. Rabbi Yisraeli posits that Maimonides cannot possibly mean that there is a general obligation to compel observance of the Noachide laws everywhere in the world as “where do we see that in the writing of the Sages.” Rather he argues that Maimonides’ rule must be limited to the land of Israel itself, where there is a halachic imperative to prevent violations of the Noachide law. Thus according to him, Maimonides’ rule is inapplicable in the diaspora.



Torah Shelama 17:220. The most fascinating explanation for the opinion of Maimonides is found in Responsa Maharam Shick, where he avers that the primary motivation for this ruling is that if Noachides are allowed to sin unpunished, impropriety will occur in the Jewish community also; Maharam Shick OC 144. Indeed, Maharam Shick indicates that the basis for this rule is that society cannot stand if the justice system cannot regulate a portion of the community. Similar insights are made by Rabbi Bleich in Hasgarat Posh’a . . ., supra note *. See also Postscript.



Kesef Mishnah Mila 1:6. Similar sentiments as to the opinion of Maimonides can be found in Lechem Mishna commenting on Avodah Zarah 10:1



Rabbi Joseph Rosen, Tzafnach Paneach, Maimonides, Milah 1:6.



Maimonides, Milah, 1:6.



As Kesef Mishnah does; see Kesef Mishnah Milah 1:6.



For an understanding of why that approach is “more likely”, see Tzafnach Paneach on Mila 1:6, Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, “On Noachides”, Beit Yitzchak 19:335-338 (5747) and Rabbi J. David Bleich “Mishpat Mavet . . ., supra note *.



See Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik, “On Noachides” supra note 89. Of course, a person who violates the Noachide laws and thus poses a danger to others could be killed using the pursuer rationale; Indeed, even a Jew could be punished under that rationale. However, a violation of the purely theological components of the Noachide law cannot result in punishment according to this rationale.


So too, it is likely that Jewish law recognizes as proper a Noachide law which provides a sanction for violations other than the death penalty. Noachide law is authorized even to execute. It is not, however, obligated to execute for all violations. See generally, Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik cited above and Rabbi Bleich, Mishpat Mavet …, supra note *. See also Chelkat Yoav Tanyana 14. In particular this must flow logically from the opinion of Nachmanides that dinim incorporates the obligation to create a system of financial law.



See Comments of Ravad on Malachim 6:1 and Issura Beah 12:7-8.



Commentary of Nachmanides on Deuteronomy 20:(1) and (11). While Nachmanides does mention subsequent adoption of Noachide laws by these nations, it is in the context of self incorporation of these rules by these nations and not through compulsion.



Except, as noted above, upon those who are garai toshav.



Tosafot, “velo moredim,” Avoda Zara 26b. This can also be re-enforced from the assertion of Tosafot, Shabbat 3a that there is no obligation to separate Noachides from sin. For more on this, see IV:2.



For a general discussion of this, see R. Yehuda Gershuni Mishpatai Melucha, 165-167.



Commenting on Deuteronomy 20:1,11 which cites only the obligation of taxation, and deletes the obligation of observance of the Noachide commandments. This is also in harmony with Rashi’s opinion (Yevamot 48a) that does not appear to require observance of Noachide laws by Noachide slaves of Jews. This too is consistent with Rashi’s broad conception of dina demalchuta noted in Gitten 9b (see notes 61 to 64). Merely because there is an obligation to obey does not mean that there is an obligation to assist in enforcement. It is logical to infer that that concept is present in Noachide law also according to those who accept Nachmanides’ general framework; see Nachmanides on Genesis 34:11.



Responsa of Rashba 1:59; see also comments of Rashba to Yevamot 48b. In this responsa Rashba discusses at some length the status of slaves that do not observe Noachide law without giving any indication that ownership of these slaves is prohibited, thus indicating agreement with Ravad (for reasons that will become apparent once the next paragraph is read).



Hagaot Ashrei, Avodah Zara 64b. This sources was refereed to me by Rabbi Yehuda Herzel Henkin of Jerusalem, in his comments on a draft of this paper.



See note supra 90 and sources cited therein.



See generally Aruch HaShulchan YD 267 for a review of this area.



The opinion of Shulchan Aruch itself is unclear, In YD 276:4 Rabbi Karo appears to simply disallow any temporary slavery absent circumcision, and thus he does not even discuss the imposition of Noachide law. In Beit Yosef 267 (beginning with the words veharambam) R. Karo appears to accept the approach of Maimonides. However, in Bedek Habayit (on id.) he appears to retract this ruling and condition this whole issue on the presence of a ger toshav (resident alien), something which is impossible currently in the opinion of R. Karo. Thus, the situation appears to be that Kesef Mishna and Beit Yosef rule in accordance with Maimonides that these rules are applicable currently, whereas Bedek Habayit rules that (at the least) Maimonides opinion is inapplicable currently or the halacha is not in accordance with Maimonides. Shulchan Aruch is unclear. See generally Chikrai Lev 2:53 and Sedai Chemed 9:16 for a discussion of these types of situations in the writings of Rabbi Karo. Particularly given the discussion found in text accompanying notes 108-117, one is inclined to understand Shulchan Aruch as in agreement with Rama.



Maimonides and Rama are both discussing a simple relevant case: May one employ household help that violates one of the Noachide commandments or must one terminate the help (perhaps either by terminating the help or terminating the employment). This issue is relevant even in the 1990’s. Rama and the latter authorities indicate that there is no obligation upon a Jewish employer to compel observance of the Noachide laws by employees. It is difficult to assert that Rama left this law out as there was nothing they could do to compel observance, since certainly, even in those times, one had the right to fire such employees/slaves, if not more than that. Rather, Rama thought that there was no halachic obligation to compel Noachides to observe the Noachide commandments.



A slave acquired with the explicit condition that conversion not be done and whom Maimonides explicitly required to observe the Noachide laws. See Milah 1:6 for a description of this status.



Given the secular law relating to servitude, indentured servants and slave found in Europe until the emancipation, it is difficult to claim that Jewish law declined to address this issue because it was not relevant. On the contrary, this issue is quite relevant and employees/owners had considerable latitude in regulating the conduct of employees/slaves even in issues unrelated to their work; see generally Jonathan Bush, “Free to Enslave: The Foundations of Colonial American Slave Law” Yale J.L. & Humanities 5:417 (1993).



Unlike those rules found in Malachim chapters 8-11.



Shulchan Aruch YD 267:4. The notes to Rama were not written by Rama. A close read of Iggrot Moshe YD 3:103 (particularly the second-to-last paragraph) indicates that Rabbi Feinstein agrees with Rama on this issue.



Further proof that Jewish law did not perceive an obligation to compel observance by Noachides (absent Messianic times) can be found in part 2 of this section, where once again, the approach of Maimonides is a minority opinion.



Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 158:1. Portions of this can be found in repetition in CM 425.



YD 158 s.v. rebenu umekol makom. For more on this, see the uncensored version of Beit Yosef CM 425 that has recently been incorporated into various editions of the Tur (and is forthcoming in the new Machon HaTur).



YD 158:1 (new Tur numbers).



YD 158 s.v. umekol makom.



YD 158:1. Similar sentiments can be found in Sema CM 425:15-19 in his attempts to distinguish Gentiles from heretics.



YD 158 s.v. ain moredim. For a long discussion of this topic which reenforces this understanding of the halacha, see the commentary of Aruch Meshar on Darchai Moshe.



Shulchan Aruch 158:1.



Shach YD 158:2. It is worth noting that he cites Yam Shel Shlomo’s commentary on Semag mitzvah 48 as in agreement with that. Nikudat HaKesef on id. is equally clear on this issue.



Taz YD 158:1. For a discussion of this issue, see Responsa Beit Yehuda Yehuda YD 4.



YD 158:2.



See also, for a recent reformulation, Rabbi Yitzchok Blau, Pitchai Choshen 5:2(18).



See note ).



The Mishnah LaMelech (Malveh ve’loveh 4:2) states (perhaps reflecting his understanding of the Maimonides) that in order for the action to become permissible according to Torah law, it has to be doable by a non-Jew, or a person otherwise not obligated in this commandment of lifnei iver generally, rather than be able to be done by any person. The Mishnah LaMelech’s approach is based upon his understanding of Tosafot (Chagiga 13a, ein mosrim) that chad ibra d’nahara (“one side of the river”) means when the principal can do it on his own or through the assistance of a non-Jew. This makes sense only within the conceptual framework of Tosafot and the RaN (which will be explained below), as it seems irrelevant that others can aid in the prohibited act if they too are obligated not to do so.



The reverse (which is not the contra-positive) is not true. See the discussion relating to the opinion of RaN, infra.



Tosafot, Avoda Zara 6b, s.v. minayin; Mordechai, Avoda Zara 6b; Rama YD 151:4; Shach, YD 151:6.



The ellipses in this paragraph all refer to the case of a mumar, apostate, and assisting him in sin. That topic is beyond the scope of this paper; For more on that topic, see Broyde and Hertzberg, “Enabling a Jew to Sin: The Parameters”, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 19:5 (1990).



Shach id..



OC 347:4. Magen Avraham rules that it is prohibited to assist an unobservant Jews to sin even when he can do it without assistance; however, he clearly permits one to assist a Noachide in sinning.



YD 151:8. Gra rules that it is prohibited to assist an unobservant Jews to sin even when he can do it without assistance; however, he clearly permits one to assist a Noachide in sinning.



YD 151:3.



EH 5:18.



OC 163:2.



YD 151.



YD 151. Rabbi Feinstein, Iggrot Moshe 3:90 states that this is obvious, “proper and true.”



And the harmonization of apparently inconsistent talmudic texts using this Nochide/mumar distinction to separate the various cases; see comments of Gra and Magen Avraham cited in notes 125 to 126.



For a discussion of that issue, see “Enabling a Jew …”, supra note 123.



It is worth noting that Shach (YD 151:6), in his list of authorities who he feels agree with his assertion that there is no obligation to separate a Noachide from sin, leaves out Maimonides.



Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson unambiguously rejects this reading of Maimonides and accepts that Maimonides means that one should do anything in one’s power, to encourage or compel observance. For more on his position, see infra Section IV:3.



Thus for example, Tosafot Shabbat 3a clearly indicates that to be his rule, as does Nachmanides, cited by Ran in AZ 7a.



This is analogous to the tension between the obligation of tochacha (rebuke) to an unobservant Jew and the permissibility to assist him in sin (according to Shach and Dagul Merevavah). As noted by many, once one is permitted to assist a Jew in sin it is logical to assume that there is no obligation also to rebuke him.



See RaN, Avoda Zara 6b (1a in Rif pages). This author finds very difficult the assertion of Shach that even Ran would agree that even for a Noachide there is no obligation him from sin, as Ran explicitly asserts this rabbinic obligation in the case of a Noachide. Most likely Shach is referring to the opinion of Nachmanides cited in Ran, Rif pages 7a. This opinion of Nachmanides is consistent with the opinion of Nachmanides cited in Section III:1:B. Tosafot too is consistent on this issue.



Among the commentaries, see Magen Avraham, OC 347:4 and Gra, YD 151:8. Among the responsa, see R. Yakov Ettlinger, Binyan Zion 1:15; R. Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Meshiv Davar 2:32, R. Aharon Kotler, Mishnat Rav Aharon 1:6



See sources cited in notes 125 to 131. Perhaps one could claim that the opinion is accepted by Rabbi Karo himself writing in YD 151:1, although as noted by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer OC 2:15(8-9)) this is difficult to prove.



Tashbetz 3:133. It is worth noting that even Rabbi Ovadia Yosef cites no later authorities in agreement with Tashbetz on this issue. He too perceives him as standing alone; Yabia Omer OC 2:15(2-10). Perhaps a claim could be made that Tosafot Yom Tov, Perkai Avot 3:14 agrees with Tashbetz (see postscript). This author is more inclined to read his remarks in the same light as those of Sefer Hachasidim cited in note ) and also note 146.



Maimonides would maintain that the statements by R. Natan in Avoda Zara 6b represent only R. Natan’s opinion, and are not accepted by most of the Amoraim; to support this he would cite the fact that this limitation on R. Natan is not quoted in the Talmud in any other place.


Although Maimonides does not state so explicitly, this position can be inferred from a number of his comments. First, in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 299, Maimonides does not limit the scope of the prohibition of lifnei iver to situations where others cannot help. Secondly, he never quotes this limitation in any of the instances he deals with lifnei iver in his primary work, the Mishnah Torah. In addition, this understanding of Maimonides is found in Minchat Chinuch, Negative Commandment 232;3, and Melamed LeHoil 1:34.



See also Chavat Yair 137 who appears to adopt the opinion of Maimonides.



For a general discussion of the parameters of this obligation, see R. Yehuda Moreal, Bederech Tovim 124-129 and Moshe Weinberger, Jewish Outreach: Halakhic Perspectives.



In generally, lifnei iver is a different type of obligation, since it discusses assisting or enabling sin, which logic would indicate is more restricted than merely not preventing sin. Thus, merely because one is under no obligation to teach a person that murder is wrong, does not mean that one can sell the person a gun to commit a murder or provide directions to the victim’s house.



See generally Sanhedren 75a and Rashi on id. (excluding even a resident alien). It has been claimed that Rashi, according to an alternative version not found in our text, maintains that there is an obligation of rebuke applicable to a Jew when a Noachide sins. See Minchat Yitzchak 4:79(4), who relates this to the sources cited in note ). This author would be more inclined to understand the ruling of Sefer HaChasidim as imposing an extra-halachic moral duty; but see notes of Rabbi Meir Arik to Sefer Hachasidim, supra note ), which cross-references this to Maimonides, Malachim 8:10.



For a long discussion of this issue, see R. Aaron Kirshenbaum, “‘Covenant’ with Noachides Compared with Covenant at Sinai” Dinai Israel 6:31-48 n.37 (Hebrew).



Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson Sheva Mitzvot Shel Benai Noach, Hapardes 59:9 7-11 (5745). This responsa has been reprinted in a number of places; see e.g. Responsa Shavit 7:1. For Rabbi Stern’s reply, see Responsa Shavit 8:3 (asserting that Maimonides’ ruling is limited to enforcing acceptance, rather than observance). In this author’s opinion, Rabbi Stern’s distinction is difficult to accept as Maimonides, in the three sources cited above, appears to be speaking about observance as well as acceptance. Any other reading leaves Maimonides internally inconsistent and not based logically on the talmudic source found in Sanhedren 57a, as Kesef Mishna states he is.



However, even Rabbi Schneerson concedes that the obligation to induce compliance is limited to situations where “no financial loss is caused, even the loss of future profits.” This limitations is itself a little difficult, as halacha does not recognize “loss of profit” generally as a claim.



Of course, Rabbi Schneerson — himself a preeminent authority of Jewish law — is quite within his purview to argue with the overwhelming weight of authorities.



See Section IV:1:B.



For example, in the area of lifnei iver, if one’s actions are needed to allow another to sin, there is a biblical prohibition in doing the activity; that is analogous to compulsion. On the other hand, if the sinner can sin without assistance, it is at best a rabbinic violation to assist the sinner; it might even be permissible. That would be analogous to persuasion.



See for example, Melamed LeHoil YD 77; Yabia Omer YD 17; Seredai Ash 2:92; Teshuvot Maharil 199 and Zekan Aharon 2:71. For a survey of this issue, see Rabbi Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, (“Teaching Torah to non-Jews”) 2:315-316.


Indeed, even Maimonides, who permits the teaching of scripture to Christians based on the rationale that they accept the divinity of the Bible, merely rules that one may teach them the proper commandments, and not that one must; Teshuvot HaRambam 1:149 (Blau).



See generally Rashbatz, 1:158-162, 59-61. See also Shmuel Shiloh, Dina Demalchuta Dina 422-32 (1974).



This idea is a paper in and of itself; see Broyde and Hecht “The Gentile and Returning Lost Property According to Jewish Law: A Theory of Reciprocity” forthcoming in the Jewish Law Annual.



Perhaps even to create a general legal system, according to Nachmanides.



See note 66.



It is important to note that the overwhelming consensus of halachic scholars accept that there is no obligation upon Noachides to execute every violator of the law. Within the rubric of dinim is the right to create a hierarchical system of law which invokes punishments other than death for violations; See Rabbi Bleich, supra note *, and Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, “On Noachides”, Beit Yitzchak 19:335 (5747).



Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems (“Teaching Torah to non-Jews”) 2:338.



Or perhaps even any fellow Jew. See note 120.



“When one sees a Noachide sinning, if one can correct him, one should, since God sent Jonah to Ninveh to return them to his path”; Sefer HaChasidim ‘1124.



Reflections of the Rav:Man of Faith in the Modern World (adaptions of the lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik) by Abraham Besdin, pages 142-144



Kuzari, 2:36; see also Kuzari 1:47 and 1:57 for similar insights. It is based on this Kuzari that Rabbi Yakov Kamenestsky indicated that Torah Umessorah should close its various yeshivot on the day of President John F. Kennedy’s funeral in 1963. (After citing the Kuzari, he stated “it is the role of the Jews to teach morality to the nations, and thus, whenever some terrible wrong occurs, we should feel implicated for not having completed our mission;”) Yonason Rosenblum, Reb Yakov, pp. 182-183. Rabbi Howard Jachter pointed out this source to this author. Similar thoughts can also be found in Moreh Nevuchim 3:51 concerning the role of the Jewish forefathers.



Support for this proposition can be found in Seforno, commenting on Exodus 19:6 which clearly indicates that Jews must answer such questions from Noachides. See generally comments of Maimonides, Maseh Karbanot 19:16 and Meiri 59a. Rabbi Bleich states:

It seems to this writer that while there exists no obligation to volunteer information (although it may well be laudable to do so), there is an obligation to respond to requests for information. Jews are commanded to disseminate Torah as widely as possible among their fellow Jews, but there is no obligation to seize the initiative in teaching the Seven Commandments to Noachides. Nevertheless, when information or advice is solicited there is a definite obligation to respond. When a non-Jew takes the initiative in posing a query, the Jew must respond to the best of his ability.

Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems 2:339.

Limiting the obligation to respond to sincere solicitations relating to personal conduct (as I suspect Rabbi Bleich intended), this can also perhaps be inferred from Pri Megadim OC 443:5 and 444:6 whose assertion as to the obligation to remove passive obstacles might rise to the level of a “one side of the river” case when a particular Jew is asked by a Noachide what his law requires of him. This raises the question of whether lifnei iver can be violated through passivity; for more on that see Enabling Jews to Sin, supra note 123.



Maharam Shick OC 144. An example of this can also be found in the letter of Rav Moshe Feinstein sent to the New York State governor favoring the implementation of the death penalty for certain crimes; Iggrot Moshe, CM 2:68.


So too, the mandate of tikkun olam might provide some direction; see generally See R. Nissim, Derashot haRan, Number Eleven, (which uses the term tikkun siddur hamedini to refer to Noachide activity.) For a brief discussion of this issue, see Suzanne Last Stone, “Sinaitic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism in Jewish Law”, Cardozo L.R. 12:1157 (1990). On the use of tikun olam, it is also important to examine the way that term is used by Maimonides, in Malachim 11:4 in the uncensored versions of his text (for example, see Rambam Le’am). This issue is quite crucial, as Maimonides image of tikkun olam seems to be directed at the reason for religions other than Judaism; see also Responsa Kol Mevasser 1:47 and Hechail Yitzchak OC 38.


Additionally, there is the issue of chillul hashem, desecration of God’s name. It is possible that there could be situations where public institutional silence by Jewish groups as to the propriety of a particular activity by Government or other groups, perhaps particularly when other religious groups are protesting this activity as immoral, could lead to desecrations of God’s name. On the other hand, the more clearly known it is that governmental policy is areligious in nature and that Jewish law imposes no obligation on Jews to protest, the less serious an issue this becomes.


Finally, there is the philosophical mandate to be a “light onto the nations of the world.” As noted by Radak commenting on the words or legoyim (Isaiah 42:6) “because of the influence of the Jews, the Gentiles will observe the seven commandments and follow the right path.” While this concept is beyond the scope of this paper, and deserving one of its own, a brief review of the use of the term “light onto the nations” indicates that it is normally used to mean that the Jews should behave in an exemplary manner such that Gentiles will wish to imitate Jews, and not as a mandate to proselytize observance. This is exemplified by Issiah 60:3; for examples of that in rabbinic literature, see Bava Batra 75a; Midrash Rabbah Esther 7:11; Midrash Berashit 59:7 and Midrash Tehilim (Bubar) 36:6. For a sample of its use in the responsa literature, see Tzitz Eliezer 10:1(74); Yavetz 1:168 and particularly Chatam Sofer 6:84; see also Responsa of Rosh 4:40 which is also cited in Tur OC 59. None of these authorities use the citation in a legal context to direct Jewish participation in Gentile activities — all of the citation are homolitical (Maharit EH 2:18 does appear to use it in a legal context concerning an inter-Jewish dispute; however upon further examination one sees that not to be so). This concept plays yet a more prominent note in cabalistic literature; see Sefer Rasesai Layla, ’57 s.v. techlat and vezehu. For a defense of this beacon-like (i.e., Jews behave properly and this illuminates the world) understanding of the verse as the proper understanding of the literal meaning of the bible itself, see Harry Orlinsky, “A Light onto the Nations: A Problem in Biblical Theology” in Neuman & Zeitlin, The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review (1967) pages 409-428. For an indication as to why Radak might use both the phrase “observe the seven commandments” and the phrase “follow the right path,” see Iggrot Moshe YD 2:130 who indicates that the two are separate concepts.



Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems (“Teaching Torah to Non-Jews”) 2:339. See also material cited in supra note 164.



See Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni, Kol Tzofech (unnumbered pages in the back of the book, seven pages after numbering ends) (2nd ed. 5740) where he discusses the possibility of selective teaching of the Noachide laws.



For example, the promulgation of an abortion law in the United States consistent only with the Noachide code would cause situations to arise where halacha’s mandates could not be fulfilled.



For a discussion of such a case see this author’s “Bullets that Kill on the Rebound: Discrimination against Homosexuals and Orthodox Public Policy” Jewish Action 54(1):52 and the reply to it by Rabbis Goldberg, Stolper and Angel in Jewish Action 54(1):53.

Jewish Law Home Page


“Holy Serpent of the Jews”, By Texe Marrs, a Book Review

Holy Serpent of the Jews


at the website of Texe Marrs,  , The site boast that the book entitled  “Holy Serpent of the Jews to be a best seller. I cannot verify whether the book is a best seller or not, but I can say that every man, woman and child on planet earth, who professes that Jesus is the Christ the Lord God Almighty, raised from the dead and now sits on the right hand of the invisible God, should not only read this excellent book, but forward it to as many friends and family as possible in a very short time. Prophecy advances rapidly upon the inhabitants of the earth, time is running out like water into the sea.

For seventeen years, I have worked to collect and compile as much documented information as possible on “Kabala” the sorcery of the jews religion and the filthy perverted Babylonian Talmud, (Talmud Bavli), at

and,  Texe Marrs summed it up along with the decades of his research on the New Age “One World Order” in just 204 pages. Ah, If I could only be such a prolific, precise and eloquent writer, but then again, this is why God has raised men and women, like Mr. Marrs, people who possess this astounding ability.

In these years I have attempted to have readers understand, that they must know the enemies of Christ, the minions of the Great Mystery Mother Harlot of the earth, the Synagogue of Satan and be sure in Scripture, or you may be surely deceived.

This book “Holy Serpent of the Jews” is in my opinion a historical document, backed by factual references, proving that the religion of the jews, Judaism is nothing more than worship to strange gods and the “god of forces”. Texe Marrs proves that the ultimate goal of these serpents is to control the entire earth and enslave all non jewish mankind.

The Holy Scripture is our guide to understanding the intention of that Old Dragon and Satan, Texe Marrs has contributed to the saints of God, to further our understanding  of the Prophecy of Christ Jesus in his Revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos.

I am very thankful to Mr. Marrs for the work and expose’ of the Talmudic jews Unholy works, and I would bid that you order a copy or several copies and distribute to those you hope will be among the elect in these last days.

Unmasking the Most Colossal Devil Religion Ever


“Discover the Rabbis’ Secret Plan for Satan to Crush Their Enemies and Vault the Jews to Global Dominion”

—Texe Marrs

Holy Serpent of the Jews






Today, we are on the threshold of a horrifying new epoch of Jewish history. Now, comes the Holy Serpent, slithering from his fiery abode in hell to wreak havoc upon humanity. Jesus once declared,“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers. How can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

Amazingly, the Jews have proven to be exactly what Jesus prophesied. They are the People of the Serpent, unregenerated hypocrites whose religion is unparalleled in its treachery, its wickedness, and its unbounded filth. The Kabbalah and the Talmud, authored by the rabbis, are the very code of hell, the doctrines of devils.

On the surface, the Jews appear to be pious, humanitarian, charitable, and good. The very picture of saintly human beings, they are said to be exalted and true, God’s Chosen.

But appearances are deceiving. The evil spirits of those who once worshiped Moloch, who fashioned a golden calf in the desert, and who tortured and tormented Jesus Christ are back, and the whole world is in jeopardy.

Making its way on stage is the most colossal devil religion ever. The People of the Serpent have awakened Abaddon and the Beast is rising.

The Holy Serpent of the Jews is on the move and ready to strike.

Texe Marrs ~ 224 Pages ~ $20.00
To Order Your Copy Today Click Here

Do the Jews Live Within the Belly of the Holy Serpent? Is he the Deity Whom the Jews Worship?


“Ye serpents, ye generation (race or nation) of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
Jesus Christ
Matthew 23:33


If I were to tell you that in the religion of Judaism the deity worshipped is the Holy Serpent, would you believe me? Few people would. Yet, it is absolutely true! In Judaism the deity most honored and venerated is, in fact, the Holy Serpent.

Now don’t let the name Texe Marrs get in your way of discovering this awful truth. Some might contend that Texe Marrs is, after all, an anti-Semite, and an anti-Semite cannot be believed, right?

Book by Rabbi Joel David Bakst, teaching of the Jews’ belief in the Sacred Serpent. This is a well-known rabbinical doctrine of the Jews. It is also a core secret revealed in the controversial book,The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Let’s say, then, that we ask the rabbis themselves, the top rabbis in the world. We could even go to the writings of the rabbinical sages—to some of the most famous rabbis who ever lived, so-called “holy men” whose historical writings to this day are frequently quoted and referred to as authoritative and definitive in the study of Judaic doctrine.

The Serpent Shall Rise From the Abyss

Take, for example, the celebrated rabbi known throughout the Jewish religious world as the “Gaon of Vilna.” It was he who taught of the Kabbalah’s doctrine that inside Judaism’s vaunted Tree of Life there resides a great and Sacred Serpent whose masculine name is Leviathan and whose feminine name is Malkut. It is this Sacred Serpent, the Kabbalah teaches, that in the coming Messianic age shall rise from the abyss to conquer the Gentiles and exalt God’s Chosen, the Jews. This Leviathan, the holy and piercing serpent, is the expected Messiah prophesied to appear, the one who will supernaturally possess the bodies of the world’s Jews and lead them to global domination and glory.

This strange doctrine, accepted by the vast majority of today’s Orthodox Rabbis, also makes the bold claim that the Jews are a Holy Race of wise and virtuous serpent beings. Collectively, World Jewry is claimed to be the very incarnation on earth of the Holy Serpent.

Could this be what the true Messiah and Lord of the Universe, Jesus Christ, meant when he confronted the wicked pharisaic Jews—equivalent to today’s Orthodox Jewry—by flatly declaring:

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)

The House of Israel Left Desolate

In the King James Bible lexicon, the word “generation” here means “race, nation, bloodline, or ethnic group.”

In this same Gospel, in Matthew 23 we also find Jesus telling the Jews, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”

In the religion of Judaism, the Sacred Serpent is said to rise from the abyss. Through his power and guidance, a divine World Jewry will triumph over the Gentiles, and the Jews’ Messiah will reign supreme.

“Desolate!” That means devoid of spiritual value, barren, a wasteland. Today, the House of Israel, the physical nation of Israel, is exactly what Jesus said it would be—a spiritual desert, a nation of lying, deceiving, terrorist killers; desolate of morality, devoid of righteousness. All of Rothschild’s trillions and all of America’s boatloads of foreign aid, diplomatic cover, and military armaments heaped on the artificially created nation of Israel for the past six decades cannot change one iota of what Jesus prophesied. Israel is a desolate place, a wasteland of inhuman cruelty and savage conduct, and it shall remain so.

Moreover, except for a tiny remnant, the Jewish people, wherever they may reside, spiritually are “serpents”—serpents whose cruel, black hearts are stained with filth and contamination. Just so, because the priesthood of rabbis, the keepers of the Judaic faith, are worshippers of the Holy Serpent.

The Holy (or Sacred) Serpent, of course, is identified in the New Testament as he who was cast out of heaven. In other words, the Devil, or Satan. The Sacred Serpent is represented in Hebrew gematria by the Hebrew alphabet letter “vav” of YHVH, the Jews’ kabbalistic name for God. Since the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) are said to be “the heart of Jewish existence,” the doctrine that the Sacred Serpent is hidden within the Torah and appears as the letter vav is an essential foundation of Judaic tradition. The rabbis believe that this letter—vav—is evidence of their deity. They emphasize that the letter vav, indicative of the Sacred Serpent, is found exactly at the middle-point of the Torah, at Leviticus 11:42, which is said to be the belly of the Serpent deity.

Jerusalem scholar and rabbi, Joel David Bakst, excitedly writes of this doctrine which places the Jewish tribe within the very belly of the Sacred Serpent, exclaiming:

“We have journeyed to the center of the world and landed in the belly of a serpent!” (“Journey to the Center of the Torah,” City of Luz,, 2007)

In the Zohar, the essential book of Jewish cabalistic magic, we find another amazing Judaism doctrinal statement: “The Holy Serpent is the fountainhead, root and essence for all of God’s sacred, revelatory light…”

Read the above and ponder. Do you not see why Jesus told the Jews their religion is not of Abraham and is instead based on “man-made traditions?”

The Serpent is Satan and He is Not Holy!

From the New Testament we know that the serpent is neither holy nor sacred. Instead, he is described as “that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9).

However, in Judaism, as in all satanic religions, truth is turned upside down. The rabbis emphasize that the serpent is a godly being, a constant help and guide for Israel and its people. Rabbi Laitman, in his Daily Kabbalah Lesson of the Zohar, stresses that:

“…This snake comes as medication…an angel sent to us…we should be grateful to the serpent for its help…the serpent has a very important mission…

The Serpent is the Angel of Help.”

The deep secret of Judaism is the rabbis’ teaching that the Jewish people—also known as the House of Israel—is within the Sacred Serpent’s belly and that the Serpent is sent to the Jews to be their helpmate and guide. That is what is meant when Rabbi Moshel Rabbinu says that the religious Jew embarks on a spiritual “Journey to the Center of the Torah: The Secret in the Serpent’s Belly.” (see Joel David Bakst, 2007,

In Judaism’s gematria, the so-called science of numbers, we find the teaching that the one whom Christians know as Satan, the Devil, is for the Jews the divine instrument of… “sacred, revelatory light… This serpent is…the middle brain which is in the middle of the letters of the Torah.”

The rabbis further insist that it is their Sacred Serpent, their deity, who is at the very center of the Torah. He is an essential being of their godhead, and he provides the serpentine energy that brings a Jew to a spiritually mature state. The religious Jew, say the rabbis, is brought to spiritual maturity—to a “Divine Consciousness”—through the help of the snake. He—that is, every Jew—lives inside the belly of the Serpent. It is his covering, protector, guide, Lord, and Messiah.

The rabbis go so far as to say that, “in messianic times and beyond, it (the Serpent) will be redeemed and revealed in all its glory and awesomeness.” (Rabbi Joel David Bakst, “Journey to the Center of the Torah: The Secret in the Serpent’s Belly,” 2007,

Now do you see why God’s Word twice in the book of Revelation (Chapter 2:9 and 3:9) warns of the horror and wickedness of the “Synagogue of Satan?”

Why This Is Important

“They hatch cockatrice’ (flying serpent) eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.”Isaiah 59:5

Many unaware and undiscerning people over the years have contacted me and asked, “Texe, why do you write and speak so much about the Jews, Israel, Zionism, and Judaism. Why is this subject so important?”

Frankly, it is because my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, bids me do so. He Himself warned of the House of Israel, of its “abomination” and “desolation.” He described it as the “Synagogue of Satan.” Without flinching, He also identified the hateful and rebellious Jews as “serpents” and “vipers.”

The Jews themselves, in their devilish religion of Judaism, admit their god is the Serpent. Their leaders well know that this is the Devil, or Satan. In some type of creepy and eerie doctrinal confession, the rabbis are even discovered to be boasting of their Sacred Serpent and they say that all Jews live inside its belly! Is this not unbelievable and revelatory?

Nevertheless, even the Jew can be saved. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah (chapter 59) testified that, indeed, the nation of Israel is of the Serpent. But the prophet also spoke of God”s mercy and willingness to save those who repent of this evil.

For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perverseness…

They hatch cockatrice’ (flying serpent) eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.”

“Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither His ear heavy that it cannot hear:

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear.





The Inhabitants of the Earth Worship the Beast, Those Whose Names are Not Written in the Lambs Book of Life

Do you worship the God of the jews?

If the g-d of the jews is also your god, then folks you serve none other than the Old Dragon and Satan.

You see, the jews of their religion of Judaism, do not have the Son and therefore do not have the Father. So, if you serve their g-d of their flesh your serve Lucifer and give lip service to Christ Jesus. Simple.

KJV Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Direct from the Prophets of Baa’l, sorcerers and blasphemers of that harlot city jerusalem…..

Thousand-Year-Old Prophecy Predicts Land of Israel Will Encompass the World

The borders of Israel are the subject of heated international debate, but a look at prophetic literature shows a clear and surprising picture: the Messianic age (False Christ) will feature an Israel that encompasses the entire world. Haters of Israel can interpret this in a negative light, but the truth is a utopian vision of universal brotherhood.

(Enslaved unto Lucifer via the Babylonian Talmudic Noahide Laws, see……RP)

The borders of Israel cannot be described in absolute terms because they have changed frequently. Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, head of the Gal Eini religious Zionist movement, taught that there were actually three different sets of borders described in the Bible and one that came later in history. The final set of borders is described in prophetic teachings.

(“It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not ~ they will be killed.” ~ Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg…..RP)

  1. The borders promised to Abraham in the book of Genesis, which extended from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18-21). This was much larger than any of the other descriptions in the Bible.
  2. The borders described in the Bible before the Israelites entered the land (Numbers 34:6).
  3. The borders established by conquest after six years of battle by those who entered the Holy Land with Joshua (Joshua 13).
  4. The borders of those Jews who returned from the Babylonian exile, which were substantially smaller than before the exile.

Rabbi Avraham Arieh Trugman, director of Ohr Chadash Torah Institute, explained to Breaking Israel News that these changes are because Israel’s borders are not firmly established or part of a political or military process. Israel’s borders are part of a spiritual process, even in modern times.


(KJV Luke 4: And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.)

“Israel’s borders are flexible because our merit to be here is dependent on our actions and our relationship with God,” he said. “In the last 68 years of modern Israel’s history, the border has changed many times, describing a developing relationship.”

The final borders of Israel are described in the Pesikta Rabbati, a collection of homilies and midrash (oral teachings) compiled by Torah sages in the ninth century CE. Unlike the previous four descriptions of the borders of Israel, the final prophetic description does not describe geographic boundaries specific to Israel, but a unifying global spiritual process.

“In the future the land of Israel will spread [and encompass] all the lands [of the earth]. The entire Temple Mount will become like the Holy of Holies, all of Jerusalem will become like the Temple Mount, all of Israel will become like Jerusalem, and all of the world will become like Israel.”

Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri, a noted Kabbalist (Satan worshipping sorcerer) from Jerusalem, explained this prophecy to Breaking Israel News.

“This prophecy can easily be misunderstood to be racist, as if the Jews are supposed to conquer the world. But it is actually the opposite. The world will become one, united. Jews and non-Jews will join together in serving God, and contrary to what has happened throughout history, the non-Jews will help Israel to serve God.

(The inhabitants of the earth will serve Satan that Serpent along with the Christ Jesus rejecting jews….RP)


“Just as the Temple expands to include all of Israel, the Jews will all become as priests, helping them to serve God. This will elevate the Jewish people, making all of Israel like Jerusalem, and the nations like Israel.”

Rabbi Trugman agreed with this explanation. “In the times of the moshiach (Messiah), the borders will change again and the whole world will turn into Israel, meaning the entire world will become holy and serve one God like Israel is holy and serves one God,” he told Breaking Israel News.

Revelation 20King James Version (KJV)

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rabbi Trugman expanded on the idea, explaining how this process will be a reversal of the history of the Jewish exile.

“We were brought together in Israel, but because of our sins, we went into exile and spread around the world. That spread Torah and holiness out into the world. We are told, paradoxically, that we have to come back into Israel in the geula (redemption) because moshiach has to emanate out from Israel,” he explained. “Theoretically, in exile, we were in a better position to spread the Torah and the holiness when we were spread out among the nations.”

(That son of perdition revealed, 2 thes 2…RP)

The seeming contradiction, he said, is a tikkun (fixing) in Kabbalistic mystical terms.

“The holiness has to become concentrated in Israel when the Jews bring it back to Israel, and then spread out into the world in a fixed redemptive manner,” the rabbi explained.

(Perversion and immoral sickness upon the whole earth…RP)

Since we see that Israel’s borders are not only outlined in the Bible but also in prophecy, any decisions pertaining to them have spiritual implications. Making Israel smaller is not only a political recipe for failure and more conflict, it is a pushing the world further away from Messiah.

(Thus they have accepted the gift of their flesh earth from that Old Dragon and Satan. If you worship this wannabe g-d of the jews, I highly recommend you repent in that Name above every name in which to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus the Christ the Lord God Almighty, or else you will be cast into outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing and gnawing of teeth, forever and this is the Second Death……RP)

Cern Ritual, Cern Switzerland

(I do not agree with this interpretation, but some seems to be correct.I do not ascribe to this Tetragrammaton YHWH the g-d of the jews…RP)

Revelation 9King James Version (KJV)

And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Excert of the Protocols of zion of the forged chosen

Protocol XXIV – Qualities of the Ruler


1. I pass now to the method of confirming the dynastic roots of King David to the last strata of the earth.

2. This confirmation will first and foremost be included in that which to this day has rested the force of conservatism by our learned elders of the conduct of the affairs of the world, in the directing of the education of thought of all humanity.

3. Certain members of the seed of David will prepare the kings and their heirs, (Sinai GOG of Satan, Sanhedrin…RP) selecting not by right of heritage but by eminent capacities, inducting them into the most secret mysteries of the political, into schemes of government, but providing always that none may come to knowledge of the secrets. The object of this mode of action is that all may know that government cannot be entrusted to those who have not been inducted into the secret places of its art…

4. To these persons only will be taught the practical application of the aforenamed plans by comparison of the experiences of many centuries, all the observations on the politico-economic moves and social sciences – in a word, all the spirit of laws which have been unshakably established by nature herself for the regulation of the relations of humanity.

5. Direct heirs will often be set aside from ascending the throne if in their time of training they exhibit frivolity, softness and other qualities that are the ruin of authority, which render them incapable of governing and in themselves dangerous for kingly office.

6. Only those who are unconditionally capable for firm, even if it be to cruelty, direct rule will receive the reins of rule from our learned elders.

7. In case of falling sick with weakness of will or other form of incapacity. kings must by law hand over the reins of rule to new and capable hands.

8. The king’s plan of action for the current moment, and all the more so for the future, will be unknown, even to those who are called his closest counselors.


9. Only the king and the three who stood sponsor for him will know what is coming.

10. In the person of the king who with unbending will is master of himself and of humanity all will discern as it were fate with its mysterious ways. None will know what the king wishes to attain by his dispositions, and therefore none will dare to stand across an unknown path.

11. It is understood that the brain reservoir of the king must correspond in capacity to the plan of government it has to contain. It is for this reason that he will ascend the throne not otherwise than after examination of his mind by the aforesaid learned elders.

12. That the people may know and love their king, it is indispensable for him to converse in the market-places with his people. This ensures the necessary clinching of the two forces which are now divided one from another by us by the terror.

13. This terror was indispensable for us till the time comes for both these forces separately to fall under our influence.

14. The king of the Jews must not be at the mercy of his passions, and especially of sensuality: on no side of his character must he give brute instincts power over his mind. Sensuality worse than all else disorganizes the capacities of the mind and clearness of views, distracting the thoughts to the worst and most brutal side of human activity.

15. The prop of humanity in the person of the supreme lord of all the world of the holy seed of David must sacrifice to his people all personal inclinations.

16. Our supreme lord must be of an exemplary irreproachability.


KJV Romans 10:

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.