 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
 |
 Venn Diagram – A Nationalist Jew = A ∩ B ∩ C. Nationalism is inversely proportional to úÌåÉøÈä. Same applies to Israel as to goy•imꞋ nations. Where does / should nation of Israel fit? |
2015.01.15 – Inaccurate language produces misleading communication, which can misdirect an audience to address, analyze and solve a red herring. Consequently, ill-defined, and mis-defined, problems are routinely misdiagnosed and remain unsolved. Miso-Judaism, typically called "antisemitism", is one such example. "Jew" is another. Arguably, modern "Israel" is yet another. Even the term Tor•âhꞋ has been saddled, by contemporary rabbis who are backward-oriented to the Dark Ages, with baggage unknown, alien and even intractably contradictory to the Biblical definition of the original authors. Love for inaccurate terminology extends from debaters of "terrorism" to physicists who ludicrously proclaim the oxymoron of countless "singularities" in the universe. "Singularities" is an oxymoron.
A current example: I just heard, on France 24 TV as I was writing this, French Pres. Hollande claim, inaccurately, that "Radical Muslims" seek to "destroy culture." Nonsense! They have a different culture. They are not trying to destroy culture, they're trying to transition away from a culture they consider kâphᵊr to an Islamic culture. Moreover, western liberals' myopia prevents them from seeing the vast majority of Muslims who exist beyond the locals who live within their limited horizon: that virtually all Islamic terrorists are normative, not "radical," Muslims relative to most of the world's Muslims (see Times of Israel, "Open Letter To Fox News").
One of the principle causes of assimilation in the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ (more accurate than "Gâl•utꞋ" of yesteryear) is that the phrase "Gâl•utꞋ Jew" fails to define where assimilation begins, how to measure its progression (more accurately, tō•âhꞋ ), or what precise characteristics, on an absolute scale, logically distinguish the Jew from the goy•imꞋ around him – and from an Israeli Jew.
Moreover, the definition of "Israeli Jew" is so amorphous that, beyond useless, the phrase has become misleading. Is an "Israeli Jew" more "Jew-ish" than a Jew living among the goy•imꞋ simply because of where (s)he lives?
Is the Conservative or Reform Jew in the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ different from a secular (atheist) "Jew" in the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ? Then how can there be no difference between them in Israel?
What significant difference, of any Judaic – úÌåÉøÈä – substance, is there between a secular (atheist) "Jew" of the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ and any ordinary goy•imꞋ? Why would that be any different in Israel?
"Jew" originally derives from éÀäåÌãÄé, a member of the ancient Tribe and, inextricably, their Tribal Region of éÀäåÌãÈä – Hellenized to Ίουδαία and Ίουδαἴος by Roman occupiers, subsequently Anglicized, to "Judea" and "Judeans," which was then eventually truncated to "Jews."
Originally, of course, these were the Tribe of descendants of éÀäåÌãÈä, one of the 12 sons of Ya•a•qovꞋ, also called Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. When the Syrians ethnically cleansed the 10 Northern Tribes from the Shom•ronꞋ ca. B.C.E. 722,
refugees from all of the 10 tribes fled into the region of éÀäåÌãÈä, becoming absorbed in éÀäåÌãÈä (Tribe and Region) – until, eventually, they were all identified by Roman occupiers only as "Judeans"; éÀäåÌãÄéí: "Jews."
Thus, éÀäåÌãÄéí are defined by the Bible and their Biblical history. Consequently, éÀäåÌãÄéí is defined by the Bible as, and is historically identical to, Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, including geir•imꞋ. Wherever éÀäåÌãÄéí refers to the modern era, it is identical with Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, including (as in the Biblical and Talmudic definitions) geir•imꞋ, all of whom were, ca. B.C.E. 721, absorbed into éÀäåÌãÈä (Tribe and Region) – Jews.
The logic is straightforward. For some, a Venn Diagram will be redundant. However, for virtually all rabbis, the masses of Jews and all Christians – who are all clearly confused about assimilation and Who Is A Jew? – the Venn Diagram should make the logic crystal clear.
Viewing people as amorphous groups, which seem to melt together at their edges, precludes the delineation necessary to define crisp distinctions. Set Theory is a logical method to enable such delineation. The Venn Diagram provides a crystal clear visual in which:
Secular Nations are represented as Set A (light blue);
Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (namely, éÀäåÌãÄéí and geir•imꞋ; Set B, pale orange) are originally well-defined by úÌåÉøÈä; and
Set C is the set of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ living within Set A (i.e., among the Secular Nations / goy•imꞋ).
As one would expect, there is an overlap where Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (Set B – as defined by Tor•âhꞋ) live in a Secular Nation (Set A): the intersection (light gray) of Set A with Set B. The Venn Diagram makes plain that A ∩ B is defined as Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ who live in a Secular Nation.
Notice, too, that, because modern "Israel" is defined as a secular nation, A ∩ B is the only set of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ currently in existence. Unless and until modern "Israel" becomes a "Jewish" State compatible with Tor•âhꞋ (in contrast to Kha•reid•imꞋ rabbis who, too often, contradict Tor•âhꞋ), though Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (namely, and geir•imꞋ) and Tor•âhꞋ practice are are self-protected from suppression, living in a modern secular nation of "Israel" is otherwise no different than Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ living in any other secular nation.
The gnarly knot emerges in Set C, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ who try to mix allegiance and patriotism to a secular nation with the Tor•âhꞋ definition of who is a member of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, i.e., in modern lingo, who is a (Tor•âhꞋ-defined) Jew. Those who successfully manage to do so, if any, are represented in A ∩ B ∩ C. (burnt orange). Note that the logic of set theory provides that A ∩ B ∩ C could be the empty set. In other words, the existence of any elements in set A ∩ B ∩ C. isn't biased or demonstrated, either way, by the diagram.
What is implied by the diagram is that set A ∩ B ∩ C. can include only those elements of Set B that belong to Set A. There can exist no other elements in A ∩ B ∩ C..
In terms of assimilation, therefore, any characteristics or requirements of allegiance, etc. that contradict Set A cannot exist in A ∩ B ∩ C..
Since Set C is a subset of A, then Set C-B is the set of people identifying, or being identified, as Jews in Set A (a secular nation) but who are not in Set B (i.e., they are not defined as Jews by Tor•âhꞋ). Notice that the diagram is consistent with reality, including the implications of "Jews" living in a modern secular state called "Israel."
All this suggests a number of logical implications concerning assimilation.
The set C–B (C minus B) is the problematic set: "Jews" outside of the Biblical definition, having transgressed the Tor•âhꞋ "line" (not area), comprise the entirety of îÀùÑËîÌÈãåÌú.
Jews within Set B, by contrast, are not assimilated – at all, even when living in secular nations. The obvious axiom is that a Jew can remain a Jew regardless where they live, even among the goy•imꞋ. It implies further that even widespread recognition by Set A (one or more secular nations) has no validity relative to Set C. Further, Set C-B is not part of Set B. This logically implies that assimilation is a step outside of the boundaries of Tor•âhꞋ, not a transition of stages. Within the boundary of Set B, all are éÀäåÌãÄéí. There are no "stages"; nor is there any assimilation within – at all. This implies a vital and urgent mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ of tolerance of every person within Set B, not the current Kha•reid•iꞋ and Rabbinate practice of condemnation, allegations, slanders nor schisms.
This should be obvious even without a diagram. It marries perfectly with Tor•âhꞋ: not doing one's best to practice Tor•âhꞋ is the antonym of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, precluding ki•purꞋ. Any transgression of Tor•âhꞋ is a blemish of unholiness requiring tᵊshuv•âhꞋ-ki•purꞋ to return to a state of qoꞋdësh. Not doing one's best to practice Tor•âhꞋ, then, is îÀùÑËîÌÈãåÌú without recourse to ki•purꞋ. Ergo, assimilation is a consequence of îÀùÑËîÌÈãåÌú, a tell-tale set of entropic nationalist adaptations contrary to Tor•âhꞋ, not a cause of îÀùÑËîÌÈãåÌú.
"Diaspora" Jew has evolved into a no-longer-accurate, and misleading, term. Since the restoration of a state of Israel, there no longer exists an expulsion or exile. Further, bundling all Jews outside of Israel as alike is misleading. A British Jew is not the same as a South African Jew, French Jew, Russian Jew or American Jew.
Neither are their national allegiances the same. Allegiance and patriotism to America with its separation of religion and state, or dual American-Israeli allegiance, is not the same as the nationalist allegiance and patriotism of British-Anglican Church, Italian Catholic Church or secular French and Russian Jews. Even in America, where allegiance and patriotism have no religious connection, the intrusion of Christianity, especially near Christmas, repeatedly raises issues of religious freedom versus religious imposition by the majority on the minority. In Britain, Jews think nothing of bowing to the head of the Anglican Christian Church (the reigning king or queen of Britain). Thus, while there is no longer an exile, the differences between Jews living in Israel versus Jews living among the goy•imꞋ remains – a question of the individual Jew's nationalism; allegiances and patriotism carrying religious baggage contradictory to, and exclusive of, Set B.
So, how must we correlate Nationalist Jews, some of whom, for example, bow to the head of the Christian Church or put up Christmas trees and the like, versus non-Jews who, while they may not even be aware of it, do the best they know to behave as Tor•âhꞋ teaches? How do we distinguish between Nationalist "Jews" from goy•imꞋ? Again, consult the Venn Diagram.
All Orthodox rabbis agree that Tor•âhꞋ is about doing – unlike Christians, who say but don't do Tor•âhꞋ. So, what can we conclude when the practice of many Christians is more like Tor•âhꞋ than the practice of many Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ Jews?!?
The answer of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa stands indisputable: "You shall know them by their works" – practicing Tor•âhꞋ, not by bloodline-birth racism, post-Biblical Dark Ages ritual or superstitions, Medieval costume or certification by any human institution. Ki•purꞋ, it must also be remembered, is the reward from é‑‑ä for doing one's utmost to practice His Tor•âhꞋ – not for belief or reliance upon a displacement idol.
Inexorably, the access by all people to information and knowledge in the internet age has heralded the era of Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 31.32-33! He or she who does his or her utmost to practice Tor•âhꞋ shall be adjudged as belonging to the Flock of é‑‑ä; and he or she who does not do his or her utmost to practice Tor•âhꞋ shall be adjudged as not belonging to the Flock of é‑‑ä. That is the only distinction of any extra-cosmic and eternal importance: relating to our Creator-Singularity. That, nothing else, is what ultimately defines a Bᵊn-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ and Yᵊhud•iꞋ.
Thus, reader, whoever and wherever you are, the choice to be chosen remains as the Creator-Singularity has always endowed it: yours alone! And you alone will be accountable for your life's practice.
 |
|
 |