Important Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is intended for readers interested in understanding the process of Shechita. It is not a guide for performing Shechita. Performing Shechita requires extensive training, certification, and adherence to strict Halachic (Jewish Law) guidelines. Improper Shechita renders the animal non-kosher and can cause unnecessary suffering, violating both Jewish law and ethical considerations. Only a certified Shochet (ritual slaughterer) should perform Shechita.
Introduction to Shechita
Shechita, the kosher method of slaughtering mammals and fowl for consumption, is a highly regulated and deeply spiritual process within Judaism. It’s not merely about killing an animal; it’s about ensuring the animal’s life is taken in the most humane and religiously acceptable manner. The laws governing Shechita are complex and meticulously detailed, passed down through generations of trained professionals. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the Shechita process, from the selection of the animal to the post-slaughter inspection, highlighting the key principles and procedures involved. Remember, this is for educational purposes only and should not be interpreted as a practical guide for performing Shechita.
Principles of Shechita
The underlying principles of Shechita revolve around minimizing pain and ensuring a swift and humane death. These principles are codified in Jewish law and interpreted by Rabbinic authorities. Key principles include:
* Minimizing Pain: The sharpness of the knife (chalaf), the speed of the cut, and the precise location are all designed to cause immediate unconsciousness and minimize suffering.
* Complete Bleeding: Shechita aims to sever the major blood vessels in the neck, ensuring rapid and complete exsanguination, which is considered essential for kosher meat.
* Respect for Animal Life: While Shechita involves taking a life, it is done with respect and acknowledgment of the animal’s role in providing sustenance.
* Strict Adherence to Halacha: Every aspect of Shechita is governed by detailed Halachic rules, leaving little room for personal interpretation or improvisation.
The Shochet: The Ritual Slaughterer
The Shochet is the central figure in the Shechita process. They are not merely butchers; they are highly trained and religiously observant individuals who have undergone rigorous training and certification. The requirements for becoming a Shochet are demanding:
* Extensive Training: Aspiring Shochetim must study Halacha (Jewish Law) for many years, focusing specifically on the laws of Shechita. They must also learn the practical skills required to perform the slaughter correctly.
* Certification (Kabbalah): After completing their training, Shochetim must receive certification (Kabbalah) from a recognized Rabbinic authority, attesting to their knowledge and competence.
* Religious Observance: Shochetim are expected to be highly observant of Jewish law and to live a life of integrity and ethical conduct.
* Regular Inspection: The Shochet’s knife (Chalaf) needs to be regularly inspected, sometimes even before each slaughter, to ensure it is perfectly sharp and free from imperfections. This inspection is also performed by a trained and certified individual.
Selecting the Animal
Not all animals are suitable for Shechita. Jewish law specifies which animals can be slaughtered for kosher consumption and sets out criteria for their health and condition. Key considerations include:
* Species: Only certain species of mammals and fowl are considered kosher. For mammals, this generally includes cattle, sheep, goats, and deer. For fowl, this includes chicken, turkey, duck, and geese.
* Health: The animal must be healthy and free from any significant diseases or injuries that would render it unfit for consumption. The Shochet inspects the animal before slaughter to ensure its suitability.
* Absence of Terefot: Certain physical defects or injuries, known as terefot, disqualify an animal from being kosher. These include specific organ damage or abnormalities.
* Proper Handling: The animal must be handled with care and respect before slaughter, avoiding any unnecessary stress or injury.
The Chalaf: The Slaughtering Knife
The Chalaf is a specialized knife used for Shechita. Its design and construction are crucial for ensuring a swift and painless cut. Key features of the Chalaf include:
* Extreme Sharpness: The Chalaf must be incredibly sharp, with a perfectly smooth blade free from any nicks or imperfections. This is essential for minimizing pain during the slaughter.
* Specific Length: The blade length must be at least twice the width of the animal’s neck. This ensures that the cut is performed in a single, uninterrupted motion.
* Straight Blade: The blade must be perfectly straight, without any curves or serrations. This ensures a clean and precise cut.
* Regular Inspection: The Chalaf must be inspected before each slaughter to ensure its sharpness and integrity. This inspection is typically performed by the Shochet themselves, or a designated expert. The smoothness of the blade is often tested using the Shochet’s fingernail.
The Shechita Procedure: Step-by-Step
While the specific details of the Shechita procedure may vary slightly depending on the animal and the specific Halachic rulings followed, the following is a general overview of the process:
1. Preparation: The Shochet prepares the Chalaf, ensuring it is perfectly sharp and free from any imperfections. They also recite a blessing before performing the slaughter.
2. Positioning the Animal: The animal is restrained in a manner that allows the Shochet to access its neck easily. Traditionally, cattle are placed on their side, though some modern methods use upright restraint systems designed to minimize stress.
3. The Cut: The Shochet makes a swift and uninterrupted cut across the animal’s throat, severing the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, and jugular veins. The cut must be performed in a specific location on the neck, as defined by Halacha.
4. Checking the Cut: Immediately after the cut, the Shochet checks to ensure that all the required structures have been severed. This is crucial for ensuring that the slaughter is valid.
5. Exsanguination: The animal is allowed to bleed out completely. This process is essential for removing as much blood as possible from the meat, as blood is not considered kosher.
6. Post-Slaughter Inspection (Bedika): After the animal has been slaughtered, it undergoes a thorough internal inspection (Bedika) to check for any signs of disease, injury, or terefot that would render it non-kosher. This inspection is performed by the Shochet or a trained inspector (Bodek).
7. Kashering: Once the animal has been deemed kosher, the meat undergoes a process called kashering, which involves soaking and salting the meat to remove any remaining blood. This process must be performed within 72 hours of slaughter.
Detailed Breakdown of Each Step:
* Preparation (Hachana):
* Mental Preparation: The Shochet approaches the task with reverence and mindfulness, understanding the gravity of taking a life, even for sustenance.
* Physical Preparation: The Shochet ensures they are clean and appropriately attired. Proper hygiene is paramount.
* Chalaf Inspection (Bdikath ha-Chalaf): This is arguably the most critical step. The Shochet meticulously examines the Chalaf using their fingers and fingernails. They check for:
* Notches (Pgium): Any nick or indentation, even microscopic, renders the Chalaf unfit. The Shochet runs their fingernail along the blade’s edge to detect even the slightest imperfection.
* Smoothness (Halakot): The blade must be perfectly smooth. Roughness can cause tearing and unnecessary pain.
* Sharpness (Chiddud): The blade must be razor-sharp. A dull blade would cause undue suffering.
* Straightness (Yosher): The blade must be perfectly straight. Any curvature can impede a clean cut.
* Weight (Mishkal): The Chalaf should be of a comfortable weight for the Shochet, allowing for precise control.
* Reciting the Blessing (Bracha): Before beginning, the Shochet recites a specific blessing acknowledging God’s commandment regarding Shechita. This is a crucial element of the spiritual aspect of the process.
* Positioning and Restraint (Hanecha):
* Humane Handling: The animal must be handled with respect and care to minimize stress and fear. Rough handling is strictly prohibited.
* Restraint Method: Different methods are used, ranging from traditional manual restraint to modern rotating pens designed to keep the animal calm. The goal is to immobilize the animal sufficiently to allow for a precise cut while minimizing anxiety.
* Positioning the Neck: The animal’s neck must be properly positioned to allow the Shochet clear access to the designated area for the cut (the Shchita Zone).
* The Cut (Shechita):
* The Shchita Zone: This is a specific area on the animal’s neck, defined by Halacha, where the cut must be made. The boundaries of this zone are critical.
* Cutting Technique: The cut must be performed with a swift, uninterrupted motion, using the full length of the Chalaf. The Shochet must sever the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, and jugular veins in a single, continuous action.
* No Pressing (Hagrama): The Shochet must not press down on the blade. The sharpness of the Chalaf should do the work, minimizing trauma.
* No Tearing (Ikur): The cut must be clean and not involve any tearing or ripping of the flesh.
* No Hesitation (Shehiyah): The cut must be performed without any pauses or hesitations. A single, fluid motion is essential.
* Maintaining Constant Contact (Lo Yarse): The Shochet must maintain constant contact between the Chalaf and the animal’s neck throughout the cut.
* Depth of the Cut: The cut must be deep enough to sever all the required structures completely.
* Checking the Cut (Bdikath ha-Shechita):
* Verification of Severance: Immediately after the cut, the Shochet visually and manually verifies that the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, and jugular veins have been completely severed.
* Ruling on Validity: If the cut is deemed invalid due to any of the aforementioned issues (pressing, tearing, hesitation, etc.), the animal is considered non-kosher (nevelah).
* Exsanguination (Niku Dam): The Letting of Blood
* Complete Bleeding: The animal is allowed to bleed out completely. This is considered essential for removing the blood from the meat, making it kosher.
* Positioning for Drainage: The animal may be positioned to facilitate drainage of the blood.
* Time Allotment: Sufficient time must be allowed for complete exsanguination. This varies depending on the animal and environmental conditions.
* Post-Slaughter Inspection (Bedika):
* Internal Examination: A Bodek (inspector) examines the internal organs of the animal for any signs of terefot (conditions that render the animal non-kosher).
* Common Terefot: These include:
* Adhesions (Sirchot): Adhesions between organs can indicate illness or injury.
* Perforations (Nekuvot): Holes or punctures in organs can render the animal non-kosher.
* Missing Organs (Chaserei Evarim): The absence of certain organs is a disqualification.
* Diseased Lungs (Reah): Issues with the lungs are common reasons for rejecting an animal.
* Specific Organs: The lungs, heart, liver, and other internal organs are examined carefully.
* Adherence to Halacha: The Bodek must be thoroughly knowledgeable in the laws of terefot and adhere strictly to Halachic guidelines.
* Kashering (Melicha u-Shriyah): Salting and Soaking
* Removing Remaining Blood: Even after exsanguination, some blood remains in the meat. Kashering removes this remaining blood.
* Soaking (Shriyah): The meat is first soaked in cold water for a specific period (typically 30 minutes) to loosen the blood.
* Salting (Melicha): The meat is then heavily salted on all surfaces for a specific duration (usually an hour). The salt draws out the remaining blood.
* Rinsing (Haddacha): After salting, the meat is thoroughly rinsed to remove the salt and any remaining blood.
* Restrictions: Certain cuts of meat, such as the liver, require special kashering procedures due to their high blood content.
* 72-Hour Rule: Kashering must be performed within 72 hours of slaughter. If this timeframe is exceeded, the meat cannot be kashered.
Ethical Considerations in Shechita
While Shechita is considered a humane method of slaughter when performed correctly, ethical considerations are always paramount. Jewish law emphasizes the importance of treating animals with respect and avoiding unnecessary suffering. This includes:
* Minimizing Stress: Efforts should be made to minimize stress and fear in the animal before slaughter.
* Proper Handling: Animals should be handled with care and respect throughout the process.
* Swift and Painless Cut: The Shochet must ensure that the cut is performed quickly and painlessly.
* Regular Training and Certification: Shochetim should undergo regular training and certification to ensure they are proficient in the laws and techniques of Shechita.
* Oversight: Rabbinical authorities provide oversight to ensure adherence to Halachic guidelines and ethical principles.
Modern Innovations and Controversies
In recent years, there have been ongoing debates and discussions regarding Shechita, particularly in relation to animal welfare. Some jurisdictions have attempted to ban or restrict Shechita, citing concerns about humane slaughter. These attempts have often been met with strong opposition from Jewish communities, who argue that Shechita is a religious practice protected by law and that it is a humane method of slaughter when performed correctly.
Modern innovations in Shechita include:
* Upright Restraint Systems: These systems are designed to minimize stress and anxiety in the animal by keeping it in an upright position.
* Improved Chalaf Designs: Ongoing research and development are aimed at improving the design and sharpness of the Chalaf to ensure a more efficient and painless cut.
* Enhanced Training Programs: Training programs for Shochetim are constantly being updated to incorporate the latest research and best practices in animal welfare.
Conclusion
Shechita is a complex and meticulously regulated process that reflects the Jewish tradition’s commitment to both religious observance and ethical treatment of animals. While this article has provided a comprehensive overview of the Shechita procedure, it is essential to remember that performing Shechita requires extensive training, certification, and adherence to strict Halachic guidelines. This information is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a guide for performing Shechita. The laws are nuanced, and only a qualified Shochet can perform Shechita correctly. Any deviation from these laws can render the animal non-kosher and cause unnecessary suffering, violating both Jewish law and ethical considerations.
Having a deep conversation with Gary: lutherwasnotbornagain.com here on wordpress.
He writes: Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/
Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/
________________________________________________________________________________________
My response:
mosckerr
April 21, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Hi Gary your sentence presents an interesting tension: on one hand, it acknowledges that non-Christian references to Jesus are “almost negligible,” yet on the other hand, it asserts that they are sufficient to refute the claim that Jesus never existed.
Who are these “the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure”? The Talmud interprets the T’NaCH, that it commands prophetic mussar rather than history. Why because mussar applies across the board equally to all generations, whereas history applies to only one generation who lived thousands of years ago.
Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist, textual critic): Did Jesus Exist? (2012)
E. P. Sanders (Christian, New Testament scholar): The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993)
John P. Meier (Catholic priest and historian): A Marginal Jew (multi-volume)
Paula Fredriksen (historian of ancient Christianity and Judaism)
Geza Vermes (Jewish historian and Dead Sea Scrolls scholar)
These scholars draw their conclusions, based upon “historical-critical methods” applied to both canonical and non-canonical sources, and cross-referenced with Roman and Jewish texts.
Rabbi Akiva, for example, famously interpreted every extra letter of the Torah as containing halakhic or moral significance—not merely historical data. The stories of Avraham, Yosef, Moshe, etc., are less about documenting past events and more about conveying archetypes of emunah (faith), din (justice), rachamim (compassion), and the different & distinct oath britot. Tefillen, for example, shares a common denominator with Sefer Torah – with either a person can swear a Torah oath. The Order of the Rashi tefillen different than the Order of the Rabbeinu Tam (Rashi’s grand-son) tefillen. This dispute by Reshonim scholars 1057 – 1185 CE. Rashi started his formal Talmudic education in 1057 and Rabbeinu Tam passed in 1185 — both dates approximate. Once you go way back into history, it becomes a guessing game for later generations.
The Classic viewpoint taken by Tannaim and Amoraim scholars, the people who wrote the Mishna and Gemara; and the Gaonim Era of scholarship. Rav Ashi and Rav Ravinna sealed the Talmud at about 450 CE. Why? So that all generations thereafter would have the same masoret traditions. Such that the earlier generations could not make a valid claim that they were closer to the actual Torah revelation in time. Hence the generation of Ezra sealed the T’NaCH and Rabbi Yechuda sealed his Mishna in about 210 CE.
Jewish history from 550 to 1038 C.E marked by intense scholarship at the Babylonian academies by scholars who studied and interpreted the Talmud. This time period known as the Gaonim period which preceded the Reshonim period 950 – 1400 CE. The gap between the sealing of the Talmud and the Gaonim period, known as the Sovoraim scholars – the final editors of the Talmud.
The Historical-Critical Method stems from German Protestant Origins. The historical-critical method emerged out of 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, especially during the Enlightenment. Its foundations, laid by thinkers like: Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 1835), and Rudolf Bultmann, who sought to “demythologize” the New Testament. This approach aimed to strip the Bible of its divine authority and treat it like any other piece of ancient literature—subject to human error, redaction layers, myth-making, and ideological editing. In short, historical-critical scholars de-sacralized Scripture and tried to reconstruct the “real” history behind the text, often in direct opposition to traditional Talmudic and post Talmudic Jewish or even Christian attempts to monopolize how to read and interpret scripture. Persons like William Tyndale (executed in 1536), serve as but one glaring example of the church efforts to dictate how the Bible understood.
By the mid-20th century, major assumptions of Higher Criticism were heavily critiqued—even from within its own camp. Archaeological finds (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugaritic texts) complicated Wellhausen’s clean chronological categories. Linguistic and literary studies questioned the neat separation of J, E, D, P sources. Form and redaction critics began to focus more on the final form of texts, acknowledging the limitations of speculative source division.
Even Jewish scholars like Umberto Cassuto and later Moshe Greenberg challenged Higher Criticism, defending the unity and structure of the Torah as a coherent work. Umberto Cassuto and Moshe Greenberg stand as important counterpoints to the Protestant-European dominance of historical-critical scholarship. Each, in his own way, pushed back against the Wellhausenian paradigm and sought to restore Torah’s integrity as a unified and deeply meaningful text—rooted not in myth or redaction, but in remembering the oaths sworn when great Torah leaders swore an oath brit alliance.
The deep irony emerges: the same Protestant German method that tried to discredit the historical reliability of Tanakh, now Gary you use, along with some New Testament scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! Bunk. German Protestant Higher Criticism knows nothing of prophetic mussar. This 19th Century scholarship, utterly foreign to the logic of Torah and Oral Torah (e.g., PaRDeS, כלל ופרט); Protestant theology in general and Higher Criticism in particular – both operate from a framework that rejects the Oral Torah brit of Sinai as mythology or nationalism. So when secular or liberal Christian scholars use “historical-critical” methods to say “Jesus surely existed,” it’s not based on any Torah-rooted epistemology, but on Enlightenment rationalism and Euro-Christian assumptions.
This explains why the Talmud doesn’t engage in historical apologetics. Its scholarship makes no attempt or effort to prove Moshe existed or David ruled over Israel in archaeological terms. Its authority comes from the oath brit alliance and deriving the specific oaths sworn in order to cut T’NaCH britot. I brought the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam over the order of tefillen as an example of this classic type of scholarship which strives to remember and distinguish between oath from oath sworn.
Post Talmudic scholarship branched off into two opposing main schools. The Baal HaMaor understood the Talmud as judicial common law which interprets the distinctions which separate earlier Court rulings on cases heard before the Courts from later Court ruling heard before the Courts. The opposing branch of classic post Talmudic scholarship focused upon organizing law into simple religious codes to address the needs of the Jewish people scattered across all of the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.
The Baal HaMaor line of scholarship, whose research the ongoing interpretive chain of tradition—not from historical-critical validation—lost the debate. The opposite of the P’rushim vs. Tzeddukim Civil War in Judea remembered through lighting the lights of Hanukkah. The B’HaG ruled that remembering the oath sworn when lighting the lights of Hanukkah elevates this rabbinic mitzva unto a Torah time oriented commandment!
My Rav learned from Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv the sh’itta/methodology of Common Law interpretive school of Talmudic scholarship. The opposing branch that turned the halacha into Codes of Jewish law, based itself primarily upon Greek and Roman statute law assimilated influences. A direct violation of a Torah negative commandment. The Rambam replaced the Pardes logic of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of the Oral Torah with Aristotle’s syllogism. The Pardes logic – inductive reasoning, whereas Aristotle’s logic – deductive reasoning! A day and night difference on the order of static vs dynamic engineering.
As Rabbi Soloveitchik, a 20th Century Modern Orthodox famous scholar, once said: “We do not believe in Torah because it is historically verified; we believe because of the revelation at Sinai, transmitted through our mesorah.”
Euro-Christian historicism merits respect on par with manure used as fertilizer. The historical-critical method emerged in 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, rooted in Enlightenment rationalism. Thinkers such as Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss, and Rudolf Bultmann laid the foundations of this approach. Their goal was to strip the Bible of divine authority and treat it like any other flawed ancient text—subject to myth-making, redaction, ideological bias, and historical error.
The rich irony, the very German Protestant methodology designed to discredit the Torah’s historicity, now widely used by Christian scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! A theological sleight of hand! These scholars—often secular or liberal Christians—employ Enlightenment-era tools, not to validate prophecy, brit, or Divine law, but to construct a quasi-historical Jesus that fits modern ideological preferences. These conclusions simply not rooted in Torah epistemology, (branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, limits, and validity of knowledge), nor in Talmudic interpretive traditions like PaRDeS or klal u’prat, but in Euro-Christian rationalism and post-Reformation theological assumptions. And unlike the prophetic mussar of the T’NaCH—which applies equally to all generations—the historical Jesus belongs to a distant past, devoid of national covenant, divine command, or legal brit.
The epistemological sleight of hand that the historical-critical method performs: it tries to debunk Torah by treating it like a myth, then constructs a sanitized Jesus through the very same tools. It’s like using acid to dissolve Sinai and then bottling what’s left as some kind of universal moral tonic. All this Enlightenment-era critique may ironically serve to reawaken a deeper appreciation of the Torah’s non-historicist logic—rooted in brit, mussar, and legal accountability, not in positivist source analysis.
Historical-critical scholars approach prophecy as if it were Hellenistic historiography—missing entirely the oath britot alliances that go beyond merely the functions of nevu’ah restricted to a caged moral summons, some historical archive. Torah functions as a Constitutional political document. Judea sit at the throat of a major artery of trade that connects North Africa to Europe! Countless military invasions have likewise warred through the Middle East! Hence the concept of oath sworn alliances first and foremost addresses political alliances and not religious theological belief systems.
That Wellhausen’s model—which once deemed Torah as myth—now retroactively used to support Jesus as a real figure – not myth?! A philosophical bait-and-switch. Historical Jesus studies often end up “re-sacralizing” Jesus in liberal moral terms (as proto-socialist, proto-anti-racist, etc.), bypassing any divine brit or halakhic framework. It’s the liberal Protestant version of avodah zarah.
The Talmud never “proves” Moshe existed. It presupposes brit, which his Torah instructs. The authority of the Torah, not empirical but juridical. The brit itself—the foundational claim—not historical reconstructions, not evidence from Ugarit, a large body of ancient texts discovered at the archaeological site of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria) in the late 1920s. Torah logic (PaRDeS, klal u’prat, midrash halakhah), in a word – generative. It strives to remember the oaths, for example, sworn by the Avot, by which they cut an oath brit alliance with the Divine and established the chosen Cohen nation. Greek logic (like Aristotle’s syllogisms) aims at abstraction and metaphysics. They’re not just different tools—they imply different realities.
The very methodology that once dismissed Torah as legend, now enlisted to “prove” that Jesus existed—not as a fulfillment of brit or nevu’ah, but as a proto-liberal symbol molded by modern ideology? This bait-and-switch, not merely methodological—rather it represents theological avodah zarah. Historical Jesus studies, especially in liberal Protestant and secular academic circles, no longer aim at truth through brit judicial common law justice. Instead, they fabricate a figure who satisfies postmodern tastes—Jesus the anti-imperialist, the community organizer, the intersectional savior. All this without mitzvot, without brit, without Sinai and without Horev Oral Torah Pardes logic.
Historical-critical scholars misread prophetic literature, as if it were Greek-style historiography or some political memoir. They miss that nevu’ah in Tanakh, nothing about chronicling the past—but rather sustaining the oath sworn alliances which apply to all the generations who trouble to “remember” those specific sworn oath alliances in the first place. The past or “history” serves only as a tool to study mussar in “historical contexts”. The prophets don’t merely “moralize”—they litigate. Nevu’ah as the key legal mechanism, expressed through Aggadah in a constitutional framework of Torah בראשית & Talmud. And the Torah itself most definitely not “Xtian scripture” in the new testament, koran, book of mormon and scientology substitute scriptures – sense. The Sefer Torah serves as the first oath-brit codification, a national charter built on public oaths and collective responsibility.
Wellhausen, Baur, Strauss, and Bultmann were not merely academic critics—they were Protestant theologians operating within post-Reformation frameworks. They saw religion as belief systems, not political-legal sworn alliances! Situated at the strategic crossroads of competing empires, Judea – always a geopolitical pressure point. That’s why Torah begins with the Avot swearing oaths, and why every brit alliance in Tanakh completely political—land, law, and loyalty—and not abstract belief system theologies or Creeds. The Avot in their day a tiny speck minority population, as likewise the Jewish people relative to the Goyim today.
Hence, Talmudic tradition doesn’t argue for Moshe’s historicity, the way historians argue for Julius Caesar. Moshe Rabbeinu accepted not through archaeological proof but through juridical continuity: mesorah, halakhah, brit, and Sanhedrin common law courts of law. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances sworn by my forefathers. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances, viewed through interpretive Torah logic discipline, not historical or even physical forensic evidence. The modern scientific method which requires empirical physical evidence as much avoda zara as Euclid’s 5 axiom of geometry which limits reality to three physical dimensions. The question isn’t “Did it happen?”—it’s “What oath does this obligate me to today?”
At the root lies an epistemic chasm. Torah logic—PaRDeS, כלל ופרט, midrash halakhah—the kabbalah of inductive, generative, dynamic Oral Torah reasoning. It reads horizontally across generations, preserving and applying the brit through interpretive tradition. It prioritizes & remembers oaths, not merely historical events. Greek logic, by contrast—epitomized in Aristotle’s syllogism—deductive, hierarchical, and abstract. It searches for universal forms and metaphysical truths. Torah logic binds the people to HaShem through brit. Greek logic abstracts truth from history and separates law from life.
Herein why the Rambam’s use of Aristotelian categories, while brilliant, marked a radical “Civil War Hanukkah” shift toward Tzeddukim codification and away from P’rushim fluid common-law methods of Talmudic dialectic. Why the Baal HaMaor’s line of thinking—seeing halakhah as jurisprudence, not religion—holds the key to reawakening and please HaShem, restoring the Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal Court system within a Torah Constitutional Republic as the post 1967 June War victory of Zionism, as much or more so over European imperialism as Arab racist Nazism which rejects the 1917 Balfour and 1947 two/thirds UN General Assembly vote which recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East! Not a state run by some crude and utterly primitive Theocracy, which spins around a worthless central axis of a grand building made of wood and stone but the Torah faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. A republic founded on oath alliances—a Torah Constitutional Republic. A sovereign nation whose law flows from Sinai, not from tin-horned theologians, historians, or Enlightenment skeptics. Not a postmodern Jesus built from Protestant Shoah ruins, but the living memory of Horev, written not in parchment alone but in brit-bound hearts of the chosen Cohen people.
Philippians 4:6-7 serves as a Prime example, one which defines the New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. The great US vs. Them Divide. The first and second commandments of Sinai, both Av tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. Specifically remembering the oaths the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance which creates throughout the generations the chosen Cohen people.
The relationship between prayer, God, and Christ in Xtian doctrine. This Pauline interpretation equates prayer to God with prayer to Christ, a form of av tumah avoda zarah — a Capital Crime, the worst of the 4 types of death penalty – stoning – imposed for the worship of other Gods. Avoda zarah not limited to the Av tumah Xtian box thinking of worshipping a idol physical 3 dimensional idol. Like as does the scientific method which requires empirical evidence and the 5th axiom of Euclid’s geometry, which limit reality to 3 dimensions.
Rather the Talmud defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai Commandment through two negative commandment, the primary precedents of Torah common law: 1) Do not assimilate and duplicate the ways, customs or manners of any Goy society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2) Do not intermarry with such Goyim. The Torah precedent where Pinchas killed the tribal head of Dan for entering the camp with a foreign wife. Plus the kabbalah of Kings and Ezra support this interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment intent, not to marry alien women who do not obey alien women who do not honor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the definitive Torah brit, tohor time oriented commandment which requires the k’vanna of prophetic mussar to obey.
Furthermore, the strict monotheism of the koran – likewise avoda zarah. This only one God theology, negates the 2nd Commandment, it makes this time oriented Av commandment totally in vain. All new testament forms of equating Christ with the Sinai God, understood as a direct violation of the Second Commandment. Just that Simple. Mitzvot do not come by way of “Sin”. And the death of Jesus on the Cross does not atone for the “Sin” of avoda zarah.
Utterly impossible to read the Torah as if it exists comparable to the new testament, as the old testament/new testament Xtian bible attempts to equate. Torah, a common law legal system which requires learning by means of bringing precedents, like as done above. The Xtian trinity theology defines European culture and customs, even to this very day. The moral authority expressed through Pope Bulls, for the sake of comparison, resembles to the secular United Nations today, with its morality politics.
The Torah brit faith initiated with Avram at the brit cut between the pieces created from nothing the chosen Cohen Jewish people. The Jewish people not a race, despite the screams to this effect made by the Nazis and the KKK. New testament av tumah avoda zarah attempts to repudiate, both the authority of the Torah AND the Cohen people continuous creation from nothing. Clear as the Sun on a Summer June day, the new testament rejects doing mitzvot לשמה – the first Sinai commandment. And therefore worships other Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same equally applies to the koran fake scriptures or the book of mormon fake scriptures, or the book of scientology fake scriptures.
The strict monotheism expressed through Islam’s Tawhid doctrine – an utter abomination. It too fails to acknowledge the brit creation of the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments throughout the generations. Its substitute theology replaces Yitzak with Yishmael at the Akadah, but fails to address the primary Av commandments, time oriented commandments. Therefore both it and the new testament abhor the revelation of the God of Israel at Sinai. The tumah new testament likewise collapses, over its false narrative – its failure to address Av tohor time oriented commandments introduced by the Book of בראשית, which continuously create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.
The Hebrew word “Brit” (ברית) simply not be translated as “Covenant”. Brit refers to the time oriented commandments. Something much more specific than the false, general – abstract ideas – expressed through the word – covenant – translations. A Brit a time-bound, (meaning life/death crisis situation) legal, and national commitment, (such as the akadah represents)—an oath contract, particularly tied to the Jewish Cohen people, forged through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and represented through commandment positive and negative precedents which define Av tohor time oriented commandments k’vanna. The word translation rhetoric of covenant, its relationship to brit comparable to the similarity between gills on a fish to lungs in a dog.
The word Covenant in English used in a more generalized, universal sense in these false prophet scriptures. Sometimes implying an abstract agreement or promise that could apply to all humanity or various groups. The God of Sinai, not a Universal God. The false prophet scriptures declare otherwise. Brit has a specific, time-bound, life/death crisis legal meaning, like Yaacov confronted by Esau’s Army. Not universally applicable but rather centered on the chosen Cohen Jewish people and their relationship with the God of Sinai through remembering the specific oaths which the Avot swore to create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.
Brit simply not just a spiritual or theological Creed belief system; rather the revelation of the God of Sinai expressed through the legal common law framework that requires the wisdom of knowing how to employ Torah precedents which interpret prophetic mussar k’vanna which functions as the mental brain of all mitzvot or halachic ritual observances. Av tohor time oriented commandments absolutely require that the chosen Jewish Cohen people remember the oaths sworn by the Avot when we do any and all tohor time oriented mitzvot done with k’vanna.
This alliance of national Jewish identity, structured around the chosen Cohen people, through whom the commandments (mitzvot), at the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, enacted and uphold, not as some abstract law, and the new testament false prophets declare. When later generations of Goyim falsely translate Brit as Covenant, they misrepresent the oath brit faith which creates continuously the chosen Cohen Jewish people. These false prophets together with their groupy followers, try to make the God of Sinai appear like some universal monotheistic God, to which all peoples or nations, despite despising the mitzva of gere tzeddik.
These false prophets together with their substitute scriptures declare and any man can embrace the God of Sinai while they reject the revelation of the Sinai Torah. This translation, “covenant”, it distorts the Torah’s actual intent of the Sinai God revelation. Only the Jewish cohen people through time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar truly worship the God of the Sinai revelation. The long history of the g’lut of the Jewish people clearly testifies that faith does not equal static theological Creed belief systems of avoda zarah.
Torah as the Constitution and the Talmud as the blueprint for a common law legal system—this is nothing short of revolutionary (and at the same time, entirely ancient). The Sanhedrin, like a constitutional Supreme Court, doesn’t legislate by majority rule or abstract principle. It rules through mishnah + gemara + mussar drosh, the tools of precedent, context, and k’vanna. It’s the Torah version of legal realism—law grounded in living precedent, with the aggada providing the soul of justice.
In such a system, halachic rulings aren’t frozen codices, they’re living expressions of the brit. The mitzvot, especially the tohor time-oriented ones, once again become acts of national creation, not private ritual. Herein represents the cusp of a reshit tzemichat geulat dorot—the beginning of the blossoming of the redemption of generations—through this very return to the Sanhedrin model—where Torah common law reawakens as the core of Jewish judicial common law sovereignty.