JAHG-USA:
Newsletter of Judaic Theocracy

Week of 6 Tammuz, 5766 / July 2, 2006

Editor: Boruch (Bryan) Ellison

"Issues of World War III" Survey

"What is the best way to prevent abuse of growing police powers?" The slight majority of responses favored dealing with the underlying problems behind the war on drugs, while the remaining answers were split between wanting to restrict police powers and the "other" category with no clear position. The only position not explicitly voted for was the notion of legalizing drugs altogether. Here are excerpts of some comments:

• "…even when [drugs are] illegal people still buy them off the streets anyway."
• "…hit the police and other public officials who are caught making profit from the drug trade… woe to those who speak out, as one dealer said, 'If you ring the cops we will know who you are before you put down the phone'."
• "By the time that excessive police force is needed, it's too late. As long as we're on the defensive, we will inevitably lose…"

Factual Background:
Drug abuse didn't really become a mass phenomenon until the 1970s, starting approximately at the end of the Vietnam War. Since then, the use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, and dozens of other "recreational" drugs has multiplied many times over. Today, most Americans under 40 years of age have tried or used drugs at some point in their lives. With that has come the horribly destructive consequences: Divorces and shattered relationships, lost jobs and lowered work effectiveness, collapsing morals, crime to pay for more drugs, suicide, depression, insanity, etc.

The subject of what Torah says about drug use is a big one, and we won't deal with it now. This week's topic simply asks what degree of police powers are appropriate, under Torah principles, to fight drugs (assuming that the war on drugs, as such, is legitimate — that being a topic for another time).

As criminal networks have expanded and pushed drugs more aggressively, police find themselves having to become better armed and more aggressive in return. It's a war, and the other side keeps upping the ante and adjusting its strategy and tactics. One can't win a war without similar strategic and tactical flexibility.

But that leads to the problem of police abuses of power, or accidental use of severe force against innocent targets. Certainly many stories have been circulated about police planting evidence on innocent people and using that as an excuse to seize expensive properties under RICO statutes, for example, and no doubt there's at least some truth to those stories. Even without deliberate corruption, however, mistaken identification does happen and innocent bystanders get caught in nightmarish raids. In a war fought among the civilian population, there will be civilian casualties.

The hard-left, subversive Earl Warren Supreme Court, during the 1960s, imposed a variety of newly restrictive rules on police that made enforcement much more difficult and helped drug gangsters fight the system more effectively. Among these were rules that punished the slightest procedural infraction on the part of police by throwing out the proof of guilt and allowing the criminal to go free — just because the evidence was gathered without reading the defendant his rights, etc.

A recent Supreme Court decision overturned one of those Warren court rules, now once again allowing police officers to use evidence gathered without first knocking on the door of the house that is raided. In other words, even if police burst through the door without giving the criminals time to hide the drugs, the evidence will no longer be thrown out and the conviction may stand. On the other hand, this may lead to even more aggressive police tactics that catch more innocents in the crossfire.

Relevant Torah Principles:
1) Under the normal operation of a gentile governmental system under the Noahide Laws, courts and law enforcement must follow strict procedures. A defendant may not be convicted of the crime unless he has been seen by one or more credible eyewitnesses, with no contradictory testimony or evidence. Although forensic and circumstantial evidence would not be excluded because of how they were gathered, on their own they are generally (or perhaps always) insufficient to convict.

2) In times of unusual problems or emergencies (such as crime epidemics or wars on society by organized crime), the normal approach to law and court procedures can be superceded. New laws may be passed, in addition to the basic Noahide Laws, to restrict behavior that is associated with crime; forensic or circumstantial evidence may be used for convictions; and punishments other than simple death penalty may be instituted. Part of this can be done by courts themselves; other parts are allowable under the principle known as "king's justice." The details and sources are numerous, but only the larger point is relevant here.

3) But the purpose of these tougher laws and procedures must be to solve the crisis and win the war, and then return to normal. Corrupt men, or collaborators paid off by the criminal mafia they're supposed to be fighting, can't be allowed to run the law enforcement. That would be a formula for defeat, whereas rapid victory must be the objective.

4) The Torah teaches that nations get the governing system they deserve. If a people find themselves under ruthless tyranny that works together with the criminals rather than defeating them, it's because there aren't enough moral, G-d-fearing people to purge the system and win the war on crime. Thus tyranny is a form of punishment for a sinful nation, and only teshuvah (returning to G-d and His Law) can rectify a situation that has gone beyond hope of recovery.

Analysis:
It's unfortunately quite obvious that few people of moral backbone exist today. If we had even a small minority of citizens willing to sacrifice everything, including their lives, to defeat the encroaching evil, we'd easily be winning. Sadly, we don't have such people (the lack of volunteers assisting JAHG-USA's PLO-defunding campaign is proof enough of American spinelessness).

So G-d is squeezing us with corrupt or evil rulers and harsh decrees until we finally decide it's time to turn to His Law, the Noahide Commandments and all their intricate details. We must decide we're ready to give up our lives, our fortunes, and our honor to establish the theocracy of G-d's Law, rather than trying to protect our selfish, pleasure-grubbing interests.

The situation with the war on drugs, for example, is already past the point of no return. Drug abuse is overwhelming our society and culture with suicidal destruction. But we can't defeat the drug-pushing criminal underground, either because saboteurs and infiltrators are restricting law enforcement, or because law enforcement is itself corrupt and infiltrated. It's a no-win scenario under present conditions.

There's only one practical solution at this point: Every single person must give up his cherished, comfortable false values, false religious notions, false priorities, and false self-satisfaction in favor of G-d's Law and His mission for us. Then we'll recover the strength to cleanse and rebuild the system along proper lines.

And now for this week's survey question:

Russia has recently declared it plans to invest more money in safeguarding its nuclear weapons from falling into terrorist hands. Should the U.S. increase its aid to the Russian nuclear security program? (1) Yes, increase the aid. (2) No, cut off the aid entirely. (3) Go seize the nuclear weapons ourselves. (4) Other

If the above links don't work, send your response to survey@noahide.com and manually type in your answer.

Only one answer per e-mail address will be accepted; only e-mail addresses on our subscription list are eligible. Please send your input by Tuesday, July 11th, 2006, 12pm PST.

THE HALL OF SHAME…
Have Some Jewish Leaders Betrayed the Torah?

This week's example:
Rabbi Baruch Krupnik, Cong. Sons of Israel, Brooklyn, NY

A JAHG-USA volunteer showed Rabbi Krupnik our PLO-defunding Proclamation last September 15th. Now that more and more Jewish leaders are endorsing the campaign, it's getting harder for "refuseniks" to find excuses that don't sound absurd, so increasingly, they're just not giving any reason at all. And Rabbi Krupnik was no exception. He didn't want to sign, but also didn't want to sound stupid by inventing some obviously lame excuse, so he just refused to explain himself.

It's hard to see what political pressure he could possibly be facing. He's the rabbi of a typical (non-Hasidic) synagogue in the Bensonhurst area of Brooklyn, where the Jewish population is steadily growing. But you never know; he's probably just afraid of his own shadow.

…AND THE HALL OF FAME
Many Jewish Leaders Are Helping the JAHG-USA Campaign

This week's examples:
Rabbi Dr. Herbert W. Bomzer, Pres., Vaad HaRabonim of Flatbush, Brooklyn, NY;
Rabbi Daniel Greenwald, Corr. Sec., Vaad HaRabonim of Flatbush, Brooklyn, NY; and
Rabbi Ari Kagan, VP, Vaad HaRabonim of Flatbush, Brooklyn, NY

Rabbi Bomzer was shown the PLO-defunding Proclamation last October 10th, and he signed with obvious enthusiasm. He also inquired about who else had signed — not out of nervousness, like some rabbis, but out of genuine interest. In fact, Rabbi Bomzer was so supportive that he helped arrange for our JAHG-USA volunteer to present the Proclamation formally at a monthly meeting of the main rabbinical council of Brooklyn's Flatbush area. Rabbi Bomzer also recommended other rabbis to contact for endorsements, and he helped lobby on its behalf.

His support provided a big boost to the JAHG-USA campaign. As the east coast's leading rabbi for authentic, orthodox conversions to Judaism, Rabbi Bomzer heads his own beis din (rabbinical court) and is authoritative enough to render official decisions of Jewish Law. He currently serves both as President of the umbrella organization of orthodox rabbis in Flatbush and as a member of its Political Action Committee; he is a member of the well-known Rabbinical Council of America (RCA); and he serves as a consultant or on rabbinical boards of various Jewish organizations. His name is nationally well known and highly respected. (I can also personally testify he's a warm, ingratiating person who, though not Hasidic himself, was close with the Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch; I visited Rabbi Bomzer in his home a decade ago, and he showed a great deal of interest in the concept of teaching the Seven Noahide Laws widely to gentiles, a campaign that often meets resistance from other rabbis.)

Without question, Rabbi Bomzer's endorsement of JAHG-USA's campaign has helped persuade other rabbis to sign.

On October 20th, Rabbi Greenwald also read and gladly signed the Proclamation. He's the corresponding secretary for the Flatbush rabbinical council (Vaad HaRabonim), and Rabbi Bomzer helped make the connection.

The next day, Rabbi Kagan became yet another member of the Flatbush rabbinical council to endorse the Proclamation, paving the way for many more in the subsequent weeks. Rabbi Kagan is one of three vice presidents of the council and serves on its Political Action Committee, and he heads his own (non-Hasidic) synagogue, Congregation Ahavath Achim.

Together with Vaad member Rabbi Joseph Rosenbluh (profiled a few weeks ago), these three leading orthodox rabbis inspired most members of the Flatbush rabbinical council's executive committee, and some regular members, ultimately to join in and sign as well. And their organization is nationally known, since it serves one of the most heavily orthodox Jewish areas in America.

For a complete listing of all rabbis who have received our proclamation, the up-to-date status of their responses, and how you can help the campaign, visit ATTAC Report at http://www.attacreport.com/plo/.

This week's edition of our sister site, ATTAC Report, presents:

• "Burying the July Fourth Massacre" — The incredible story of how the Bush White House covered for terrorists who attacked Los Angeles Airport.
• "Vodka-Tequila: Soviet Agents in Mexican Gangs" — KGB agents and Central American Communists have taken control of the drug trade south of America's border, and they're aiming at the U.S. next.
• "The Amaleki Network, 600 to 950 CE" — As the new religion of Islam was conquering, underground secret societies were infiltrating every nation with the seeds of revolutionary turmoil.

Letters to the Editor

NOTE: We're still working our way through a long list of letters that have arrived in recent weeks. If you've sent us a question or comment, please be patient; we hope to get to it in the coming weeks.

• (In response to the weekly review of terrorist attacks in last week's issue):
"…Your newsletter… states the soldier was kidnapped, then fled? As far as I know, they still have him. Did I miss something?" — TZ.

Our response: In last week's newsletter, we mentioned an incident that took place on Wednesday, June 21st, in which an Israeli soldier reported that three terrorists tried to kidnap him. But he struggled and managed to break free, escaping and arriving at a nearby post to report the incident.

Then, on Sunday, June 25th (four days later), a team of terrorists under joint PLO-Hamas command (through the Popular Resistance Committees/ PRC) attacked an Israeli tank, murdering soldiers and taking hostage 19-year-old Corporal Gilad Shalit, who is now being held somewhere in the Gaza. This latter case is the story we're all hearing about in the news, and which remains at a standoff at the time of writing this newsletter.

There were two such incidents that week, an attempted kidnapping of a soldier and a successful one. And as Israeli authorities revealed this week, there had been yet another such attempt a couple of weeks ago which was prevented by sharp intelligence work and pre-emptive arrests.

• (In response to our May 7th issue, where we answered the false charges of the Christian Church against King David):
"…[In the Bible] King David is plainly told: 'Isn't this Bathsheba… the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' and… when Bathsheba learns that 'her husband was dead, she mourned for him.' It seems very plain… that Uriah never meant or wanted to divorce his wife… [And Nathan the prophet] plainly accuses David of murder and adultery.…" — DJ.

Our response to this letter, part 3: In our May 7th issue, we already explained the context to the Scriptures cited above from II Samuel — namely, the Jewish Laws that were followed, beginning in ancient times, requiring husbands to issue conditional, retroactive divorce documents to their wives in case they ended up missing in action. This was because of the Biblical prohibition on a Jewish wife remarrying unless her husband is proven to be dead or he has given her a written divorce document (unlike modern American law, Biblical Jewish Law doesn't allow Jewish women to divorce their husbands). It has nothing to do with the husband or the wife wanting to divorce; it's merely a legal device for ensuring she can remarry — if he never returns from battle.

The fact that this rule was followed in ancient Israel is a simple matter of historical record, preserved in Jewish sources throughout the centuries. The average Christian has been kept in the dark about the details of G-d's Law, as taught in His Spoken Word (the Holy Talmud, etc.), and thus automatically misinterprets many Biblical passages out of sheer historical ignorance.

It also helps to understand the Biblical text in the original Hebrew, rather than depending on flawed English translations of flawed Latin translations of erroneous Greek translations from the original Hebrew.

Because the divorce documents were written conditionally, they never became effective unless the husband didn't return from the battlefield. If he did return, the divorce never took place, and he and his wife remained married the entire time; if he failed to return, the divorce became effective retroactively, to the time he left for the battlefield — thus rendering her a divorced woman from that earlier time. Because Uriah the Hittite was killed in the battlefield, his wife, Bas-Sheva (Bathsheba, in clumsily transliterated English), was retroactively divorced to before she had relations with King David, and thus (on a technicality, admittedly), neither King David nor Bas-Sheva committed adultery. That's simply how those divorce documents worked, as required by Jewish Law (there's a very lengthy, in-depth analysis of the conditions of such divorces, and how and when they become effective, in the long tractate of the Talmud devoted to this subject — namely, Gittin, or "Divorces").

That's why the Scriptural verses referred to Uriah as being the "husband" of Bas-Sheva. Until his death, they were married; at the moment of his death, they became retroactively divorced from an earlier time. Thus Scripture can refer to Uriah as her husband even while the story ultimately renders him not being her husband during that time.

Does the prophet Nathan actually accuse King David of murder and adultery? If you look more closely at chapter 12, you'll see he spends much time on a seemingly irrelevant parable about a neighbor and his sheep, with no implication of murder or adultery in that story. Then Nathan tells King David that he has committed a sin (but doesn't use the words "murder" or "adultery" to identify this unnamed sin), saying that "you have struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword," "you took his wife to be your wife" (an impossibility without a divorce!), and "you have killed [Uriah] with the sword of the sons of Ammon."

Clearly there's not even an implication of adultery anywhere in this passage, which identifies Bas-Sheva as having legitimately become King David's wife (and compares the sin to the taking of a sheep, i.e., stealing property, not adultery with another man's wife; under Biblical Jewish Law, stealing is not a death-penalty offense, whereas adultery is, and thus the two sins would never be compared in a parable).

Nor was there any accusation of murder. "Struck with the sword" isn't murder; neither is "killing" ("harigah," in Hebrew, the word for one of the Biblical forms of capital punishment). In fact, the word "killing" used here refers specifically to execution of a sinner by the sword, exactly as the context implies. By contrast, the commandment against murder (in Exodus 20) uses the word "murder" ("retzichah", in Hebrew), a totally different word with the specific meaning of the sin of murder. If Nathan the prophet had meant to accuse King David of murder, he would have used the specific Hebrew word for murder. But instead, he refers to King David as executing Uriah by a form of Biblical death penalty — by the sword.

So what was King David's sin, for which he repented and needed atonement? As we mentioned in that previous newsletter, it was the sin of allowing the casual observer to think King David was scheming to steal a man's wife and unjustly kill her husband. That's not what King David did, but by allowing others to think he might have done so, the appearance of sin becomes a terrible sin in itself. Not exactly murder or adultery, but bad enough to require punishment. And that perfectly explains the otherwise strange-sounding parable of Nathan the prophet, as well as the oddly lenient outcome.

If King David had actually broken the Biblical commandments against murder and adultery, G-d's covenant with King David of royal inheritance would have been nullified, and a new kingly line chosen. In Numbers 15, the Bible delineates the Temple offerings to atone for sins committed accidentally by a Jew. But in verses 30 and 31, Scripture states clearly and plainly that anyone who deliberately breaks a Torah commandment cannot atone for that sin with any kind of sacrificial offering; that person (and his descendants) are eternally cut off from the Jewish people. The only reason King David could be so easily forgiven was that his was an accidental sin, not a deliberate one like murder or adultery. (Teshuvah, or repentance by returning back under G-d's Law, is the one solution that can reverse a person's judgment. But the founder of the royal Messianic line cannot be tainted by deliberate sins, even with teshuvah later on.)

(Next issue: More regarding Christian accusations against King David.)

Send your letter to the editor to newsletter@noahide.com.

Be sure to visit the rest of our Web site, Noahide.com.