🧵 I saw a morally weak post about “gradual transformation,” from Judean/Samaritan → Christian → Muslim, the kind that hides behind and flattens history. It is the comfort of safe distance, not the courage to face what Jewish history has actually been for the past two millennia.

From enslavement to exile, from Yaḇne’s reconstitution of law to persecutions and rebellions, to that same government in exile learning after repeated defeat to tell its people not to rise too soon, the “Three Sheḇuʿoth,” attributed to Ribbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the mid-third century (around 250 CE), even when the odds looked favorable, such as against the Palmyrene breakaway under Queen Zenobia (around 267 CE). A people that kept trying, even while warning against itself.

It was pressure, not gradual evolution, that bent our people. We lost many early on to war and massacre. It was forced subjugation and humiliation. The long pattern was not “gradual transformation” but survival under duress: Rome parading captives through its streets and funding its monuments with our defeat, Byzantium legislating belief into law, Islam formalizing subordination through the dhimma and jizya. Each empire offered its own vocabulary for defeat.

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jerusalem was razed and the Judean polity dismantled. Captives were marched to Rome to build the Colosseum, and Judaea Capta was stamped in bronze. Inscriptional evidence refers to construction “from war spoils,” widely understood to include the Judaean campaign. Yet in that same century, under Ribbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, survivors gathered at Yaḇne to regroup and preserve a nucleus of order even as Jerusalem burned and the periphery required guidance. 🧵 (2/3) From Yaḇne to Usha, Shefarʿam, Sepphoris, and finally Tiberias, each city carried the Sanhedrin’s embers forward. Around 200 CE, Ribbi Yehuḏa haNasi (c. 135–217 CE), son of Rabban Shimʿon ben Gamliel II, compiled and edited the Mishna, codifying oral deliberation into a framework capable of outlasting empire. When Roman Judea collapsed in revolt after revolt — the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), the Kitos War (115–117 CE), and the Bar Kokhḇa Revolt (132–136 CE) — entire regions were emptied, yet law persisted. Cassius Dio records 580,000 dead, 50 fortresses, and 985 villages destroyed. Even if exaggerated, archaeology confirms large-scale depopulation. And the Judean, and Samaritan population has been demoralized, and susptiable to capture mentally. By the mid-third century, as noted earlier, Ribbi Yose bar Ḥanina articulated the lesson of survival: after three failed rebellions, restraint itself became almost doctrine (yet of course, through the centuries political leaders did rise), preservation through patience. Revolt had exhausted revolt.
Rome itself was fragmenting. The Severan dynasty (193–235 CE) offered intermittent tolerance, but the Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 CE) threatened the empire’s cohesion. Palmyra under Queen Zenobia (ruled c. 267–272 CE) broke from Roman control. Emperor Diocletian (284–305 CE) attempted restoration through strict administration. Then Constantine the Great (306–337 CE) turned persecution into policy: Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, its creed ratified at Nicaea in 325 CE, and Constantinople founded in 330 CE as the new imperial axis. Religion had become governance.

For Jews and Samaritans, the new imperial faith brought a new danger, subordination by theology. Law became our last form of sovereignty. The rabbinic (legal/philosophical) academies became our last institutions of state. In the Galilee, the academies of Tiberias and Caesarea produced the Talmuḏ Yerushalmi under Byzantine rule. Its language, Galilean Aramaic, bore the cadence of interruption: terse, compressed, unfinished. In 425 CE, under Emperor Theodosius II, the office of the Nasi was abolished and semikha suppressed. The Sanhedrin’s light was extinguished, and the Yerushalmi was traditionally understood to have been cut short at that time. But it’s embers spread and were maintained.

Beyond Byzantine reach, the academies in Babylonia rose. In Nehardea, Sura, and Pumbeditha, Jewish scholarship flourished under Persian and later Sasanian rule. By the late 5th or early 6th century, the Babylonian Talmuḏ (Talmuḏ Baḇli) had reached its authoritative form under Raḇ Ashe (352–427 CE) and Ravina II (died c. 475–500 CE) as a National Beth Din. Where the Yerushalmi bore the marks of siege in its hilkhoth shemaḏ (laws of persecution), the Baḇli was expansive and systematic, the mind of a nation that had turned dispersion into order. Law again, became order and comfort to a people in a troublesome time, binding Jewish communities in the then known world, from Andalusia (Iberian peninsula) to Kaifeng (China).

When Byzantium asserted itself, it sought control through creed. The Theodosian Code (438 CE) and Justinian’s Codex (534 CE) made theology the basis of citizenship. Under Emperor Justinian I (527–565 CE), religion became bureaucracy. The Samaritans, our kin, revolted repeatedly in 484, 529, and 556 CE and were crushed with massacres and enslavement. Medieval sources report very high casualties, though modern historians treat the figures as uncertain. Once numbering perhaps over a million, the community shrank to tens of thousands. What followed was not serene assimilation but exhaustion. Conversion was seldom conviction. It was attrition of alternatives. In fragile empires, subordination offered predictability, and predictability passed for mercy.

🧵 THE GREAT Sultan Bayezid II

People keep throwing around the line that Sultan Bayezid II said about the Sephardic Jews after Spain initiated the Inquisition:

“In 1492 Bajazet ridiculed the foolish conduct of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain in expelling a class of people so useful to their subjects. ‘You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler,’ he said to his courtiers, ‘he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!’”

Where does this line actually come from, and what does its afterlife tell us about Jewish memory, historiography, and the manufacture of “Golden Ages”?

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

📚 Jewish Encyclopedia 1912 + Wissenschaft des Judentums
🌟 How desire for emancipation shaped writings
🕎 The Encyclopedia’s quote origin: Seder Eliyahu Zuṭa
💬 Reflection
📚 Bibliography

And as always, happy to debate and discuss. 📚 Jewish Encyclopedia 1912 + Wissenschaft des Judentums

The original quote can be found in the 1912 Jewish Encyclopedia entry “Bajazet II.” That is a secondary retelling; it is not a contemporaneous Ottoman quote.

The Jewish Encyclopedia aligns directly with the Wissenschaft des Judentums (“Science of Judaism”), an approach to Jewish scholarship and religion that flourished in 19th-century Germany. The encyclopedia may be regarded as the culmination of this movement, which sought to modernize scholarly methods in Jewish research. In the 20th century, the movement’s members dispersed to Jewish Studies departments in the United States and Israel.

The scholarly authorities cited in the encyclopedia, besides the classical and medieval exegetes, are almost uniformly Wissenschaft figures, such as Leopold Zunz, Moritz Steinschneider, Solomon Schechter, Wilhelm Bacher, Solomon Judah Loeb Rapoport, David Zvi Hoffmann, and Heinrich Graetz. Its scholarly style is evident in the encyclopedia’s almost obsessive attention to manuscript discovery, editing, publication, comparison, and dating. These endeavors were among the foremost interests of Wissenschaft scholarship.

The Jewish Encyclopedia is an English-language work, but the vast majority of its contemporary sources are in German, since this was the mother tongue of the Wissenschaft scholars and the lingua franca of Biblical scholarship at the time. Of all works cited not in German, usually the more classical ones, the largest portion are in Hebrew or Arabic. The only heavily cited English-language source of contemporary scholarship is Schechter’s publications in The Jewish Quarterly Review.

🧵 There’s a difference between reading a sacred text and weaponizing it. The Tanakh records wars against Canaan and Amaleq.

But Jews don’t treat those passages as military blueprints. We interpret them through law, memory, and centuries of restraint. We interpret. We legalize. We argue. We bind ourselves to limits. That’s the foundation of our tradition, not vengeance, but vigilance.

Everyone keeps bringing up Amaleq, so let’s discuss. The command is:

“זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק… תִּמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק… לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח.”

“Zekhor (Remember) what Amaleq did to you… blot out the zekher (remembrance) of Amaleq… do not forget.” — Deḇarim 25:17–19.

The language matters. It says zekher "remembrance" not zeraʿ (seed). Zeraʿ implies biological continuation. Zekher implies ideological memory. We’re not told to wipe out a people, but to erase the conditions that let cruelty go unchallenged.

The Rabbis made this explicit: “Since Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came and confused all the nations, we no longer know who is who.” — Mishna Yadayim 4:4.

Meaning: Amaleq ceased to be an identifiable people.

Even haRambam affirms: “The descendants of Amaleq and the seven nations (Canaanites) no longer exist, as Sennacherib mixed the peoples.” — Mishne Tora, Hilkhoth Melakhim uMilḥamoth 5:4.

Amaleq is a behavior, not a bloodline. A moral threat, not a tribe. The command is to erase its legacy, not commit genocide. So why does Amaleq still matter? Because it isn’t just a nation. It represents a pattern of immoral behavior. It represents what happens when violence is stripped of honor, when war becomes massacre, and the weak are targeted for sport.

“They ambushed you on the way (out of Egypt), attacking all the stragglers at your rear, the weakest, slowest, most exposed, while you were faint and weary, and he had no fear of God (no concern for consequence or justice).” — Deḇarim 25:18.

Cowardice. Cruelty. Civilian targeting. That’s what the miṣva commands us to remember. That’s what Jews in Shushan saw in Haman (not the one in your Qur’an, in Egypt). And yes, that’s what many saw on October 7: children burned alive, women gang-raped, hostages paraded through the streets. Not metaphor. Definition.

And no, this is not biblical justification for genocide. Quite the opposite. It is a moral category rooted in restraint. We don’t use sacred text to incite. We bind ourselves with commentary, legal limitations, and halakhic fences.

Meanwhile, Hamas named their massacre, ʿAmaliyyat Ṭūfān al-ʾAqṣā. “The Al-Aqsa Flood”? No. More accurately: The Al-Aqsa Deluge. That’s not a tactical name. It’s theological.

The Ṭūfān (Deluge) in both Tanakh and Qurʿan was divine wrath, a purge of sinners in the days of Noah.

Hamas didn’t just attack. They framed it as sacred cleansing of Jews. They didn’t just fight. They preached. They quoted Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2922, the hadith of the stones and trees: “O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come kill him.” It’s in their charter. Their leaders still quote it. On camera. And their so-called moderates? Ismail Haniyeh publicly called for multiple October 7ths. Not decades ago. Right after.

So no, calling Hamas "Amaleq" isn’t a call for genocide. It’s a way of naming atrocity, not unleashing one.

We’ve seen this before. After World War II, the Allies didn’t erase Germans or Japanese. They erased Nazism and Imperial militarism. They dismantled institutions, outlawed supremacist ideology, and rebuilt civic life. That was the moral logic of denazification: not killing a people, but destroying an ethos. That’s what it means to erase zekher Amaleq. You crush the doctrine, not the descendants. You don’t slaughter a bloodline. You interrupt its transmission of ideology. You end the theology that sanctifies cruelty. When Jews call Hamas "Amaleq," we are invoking zekher to name cruelty. To resist its return, whether in ancient garb or modern uniforms. You want to talk scripture? Let’s talk. But if you weaponize our texts while ignoring ʿAqṣā Deluge theology, Shahada propaganda, and genocidal hadiths chanted in real time, then you’re not after truth. You’re after absolution.

Sam Harris and @GadSaad don’t ignore this because they’re soft on Jews. They see the difference clearly. We read difficult texts and build fences around the law. They televise martyrdom and sanctify atrocity.

When Jews call Hamas Amaleq, we are invoking zekher to name cruelty. To mark it. To resist its transmission. This must never rise again. Not to unleash a new genocide, but to make sure the ideology behind one never resurfaces. That is not incitement. That’s memory doing its job.

You want to talk Tanakh? Let’s talk. But if you weaponize our texts while ignoring ʿAqṣā Deluge theology and Shahada martyrdom campaigns preached from minbarāt (pulpits) on state TV today, you’re not looking for truth. You’re looking for permission to look away.

Jews in 1st-century Yehuḏa (Judea) didn’t live in clean linguistic silos. This wasn’t Western Europe.

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek flowed together. Language shifted by city, by class, by context. Aramaic dominated daily speech. Greek carried administrative weight and cultural prestige. And Hebrew?

Hebrew never left. It was liturgy, law, memory and often passive speech. Calling it “dead” is a modern projection. Hebrew and Aramaic are dialectal sisters. Drawing a hard line between them is like calling Provençal and French unrelated.

Saying “Jesus didn’t speak Hebrew” misunderstands how languages live. These were sister tongues. Their boundaries blurred.

Below is a letter from Shimʿon bar Kokhḇa, leader of the Jewish revolt against Rome, written in Hebrew. Not out of nostalgia.

Out of use. People are stuck in the world of “X is a language and so distinct.” But these are post-Enlightenment categories. Modern linguistics carved boundaries that living speakers never recognized.

When Jews in the medieval period wrote about Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, tracking cognates and parsing grammar, they didn’t think this way. They saw fluidity, not borders.

There was a living Judeo language, a stream flowing between Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Not in competition, but in code-switch, citation, and thought.

Just study the second-century Mishnah. You will need Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These were not foreign insertions. They were part of the thought-world.

People did not walk around labeling what language they were speaking. They lived it. The Jewish mind was multilingual by design because reality demanded it and Tora accommodated it.

🧵 Avi Shlaim and the Bomb That Rewrites Babylon

In Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, Avi Shlaim opens with warm memories of Jewish life in Baghdad: Arabic-speaking, rooted in Battawiyyin, respected by Muslim neighbors, and proud, he writes, to be “Iraqis whose religion happened to be Jewish.”

But that framing, religion, was foreign to Iraqi Jewish leaders. It traces back to Napoleon’s pseudo-Sanhedrin in 1806 and its infamous “Sixth Question,” which sought to reduce Jewish peoplehood to a religion.

That same idea would later be institutionalized by the Alliance Israélite Universelle, the French-Jewish school system that brought Western-style emancipation to Baghdad, at the price of national identity.

Shlaim adopts this language to diminish Jewish nationhood. Perhaps fitting for someone born into a nationality that was itself imposed by the British in 1925.

But nostalgia isn’t history. And in Shlaim’s case, memory becomes an indictment. Longing turns to blame.

This isn’t a book about Iraq. It’s a book about Israel.

The warmth he shows for Baghdad is matched by his contempt for Zionism. Not based on deep engagement, but on displacement. Zionism gave his family a country, but not one they felt was theirs. And so he mourns Iraq by scapegoating Israel.

He mistakes imperial coexistence for native pluralism. He reads British Baghdad as proof of Arab-Jewish harmony and recalls a "normalcy" that had already collapsed. His revisionism isn't incidental to his career. It is foundational. Bad dates, tortured confessions, and paper-thin "proofs" became useful tools for those eager to blame Zionism for the collapse of Arab-Jewish life.

Avi Shlaim didn’t just rewrite history. He gave anti-Zionists a usable past.

Topics in This Thread:

🏛️ Iraq Before Shlaim, Co-existence
🔥 The Farhud: Iraq’s Breaking Point
🧒 Shlaim’s Childhood (1945–1950)
🚪 Iraq After He Left (1950–1967)
💣 Manufactured Memory: The Bombings
🧠 The Politics of Memory and the Price of Nostalgia 🏛️ Iraq Before Shlaim, Co-existence

To understand Shlaim’s distortions, we need to understand the imperial scaffolding that made his Baghdad possible. Not the 2,600-year Jewish legacy in Babylon, but the narrow colonial window that allowed Jews to flourish, briefly.

The Baghdad he remembers, of doctors, judges, poets, is real. But it wasn’t stable. It was constructed through two overlapping imperial logics: Ottoman modernization and British administration. These weren’t signs of Arab-Jewish pluralism. They were signs of Jewish utility.

The 19th-century Tanzimat reforms opened state roles to non-Muslims, not out of egalitarianism, but need. Jews rose as clerks, tax officials, merchants—not because they were embraced, but because the empire needed help.

Then came the Alliance Israélite Universelle in partnership with the local Jewish community. Founded in Paris in 1860, AIU brought French-style education to Baghdadi Jews: French, English, math, science. Less prayer, more profession. It created a generation of Jews fluent in European languages, linked to global trade, and confident beyond the ghetto. Without AIU, the path from Battawiyyin to Oxford would have been unthinkable, even for Shlaim.

After World War I, the Ottomans fell. The British carved Iraq out of their corpse and installed Faisal I, a Hashemite prince, as king. The resulting state was not a national project; it was a colonial arrangement. Jews thrived not through integration but through imperial favor.

In the 1920s and 1930s:
🟣 Sassoon Heskel designed Iraq’s fiscal system as Finance Minister
🟣Edward Shelomo sat on the kingdom’s highest court
🟣Shafiq Ades built commercial ties with Europe

They lived alongside Muslims and Christians in new bourgeois neighborhoods, listened to the same radio stations, and sent kids to elite schools. Although intellectuals wanted to believe it was pluralism, it wasn't. It was empire.

The 1925 Constitution promised equality. But everyone knew it was paper. The moment the empire weakened, the currents turned. As early as the 1930s, newspapers accused Jews of Zionist treason.

Shlaim remembers MPs and maqam. But what he’s remembering isn’t a mosaic; it’s a moment. And it ended not with bombs but with silence.

The tragedy isn’t that Jews left a land where they had roots. The tragedy is that those roots were shallow enough to be pulled up by a single gust of nationalist wind.

First, his family is driven out of Iraq by pan-Arab nationalism, despite having shaped the very soul of Iraqi music.

The al-Kuwaiti brothers were pioneers, defining an entire generation of Arabic sound, playing for kings and legends like Umm Kulthum. Then, as Jews, they were erased from history, their names stripped from Iraq’s musical legacy.

Now their descendant, Dudu Tassa, dares to revive and honor their art, only to be boycotted again. This time not by governments, but by activists who have inherited the same animus and dressed it up as virtue.

It's not about justice. It's about an enduring contempt for Jewish presence, especially one that doesn't hide. worldjewishcongress.org/en/legacy-of-j…

Tora → Emuna → Biṭaḥon
Knowledge → Commitment → Security

In Jewish thought, the progression from Tora (study), to Emuna (covenantal reliability), to Biṭaḥon (deep inner security) is not me just being poetic.

It reflects the actual language and conceptual framework of the ḥakhamim. But what do these terms truly mean, and why does the order matter? Encountering Reality: Knowledge as a Miṣva

Proper Tora study is framed as an encounter with reality. This is not poetic license, but the literal approach of our sages. Seʿadya haGaʾon, in his Arabic translation of the Shemaʿ (Deḇarim 6:4), renders the command not as “hear,” but as “eʿlam / leḏaʿa” (“know”):

“Eʿlam ya Yisraʾel, inna Allah rabbuna Allah al-Waḥid.”
(Know, O Israel, that God is our Lord, God Alone.)

The miṣva is thus to know, to engage reality, seek truth, and arrive at understanding. This stands in contrast to passive hearing or rote recitation, shifting the center of Jewish life toward knowledge and conscious awareness.

📜The Eternal Significance of Meghillath Ester

The Meghilla (Scroll of Esther) stands apart in Jewish tradition as a meditation on hashgaḥa peraṭith (divine providence), a story where God’s presence and name is conspicuously absent—but embedded in the natural flow of history. Unlike the miracles of the Exodus (nes niglé)—where seas split and plagues reshaped empires, the Meghilla operates within the realm of nes nistar (the hidden miracle), where redemption unfolds through human agency and the seemingly ordinary course of events.

Ester’s ascent to queenship, improbable as it was, emerges as a divine setup for salvation. Yet, the Meghilla teaches that redemption is never imposed—it must be chosen. Mordokhai warns Ester:

“For if you persist in keeping silent at this time, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows if it was precisely for a time like this that you attained royalty?” (Ester 4:14).

This verse encapsulates the paradox of divine orchestration and human agency. The ultimate redemption of the Jewish people is assured, yet who will play a role in it remains undecided. Ester must rise to the moment, seizing the opportunity afforded by divine timing. Her hesitation echoes the classic Jewish dilemma: will we act when history calls? Haman, too, acts from free will, yet his downfall is meticulously aligned within the hidden workings of divine justice (Ester 6:1-11).

The Meghilla is more than a historical record—it is a mirror of the Jewish condition across generations. By the time of Ester, Persian Jewry had begun to assimilate, their identity dulled by exile. Most did not return to Zion under Cyrus the Great’s decree (ʿEzra 1:1-4), and those who did were likely dismissed as extremists. Yet, the events of Purim reignited their national consciousness, reaffirming their covenantal identity:

“The Jews confirmed and accepted upon themselves and their descendants” (Ester 9:27).

According to the ḥakhamim in the Talmuḏ (TB Shabbath 88a), this verse signifies that the Jewish people reaffirmed their acceptance of the Tora in the days of Aḥashverosh. Unlike their acceptance at Sinai—"sheKafa haQaḏosh Barukh Hu ʿalehem eth haHar keGigith", a revelation so all-encompassing that rejecting it was inconceivable—the acceptance after Purim was entirely different. At Sinai, divine truth was inescapable—it surrounded them entirely, as if a mountain loomed over them (sheKafa haHar keGigith) or as if they were shielded by God's own hand (veSakothi kapi ʿalekha ʿaḏ ʿoḇri, Shemoth 33:22).

By contrast, the events of Purim unfolded within history’s natural order, requiring a different kind of recognition. No seas split, no fire descended from the heavens—only the subtle workings of hashgaḥa peraṭith, woven into the seemingly mundane. Their reaffirmation of the covenant was not a response to supernatural coercion but an awakening to divine presence within exile itself.

This shift marks a turning point: Jewish identity no longer rested solely on direct revelation but on historical consciousness.

The Meghilla stands as the prototype of Jewish existence in exile—where God’s presence is concealed yet never absent, and redemption awaits those who perceive the moment and choose to act. ✍️🏽The Meghilla and the Debate Over Writing

The Meghilla itself was not imposed from above but entered the canon through the conscious acceptance of the Jewish people (TB Meghilla 7a). The Talmuḏ Yerushalmi (Meghilla 1:5) records a debate among the elders and prophets (i.e the Sanhedrin) who initially hesitated to accept Purim as a permanent festival, fearing that it contradicted the principle that no prophet after Moshe could add commandments to the Tora. The matter remained unresolved until God "enlightened their eyes," revealing that Purim was already alluded to in Tora, Neḇiʾim, and Kethuḇim.

This discussion is intertwined with another fundamental debate: was Meghillath Ester "nittena leHikkateḇ" (fully consigned for writing), or was it "neʾemara liQroth veLo neʾemara leHikkateḇ" (stated for reading but not for writing)? This was not merely a textual or halakhic question, but a deeper issue of Jewish self-definition. Unlike the prophetic books, which document direct revelation, the Meghilla represents the moment when Jewish survival depended not on prophecy but on communal initiative. This shift marked the early formation of a galuthi body politic—a people learning to navigate history without explicit divine intervention, yet still perceiving God’s presence in unfolding events.

🧵 Jesus the Palestinian?

Alright, let’s clear something up: the idea of Jesus as "Palestinian" is a projection of modern political categories onto an ancient and timeless figure. No genuine historical inquiry separates Jesus from his Jewish identity.

This thread isn’t about debating anyone’s modern identity but about understanding history, identity, and the role of exonyms—outsider-imposed names that shape our perceptions.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

🕍 Jesus' Identity Embedded in Jewish Tradition
🏷️ The Role of Exonyms: “Palestine” as an Outsider’s Label
🌐 Jesus Across Languages and Cultures
⚖️ Jesus’ Commitment to Jewish Law
📜 Honoring Historical Identities

And as always, happy to debate and discuss. 🕍 Jesus' Identity Embedded in Jewish Tradition

The roots of Jesus' identity are deeply embedded in Jewish tradition and culture. Like me, he was a Levantine rabbi. Regarding his language, Jesus didn’t speak Syriac; he spoke a Judean-Galilean dialect of Aramaic. This is evidenced in Matthew 26:73, where Shimʿon (Peter) is called out for his distinct dialect, which often blended letters like ʿAyin and Aleph, or Ḥeth and Hé. This dialect is noted in the New Testament, and discussions on this topic are found in both Talmuḏs (Babylonian Talmuḏ Eruḇin 53a-b, Meghila 24b, and Jerusalem Talmuḏ Berakhoth 16b).

We see this highlighted when Shimʿon (Peter) is recognized by his accent:

Matthew 26:73 Syriac:
ܘܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܩܠܝܠ ܩܪܒܘ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܩܝܡܝܢ ܘܐܡܪܘ ܠܫܡܥܘܢ ܫܪܝܪܐܝܬ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܐܢܬ ܕܐܦ ܡܡܠܠܟ ܓܝܪ ܕܡܐ ܗܘ ܀
Translation:
“After a little while, those standing there approached and said to Shimʿon, ‘Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.’”

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus frequently quotes Jewish scriptures. He was embedded in the culture, and his early disciples knew the Bible well enough to understand his references, as they were written for the Jewish people, underscoring his connection to Jewish audiences. Jesus and his disciples were deeply fluent in Hebrew Scriptures, quoting them constantly—from the Sermon on the Mount to the Calling of Matthew (Matthew 9:9-13). These references often assumed a Jewish audience familiar with the text in its original language.

🔵 Reading the Haftara in Synagogue

For example, Jesus reads the Haftara—a practice not done in Palestinian circles, whether Christian or Muslim. This tradition was instituted due to the Roman ban on public Tora readings. He reads from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah in a synagogue, participating in the Jewish tradition of reciting the Haftara alongside the weekly Tora portion:

Luke 4:16-17 Syriac:
ܘܐܬܐ ܠܢܨܪܬ ܐܬܪ ܕܐܬܪܒܝ ܗܘܐ ܘܥܠ ܠܟܢܘܫܬܐ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܫܒܬܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܡܥܕ ܗܘܐ ܀ ܘܝܗܒ ܠܗ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܫܥܝܐ ܢܒܝܐ ܘܩܡ ܠܡܩܪܐ ܟܕ ܦܬܚ ܟܬܒܐ ܐܫܟܚ ܕܘܟܬܐ ܕܟܬܝܒ ܀
Translation:
“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been raised, and entered the synagogue on the Shabbath day, as was his custom, and rose up to read. And there was delivered unto him the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the scroll, he found the place where it was written.”

This tradition of reading the book of prophets in the synagogue on the Shabbath day is still practiced today.

🔵 Echoes of Hillel the Elder in Jesus' Teachings

Jesus’ teachings also echo those of Hillel the Elder (circa 110 BCE - 10 CE), a respected Jewish rabbi and a Pharisaic Jew. Hillel’s well-known saying, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Tora; the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." (Babylonian Talmuḏ, Shabbath 31a) resonates strongly with Jesus’ own words:

Hillel's Original Saying:
אָמַר לוֹ: דַּעֲלָךְ סְנֵי לְחַבְרָךְ לָא תַּעֲבֵיד — זוֹ הִיא כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ, וְאִידַּךְ פֵּירוּשָׁהּ הוּא, זִיל גְּמוֹר.

Luke 6:31 Syriac:
ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܨܒܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܕܢܥܒܕܘܢ ܠܟܘܢ ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܕܫܦܝܪ ܗܟܢܐ ܥܒܕܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܀
Translation:
“Just as you want people to do to you, do likewise to them.”

There are scholars who point to multiple quotes and teachings that suggest he may have been a student of Hillel's legal and philosophical school of thought—in the Jewish world, we call this being part of the "House of Hillel."

To frame Jesus as divorced from Jewish thought overlooks the reality of 1st-century Judea. His teachings represent a reinterpretation, not a negation.

🔵 Participation in Jewish Festivals

In the Gospel of John (10:22), Jesus attends a Jewish festival, Ḥanukka (meaning "rededication"), instituted by the Hasmoneans (1 Maccabees 4:59). This festival celebrates their victory over the Seleucid Empire (Syrian-Greeks), the retaking of Jerusalem in 165 BCE, and the rededication of the Temple.

John 10:22 Syriac:
ܘܗܘܐ ܗܘܐ ܥܕܥܝܕܐ ܒܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܐܝܩܪ ܒܝܬ ܡܩܕܫܐ ܘܣܬܘܐ ܗܘܐ ܀
Translation:
“It was the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem, and it was winter.”

1 Maccabees 4:59
“Then Yehuḏa and his brothers, along with the entire assembly of Israel, decreed that each year, for eight days starting from the twenty-fifth day of Kisleṿ, the festival of dedication of the altar would be observed with joy and gladness.”

Jesus clearly had deep ties to Jewish emancipation of Jerusalem from the Greek occupation and its Temple. The Temple was not only the place for ritual sacrifices but also housed the Sanhedrin (Jewish Supreme Court) and served as a space for Jewish prayer for the whole nation.

🔵 Pilate's Mockery

At the end of his life, Jesus was mockingly called "King of the Jews" by Pilate, emphasizing his Jewish identity and highlighting the accusations against him as a figure who threatened Roman authority by inspiring Jewish aspirations for liberation.

Matthew 27:11 Syriac:
ܝܫܘܥ ܕܝܢ ܩܡ ܩܕܡ ܗܓܡܘܢܐ ܘܫܐܠܗ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܝܗܘ̈ܕܝܐ ܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܝܫܘܥ ܐܢܬ ܐܡܪܬ ܀
Translation:
“Jesus stood before the governor, who asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Jesus replied, ‘You have said so.’”

John 19:19-20 Syriac:
ܘܟܬܒ ܐܦ ܠܘܚܐ ܦܝܠܛܘܣ ܘܣܡ ܥܠ ܙܩܝܦܗ ܟܬܝܒ ܗܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܢܳܨܪܝܐ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܝܗܘܕܝܐ ܀ ܘܠܘܠܗܳܢܳܐ ܕܦܳܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ ܡܶܢ ܝܗܘܕܝܐ ܩܪܐܘܗܝ ܡܛܠ ܕܩܪܝܒܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܕܘܟܬܐ ܕܐܙܕܩܦ ܒܗ ܝܫܘܥ ܘܟܬܝܒܐ ܗܘܐ ܥܒܪܝܬ ܘܝܘܢܝܬ ܘܪܗܘܡܝܬ ܀
Translation:
“And Pilate also wrote an inscription and placed it upon the cross. The inscription read: ‘This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.’ Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin."

Pilate’s inscription reinforces Jesus’ Jewish identity, marking him as a figure significant enough in the Jewish context to merit this title “King of the Jews”, however mockingly intended by the Romans.

🧵 Dragons: Peterson vs. Dawkins, and What Maimonides Might Say

The clip below has Jordan Peterson @jordanbpeterson and Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins debating the reality of mythical dragons, moderated by Alex O'Connor @CosmicSkeptic .

Peterson’s focus on dragons as symbols of human challenges led some to dismiss him as irrational, while he is actually highlighting a larger point about how humans find meaning. This exchange reflects a common assumption that ancient people took myths at face value, lacking sophistication in allegorical (midrashic) thinking.

This assumption overlooks a tradition within Jewish thought, often referred to as the “rationalist approach.” HaRambam (Maimonides) articulates this in Pereq Ḥeleq (Chapter 10 of Mishna Sanhedrin), where he addresses the question of literal versus allegorical (midrash) understanding.

The excerpt is from Dawkins vs. Peterson: Memes & Archetypes on Ben Shapiro's @benshapiro @dailywireplus .

📺 "That's Your Problem!" Dawkins vs Peterson
youtu.be/gJ6MnesueOs

🧵 I’ll address these points below:

🐉 Peterson’s Perspective: The Reality Within Myth

🔬 Dawkins’ Perspective: Empirical Truth Alone

📜 Maimonides’ Three Categories of Learners in Pereq Ḥeleq

📚 How Maimonides Might View Peterson and Dawkins

⚖️ Maimonides’ Balanced Perspective: Why Both Views Are Necessary

💭 Imagination and the Human Search for Meaning 🐉 Peterson’s Perspective: The Reality Within Myth

Peterson argues that dragons symbolize humanity’s timeless struggle to confront fear and the unknown. He explains, “The dragon fight story is… discover the treasure that revitalizes the community.” For Peterson, dragons are metaphors for life’s fundamental challenges, with the act of “slaying” them symbolizing courage, transformation, and discovery. He tells Dawkins, “There’s no difference between that [the dragon] and the science you practice,” underscoring his view that myth and science are parallel tools we use to explore the unknown. Through this lens, myth serves as a guide for spiritual exploration, helping us navigate our inner fears and uncertainties.

Peterson’s stance recalls ancient wisdom, which didn’t dismiss myths as naive stories but saw them as deep reflections of human nature. In this sense, the dragon represents not just an external danger but an internal obstacle—an archetype of fear or limitation within ourselves that we must confront.

🧵 The Complex Reality of Har haBayith (Temple Mount): A Call for Restoring Its Sanctity

The Temple Mount, or Har haBayith| Ḥaram ash-Sharīf is a site of immense significance not just for Jews but also for Christians and Muslims. However, the current "Status Quo" governing this sacred space has become a source of deep hurt and tension, particularly for the Jewish people.

For some, this picture may be a beautiful sight to see. But for Jews, this represents a form of naskh (abrogation) that has been imposed upon us since the advent of Islam. The first Qibla, the Jewish site for prayer, now witnesses people turning their backs to our most holy site. This act is not just a physical posture but a profound symbol of how our connection to this sacred space has been diminished.

This thread is NOT about defending or promoting any government official’s actions but rather about understanding the issue from a Jewish perspective. All people have the right to worship there, and there is no Jewish law that says otherwise.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

📜 Historical and Religious Significance
📖 The 1967 "Status Quo" Arrangement
⚖️ Halakhic Foundations of Sanctity on Har haBayith
🚨 Violations of Jewish Law and the "Status Quo"
🌍 Har haBayith: A Place for All Nations
🤲🏽 A Call to Restore Reverence and Respect

And as always, happy to debate and discuss. 📜 Historical and Religious Significance

Har haBayith has been the heart of Judaism for millennia. This is where God appeared to Abraham following the binding of Isaac, where Jacob had his vision, and where the Divine Presence is most concentrated. It was home to the First and Second Temples, and the place where the "Holy of Holies" resided. Despite the destruction of the Temples, Jewish tradition maintains that the sanctity of the Temple Mount persists eternally.

Just as Mount Rushmore, carved into Lakota Sioux's sacred land, symbolizes pride for some but loss and erasure for others, the Dome of the Rock, while beautiful, stands where the Jewish Temples once were. This site, revered by Jews, symbolizes both religious significance and historical pain. These landmarks serve as powerful examples of how one group’s symbols of identity and faith can also represent another’s historical trauma.

Moreover, it’s important to note that the site is sacred to Muslims and Christians today because it was made holy by the Jewish people first. After the 1948 war, Jordan expelled the Jewish population from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and annexed it. The "Status Quo" arrangement, established after the Six-Day War in 1967, was meant to preserve peace by allowing Muslims to manage the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, while Jews could visit but not pray openly on the Mount.

🧵 ‘As a Jew’ Who Gets to Speak on Behalf of Jews?

The phrase "As a Jew" is often used by various individuals, campaigns, groups like @NetureiKarta, @JVPlive, @lfNotNowOrg, and @TorahJews, claiming to represent Jewish voices. However, being Jewish does not automatically grant the authority to speak for all Jews.

I see slogans and costumes, but not much dialogue. True authority comes from well-sourced arguments and intellectual rigor, the hallmark of Jewish leadership representation.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

🌐 Internet and Social Popularity
🕎 Misuse of Jewish Identity
📜 Post-Talmudic Authority
🦸🏽‍♂️ Jewish Leadership
👑 True Representation

And as always, happy to debate and discuss. 🌐 Internet and Social Popularity

Internet or social popularity doesn’t equate to expertise on Jewish identity/peoplehood. A viral post might resonate with many, but that doesn't confer authority. In the Jewish tradition, true validation comes from depth and evidence, not the echo chamber of online approval.

Phrases like "Tikkun Olam," "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof," or "Tzelem Elohim," or reciting the Kaddish lose meaning without proper context. Public displays like wearing a ṭalleth ("prayer shawl"), blowing a shophar, or kippa don’t confer authority either.

Authentic Jewish practice involves consistent observance and understanding.

🧵 Our Story and Unbroken Yearning to Return

Our narrative doesn't start with a British colonial promise in 1917 or even the practical efforts of the 1930s. Our story began centuries ago.

Our stories of return and reconquest in the Holy Land don't start in 1948; they trace back through epochs of Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Islamic periods, and beyond. Today, our history is framed to start where it suits others. Even pinpointing the Greek occupation barely scratches the surface.

The Jewish journey, marked by migration and an enduring aspiration to return, is a thread that runs deep and long. This yearning has been a constant companion at our dinner tables, in synagogues, within the walls of our homes, and amid the joy of our weddings and celebrations. There's no need to condense our rich history into convenient slogans or soundbites for external validation.

Sadly, this long thread will miss a lot (due to its length on 𝕏), but I will hit some highlights.

I can discuss the conflicts that came with these aspirations and communities, but I want to focus more on our hopes and attempts.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

💥 The Hasmonean Autonomy and Subsequent Revolts

🌍 The Concept of the Messiah & ʿAmiḏa

💪🏽 Political Figures, Leaders, & ʿAliya Efforts- Part 1

💪🏽 Political Figures, Leaders, & ʿAliya Efforts - Part 2

✨ Jewish Emancipation and Collective Responsibility

And as always, happy to debate and discuss. 💥 The Hasmonean Autonomy and Subsequent Revolts

The Hasmonean dynasty, which gained independence from the Seleucid Empire, began to lose its autonomy in 63 BCE when the Romans under Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem. Since then, the Jewish struggle to reclaim and maintain sovereignty continued through various revolts and efforts:

🔵 First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 CE): Various leaders, including Shimʿon Bar Giyora, led a major rebellion against Roman rule, culminating in the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

🔵Kitos War (115–117 CE): This series of rebellions by Jews in the Eastern Mediterranean occurred against the Roman Empire during the reign of Emperor Trajan.

🔵Bar Kokhḇa Revolt (132–136 CE): Led by Shimʿon Bar Kokhḇa, this significant uprising against Roman rule was initially recognized as a potential messianic movement by Ribbi ʿAqiḇa. The revolt ended in defeat, with substantial Jewish casualties and further diaspora.

🔵Jewish Revolt against Heraclius (614–628 CE): This brief period of autonomy in Jerusalem during the Byzantine-Sassanid War saw Jews in the diaspora and within Israel working with the Sassanids against the Byzantines. It ended with Byzantine retribution.

🧵 Debunking the Khazar Theory and Affirming Jewish Identity though Law

I keep seeing claims that Ashkenazi Jews descend from Khazarians, which is widely debunked by both historical and genetic evidence.

Requesting a blood purity test is not how Israelite-Jewish Law, known as Torath Moshe, operated for 2,000+ years.

Enforcing such an idea is more comparable to blood quantum laws used to establish a higher blood ratio.

This type of conversation is not healthy for the ongoing conflict, and I’ll explain why.

🧵 Here are the key points covered in this thread:

📜Response to Claims of Ashkenazi Ancestry

🧬Jewish Identity Beyond DNA

🔍Clarifying Misinterpretations of Jewish Identity

📚Historical and Cultural Continuity

🌍Shared Genetic History with Palestinians

🗨️Path Forward

As always, I am happy to debate and discuss. 📜 Response to Claims of Ashkenazi Ancestry

The claim that Ashkenazi Jews descend from Khazarians is widely debunked by both historical and genetic evidence. Genetic studies show that Ashkenazi Jews have significant Middle Eastern ancestry, shared with other Jewish communities worldwide. The Khazar theory, suggesting mass conversion in the 7th century, lacks credible historical evidence and is often used to undermine Jewish ties to the land of Israel.

There is no credible evidence of major Khazar input. The Khazars were Turkic, and it would be apparent if there was significant genetic influence. Depending on the models, 10-50% of Ashkenazi ancestry is classical East Mediterranean Levantine. It's plausible that some Eastern Ashkenazi genealogy from Jews of Moravia, who assimilated into medieval Ashkenazim, might trace back to the Khazars, but this represents a very small percentage. Ashkenazi mtDNA lineage even traces back to a woman in Sichuan. The 10-50% interval depends on the specifics of non-Middle Eastern ancestry models. If Sicilians are considered European contributors, the figure leans towards 10%. If Northern Europeans are considered, it leans towards 50%. A balanced estimate might be 40% Middle Eastern, 40% Southern European, and 20% Northern European.

Visualizations often place Ashkenazi Jews closer to Lebanese populations, reinforcing their indigenous ties and challenging the anti-Zionist narrative. Some arguments claim Ashkenazi Jews are "only" 10-40% Levantine, with the remainder being Southern and Northern European. These claims aim to portray Israeli Jews as primarily European-descended invaders, ignoring the substantial population of non-European Jews in Israel.

This heavy reliance on DNA alone is too much. DNA is a good tool for uncovering history, but it is a small piece of a larger puzzle when trying to understand cultural identity and migration patterns. You lose the full story without analyzing history, linguistics, letters, etc.

🗒️ Worth Reading:


nature.com/articles/ncomm…
razibkhan.com/p/more-than-ki…

🧵 Debunking the Age of Riḇqa

I keep seeing Muslims discuss the age of Riḇqa when she got married to Yiṣḥaq to put down Jews, comparing Yiṣḥaq marrying a minor of 3 to Muhammad marrying ʿAʾishah at 6 or 9 years old.

Riḇqa's age is not mentioned in the Tora whatsoever.

This is just another form of Islamic belittlement of People of the Book; this one happens to be a tactic of polemics in the 21st century.

Christians and atheists bash your prophet, so you bash the Jews.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

📜 Age of Riḇqa in the Tora
🔍 Midrash and Context
🌐 Seḏer ʿOlam Rabba Chronology
🗨️ Symbolism and Misuse

And as always, happy to debate and discuss. 📜 Age of Riḇqa in the Tora

The Tora itself does not specify Riḇqa's age at the time of her marriage to Yiṣḥaq. Many will falsely claim it does and cite Genesis 25:20. Any claims regarding her age come from later rabbinic literature, not the biblical text itself. This is a crucial distinction often overlooked in these discussions.

Genesis 25:20:
וַיְהִ֤י יִצְחָק֙ בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּקַחְתּ֣וֹ אֶת־רִבְקָ֗ה בַּת־בְּתוּאֵל֙ הָֽאֲרַמִּ֔י מִפַּדַּ֖ן אֲרָ֑ם אֲח֛וֹת לָבָ֥ן הָאֲרַמִּ֖י ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃

لما كان إسحٰق ابن أربعين سنة تزوج بريبقه ابنة بتوئيل الآرامي من فدان آرام أخت لابان الآرامي فكانت له زوجة:

When Yiṣḥaq had reached the age of forty years, he took Riḇqa, the daughter of Bethuʾel the Aramean from Paddan Aram, the sister of Laḇan the Aramean, and she became his wife.

It's important to clarify that the woman named Riḇqa offered to draw water from a well to give drink not only to Aḇraham's servant but also to his entourage of 10 camels as mentioned in Genesis 24:10 & 19-20. If each camel can drink up to 30 gallons (about 113 liters) of water, then for 10 camels, that would be 300 gallons (about 1,135 liters). This isn't something a 3-year-old can do; they lack the strength, let alone the mental capacity, to accomplish such a task.

The practical impossibility of such an act by a young child highlights the misinterpretation often perpetuated.

🧵 Golden Age of Jews Under Islam: Myth or Reality?

The history of the "Golden Age of Spain" for the Jews is a complex topic within Jewish history and historiography. Associating this period with a "Golden Age" for Jews is relatively new and may have roots in the European Jewish social emancipation movements in of the 19th century.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

📚 Wissenschaft des Judentums Movement
🌟 The Romanticized Golden Age
😢 Lachrymose Conception
🔍 Salo W. Baron's Perspective
⚖ Neo-Lachrymose Conception
💬 Reflecting on the Golden Age

And as always, happy to debate and discuss. 📚 Wissenschaft des Judentums Movement

Wissenschaft des Judentums (Science of Judaism) was a 19th-century movement focused on the critical investigation of Jewish literature and culture, including rabbinic literature, to analyze the origins of Jewish traditions. The movement aimed at achieving emancipation by demonstrating that Jews had a rich cultural and intellectual heritage.

This effort sought to integrate Jewish identity into broader European society, often using the "Golden Age" of Jewish culture in Spain as a model. The movement was initiated by the Verein für Kultur und Wissenschaft der Juden (Society for Jewish Culture and Science), founded around 1819 by Eduard Gans (1797–1839) and his associates, including Heinrich Heine (1797–1856), Leopold Zunz (1794–1886), and Moses Moser (1797–1838).

This group sought to place Jewish culture on par with Western European culture by applying scholarly methods to Jewish texts and traditions, aspiring to show that Jews were capable of significant contributions to society comparable to their non-Jewish counterparts.

🧵 Why Sepharadim in the MENA Didn't Need a "Haskalah"

Ashkenazim experienced a "wake-up call" upon leaving the schtetls during the Haskalah period (1770-1881).

The Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, aimed to modernize Jewish life by encouraging Jews to integrate into European society, embrace secular education, and adopt Enlightenment values. This movement sought to bring Ashkenazi Jews out of the insular life of the schtetls and into broader cultural and intellectual currents.

As always, I am happy to debate and discuss.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

❓ Why so Reclusive?
🌐 Broader Engagement
📝 Hebrew Language and Poetry
📚 Contributions to Science
⚖️ Rabbinic Authority
🚀 Embracing Modernity
📜 Continuing with Tradition
🌍 Cultural and Intellectual Exchange ❓ Why so Reclusive?

During the medieval period, antisemitic attitudes were institutionalized through church decrees, such as the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, which mandated that Jews wear distinctive clothing and live in separate quarters—this awful treatment eventually evolved into schtetls and that reclusive culture.

🧵 The Illusion of Pan-Arabism (Short)

Pan-Arabism failed us all—those who still hold to that pipe dream need to face its demise, learn lessons, and move on.

There is more to say on this topic, but I just wanted to write enough to entice people to think about it more and to think about it differently.

And as always, happy to debate and discuss.

Here are the topics covered in this thread:

🌍 Pan-Arabism: Origins and Aspirations
🤝🏽 Contributions to Arab Culture
💭 A Nostalgic Dream
👎🏽 The Failure of Pan-Arabism
🧠 Understanding Human Nature 🌍 Pan-Arabism: Origins and Aspirations

Pan-Arabism was a dream conceived by minorities in the MENA region during the Nahḍa period (19th to early 20th century). The Nahḍa, also referred to as the Arab Awakening, was a cultural movement that flourished in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and the Maghreb.

It sought to modernize Arab societies in the European image while retaining their own identity, seeking equality and emancipation inspired by the Tanzimat Era (1839-1876)—a series of reforms that allowed for some equality for non-Muslims and subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Arab nationalism emerged as a political ideology asserting that Arabs constitute a single nation, promoting Arab culture and civilization, celebrating Arab history, glorifying the Arabic language and literature, and calling for the rejuvenation of Arab society through total unification. This ideology is based on the premise that the people of the Arab world—from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea—constitute one nation bound together by a common identity: ethnicity, language, culture, history, geography, and politics.

🧵 Judaism and Governance: Unpacking Misconceptions of Theocracy in Judaism

Judaism is often misconstrued as a theocracy, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding. There is a human tendency to draw parallels with what we know to comprehend the unfamiliar. While natural, this can sometimes misdirect us and oversimplify, especially in understanding the nature of Jewish identity.

A common misperception posits Jewish Law as religious—the term 'Religion' doesn't even exist in Hebrew. This view is shaped more by faiths that emerged from Jewish culture than by the reality of the Jewish experience itself. While well-intentioned, this perspective overlooks Jewish self-understanding.

Torath Moshe, central to Jewish life, is divinely inspired and written by the Prophet, Moshe Rabbenu. Yet, contrary to what some might assume, Judaism does not manifest as a theocracy. Its essence differs significantly from the religious frameworks of Christianity and Islam.

More to say, yet I've said too much in this thread already.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

🏔️ "Jewish Governance and the Covenant at Sinai"

👨🏽‍⚖️ "Role of the Sanhedrin: Philosopher Kings"

⚖️ "Nomocracy in Jewish Law: Equal Before the Law"

📜"Biblical Historical Example: King Aḥaḇ and ʾIzeḇel"

🏛️ "Josephus on Jewish Governance"

📚 "The Rule of Law" 🏔️ Jewish Governance and the Covenant at Sinai

Jewish governance is based on the covenant at Sinai, which establishes the Law as the supreme authority, rather than any individual or group of leaders claiming divine right, or as one put it, a "Theocratic King."

Judaism's structure, established over 2,000 years ago by the Sanhedrin (Jewish Supreme Court), emphasizes key themes found in the ʿAmiḏa (national daily reflections), such as the return to Israel, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty. These themes are deeply rooted in a legal and historical lineage (the messora of Ḥazal) and are not a matter of personal interpretation.

You should consider refraining from engaging in Tafsir at-Tawrat or Sharīʿah Musa.

You excel at educating others about the different madhhabs (schools of thought) within Islam and strengthening the Ummah, which is crucial.

I will provide a detailed response accessible to all readers, and I apologize in advance for the length.

🧵 Here are the topics covered in this thread:

⚖️ "The Three Oaths: Part 1 - The Source and Its Legal Implications"

📜 "The Three Oaths: Part 2 - How Jewish Immigration to the Land Worked - Short History in Relation to the Oaths"

🕊️ "The Messiah in Judaism - A Short Rundown"

📖 "Biblical and Qurʿanic Quotes in Relation to the Land" ⚖️ The Three Oaths: Part 1 - The Source and Its Legal Implications

Regarding "Solomon’s Oaths," I believe you are referring to what's often termed "The Three Oaths," found in the Babylonian Talmuḏ, Kethuboth 110b-111a. There you will find an Midrashic interpretation three separate verses (2:7, 3:5, 8:4) from Shir haShirim (Song of Songs), attributed traditionally to King Solomon (maybe that’s where you picked up ‘Solomon’s Oath’).

The Talmuḏ here employs a type of biblical exegesis known as Midrash, which includes both Midrash Halakha and Midrash Aggadah—the latter being akin (but, I guess not really) to the esoteric interpretation of the Qurʿan known as taʿwil, which doesn't carry legal implications but offers metaphorical interpretations intended to educate or inspire rather than to legislate.

Ribbi Yose ben Ribbi Ḥanina, who lived around 250 CE, is quoted regarding these Oaths – but it’s important to understand the historical context; by then, the Jewish people had already experienced the loss of their temple in 70 CE, the Jewish rebellions of Bar Kokhḇa between 132–136 CE, and the Kitos War from 115–117 CE, which collectively devastated the Jewish nation. Though brief, the Palmyrene Empire's emergence between 260 and 273 CE highlighted a period of Roman weakness, yet Ribbi Yose’s Midrash was a caution against rising up during such turbulent times.

The oaths as outlined:
1. Israel should not return en masse to the land in defiance of global opposition.
2. Jews should not rebel against nations.
3. Nations should not excessively oppress Israel.

Jewish scholars like Seʿadiya ben Yoseph al-Fayyum Gaon of the Talmudic Academy of Sura (892 – 942), Ḥananel ben Ḥushiel (980–1055), Yiṣḥaq ben Yaʿaqoḇ Alfasi (1013–1103), and Maimonides (1138–1204), did not record these oaths as actual law – but for Jews, this underscored a significant historical caution within the Jewish community.