User:Pngeditor/sandbox

WP:RSOPINION.

= 1 Gypsies as Victims of the Holocaust = Brenda Davis Lutz

Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 9, Issue 3, Winter 1995, Pages 346–359, https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/9.3.346

Published:

01 December 1995


 * . 1995;9(3):346-59.

Abstract
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20684104/

https://academic.oup.com/hgs/article-abstract/9/3/346/603917?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

While most of the research on the Holocaust has appropriately focused on the suffering of the Jewish population of Axis-occupied Europe, the Gypsies also were targeted for extinction by the Nazis.

2 The perecntage of gypsy mortality was approximatley the same as that of the jews

https://www.jstor.org/stable/494697?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Af05e90c44e859e00e7ecdabb5c259e1e&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

Journal Article

Gypsies and the Holocaust

Sybil Milton

Vol. 24, No. 4 (Aug., 1991), pp. 375-387 (13 pages)

Published by: Society for History Education

3

https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/the-porrajmos/

= Roma and Sinti people = Europe’s Roma and Sinti people (often labelled as ‘Gypsies’ historically) were targeted by the Nazis for total destruction. The Porrajmos, or Porajmos, which translates to 'the Devouring', is the term used to describe the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Roma and Sinti population.

Which states that 'The relationship of Judah and Samaria in the period from the 6th to the 2nd century B.C.E is currently still being described as an uninterrupted period of ongoing conflicts between Samarian and Judean YHWH-worshippers. This article examines evidence which offers an entirely different picture of Samarian–Judean relations in the post-exilic period: in the Levant in post-exilic times, there were two homologous Yahwisms in Judah and Samaria which existed side by side. It is for this reason that, when studying this formative period, scholars should give due consideration not only to Judah, but also to the North as well

In January 1941, Stern attempted to make an agreement with the German Nazi authorities, offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for Jewish immigration to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state. Another attempt to contact the Germans was made in late 1941, but there is no record of a German response in either case.

Copied from lyda and ramle

The British Mandate expired on 14 May 1948, and the State of Israel declared its independence.[21] Transjordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq intervened by sending expeditionary forces that entered former Mandatory Palestine and engaged Israeli forces. Six weeks of fighting followed, after which none of the belligerents had won the upper hand.

On May 29, Irgun members slipped into the cinema before the screening of the movie “Tarzan”. They proceeded to booby-trap the theater with explosives concealed within an ordinary-looking coat as well as bombs hidden in boxes of candy. At 8:30 pm, the explosives went off just as the famous MGM lion roared to signal the beginning of the film. The frightened crowd fled the theater only to find that the Irgun had set another trap for them. Members of the Jewish underground waiting nearby in Mamilla’s Muslim cemetery opened fire at the people attempting to flee. Five Arabs were killed, and 18 others were wounded: six British, ten Arabs and two Jews. The cinema suffered heavy damages, and the incident became the talk of the town https://blog.nli.org.il/en/hoi_jerusalems-rex-cinema/

Cinema Rex is located near Jaffa street in west Jerusalem, was built in 1938 and had a capacity of 1300 seats. The cinema was a target for the “Irgun” zionist terrorist group for two times, the first was in 1939 when 7 of the Irgun members entered the cinema to watch the movie “Tarzan” when they detonated a time bomb and caused the death of 5 Palestinians. Also the same group was behind burning the cinema in 1947. https://youad.org/en/node/5

How to



{{sfn|Miller|2000|p=1}



Samaritan tradition associates the split between them and the Judean-led Southern Israelites to the time of the biblical priest Eli,[24] described as a "false" high priest who usurped the priestly office from its occupant, Uzzi, and established a rival shrine at Shiloh, and thereby prevented southern pilgrims from Judah and the territory of Benjamin from attending the shrine at Gerizim. Eli is also held to have created a duplicate of the Ark of the Covenant, which eventually made its way to the Judahite sanctuary in Jerusalem. Shlomo Hofman paraphrases their traditional view as follows:'Until that time, the Ark of the Covenant had been kept at the sanctuary of YHWH on Mt. Gerizim. According to this tradition, the priest Eli was prevented from rising to the high priesthood because he was of the family of Itamar, not the high priestly family of Eleazar. Nevertheless, he took the Ark of the Covenant from Mt. Gerizim to Shiloh and established a rival cult there. As a result of this, two centers of the priesthood arose. One center was on Mt. Gerizim, at whose head stood the legitimate high priest, Uzzi (a descendant of Phineas and of the family Eleazar). The second (heretical) priesthood was at Shiloh, and the priest Eli, a descendant of Itamar, was at its head.'(Hofman 2007, p. 719)

The Samaritans A Profile By Reinhard Pummer · 2016 About this edition ISBN:9780802867681, 0802867685 Page count:362 Published:2016 Format:Paperback Publisher:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Language:English Author:Reinhard Pummer

The Samaritans and Early Judaism A Literary Analysis By Ingrid Hjelm · 2000ISBN:9781841270722, 1841270725 Page count:318 Published:2000 Format:Hardcover Publisher:Bloomsbury Academic Language:English Author:Ingrid Hjelm

How to



British Mandate for Palestine

How to blockquote

"the mere presence of the language in spoken or written form could invoke the concept of a Jewish national identity. Even if one knew no Hebrew or was illiterate, one could recognize that a group of signs was in Hebrew script. … It was the language of the Israelite ancestors, the national literature, and the national religion. As such it was inseparable from the national identity. Indeed its mere presence in visual or aural medium could invoke that identity."

The Jerusalem Talmud (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד יְרוּשַׁלְמִי, Talmud Yerushalmi, often Yerushalmi for short), also known as the Palestinian Talmud or Talmud of the Land of Israel,[1][2] is a collection of rabbinic notes on the second-century Jewish oral tradition known as the Mishnah. The naming this version of the Talmud after Palestine or the Land of Israel rather than Jerusalem is considered more accurate, as the text originated mainly from Galilee in Byzantine Palaestina Secunda rather than from Jerusalem, where no Jews lived at the time.[3][4]

Prior to Sara Schnirer there was really no formal Jewish education for women.11 Women learned basic Jewish concepts and halakha informally, from parents and family. This education was unsophisticated and its purpose was purely pragmatic. There were, however, instances where scholarly women learned Torah intensively, including Torah She’b’al Peh, thus supporting the contention of the Prisha and Chida that Rabbi Eliezer’s prohibition was not absolute for all women. For example, the Talmud in Pesachim records that Bruria, Rabbi Meir’s wife, was a scholar with outstanding capabilities.12

by: Rabbi Moshe Kahn

Reprinted from Ten Daat Vol. III No. 3 pp. 9-11

As noted, Albo sees Noahide law as a branch of divine law. Since the only other system of law which, according to Albo’s criteria, qualifies as divine law is Mosaic law,> it would surely be useful to compare these two species of divine law. Now at first glance it would seem that there is only a quantitative dis- tinction between these two systems of law. On the one hand, the numerical quantity of Noahide law is much smaller than that of Mosaic law: seven com- mandments against 613. On the other hand, the number of subjects of No- ahide law far exceeds the number of subjects of Mosaic law: all of humanity against the small number of Jews in the world Page 189

The great fifteenth-century theologian Joseph Albo considered Noahide law to be a category of divine law. He divided law per se into three classes: natural, conventional and divine, in an ascending hierarchy. Natural law is concerned with right and wrong in the human situation; conventional law is related to what is desirable; and divine law is occupied with true good and true evil. The superiority of divine law consists in its specificity, and it is greater than either of the other two groups because it is absolute like natural law and transcen- dent like conventional law. Despite the superiority of divine law, this chapter argues that Albo’s philosophical and theological thinking demonstrates a strong interrelationship among the three laws.Page 7

Page 2

The rabbinic tradition presents two divergent positions on the nature of the law of adjudication. The first position, articulated most fully by Maimon- ides, was that this law was to be imposed upon gentiles by Jews; that is, ideally, Jewish judges would arbitrate Noahide laws for gentiles. The second position, advocated by Nahmanides, holds that non-Jews establish and main- tain their own courts separate from Jewish courts, and judge based on the general principles of Noahide law. The latter view acknowledges the moral legitimacy of gentile courts and indirectly of gentiles themselves whereas the former only allows gentiles to share in a universal aspect of Jewish law. Nah- manides’ position represents a richer notion of an independent Noahide law. pg 2

This chapter begins with reflections on some previously proposed historical timeframes for the formation of Noahide law. Earlier scholars located its origins variously: in the Bible, among Hittite legal scholars and during the Maccabean era. This chapter maintains, contrary to prior scholarship, that the concept of the Noahide is absent until the first century cE; that is, it is a rabbinic creation. While theology can discover the beginnings of the Noahide laws in the Torah, their historical starting point can only be established follow- ing the social, demographic and religious dislocations of the Second Temple’s destruction in 70 CE. For the rabbis, these laws originated prior to the Sinaitic revelation; they were the moral standard for the entire gentile world, and that world of course included the ancestors of those who would later accept the covenant at Sinai. Israelites before Sinai, then, were Noahides.Page n16

The image of the non-Jew in Judiasm David Novak, University of Toronto Publisher:Liverpool University Press Online publication date:July 2019 Print publication year:2011 Online ISBN:9781786949820

20 According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus’s successors pursued a similar policy o orced conversions o non-Israelite populations; thus, Judah Aristobulus compelled Itureans to submit to circumcision ( Ant. 13.257–258, 319), and Alexander Jannaeus devastated the city o Pella because its inhabitants “would not bear to change their religious rites or those peculiar to the Jews” ( Ant . 13.397). Furthermore, Steven Weitzman has observed that Jewish sources o the second century BCE “seem to endorse orced circumcision as a legitimate practice” (“Forced Circumcision and the Shifing Role o Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology,” HR 92 [1999]: 37–59, here 43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000017843).

“Forced Circumcision and the Shifing Role o Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology,” HR 92 [1999]

The Destruction of the Samaritan Temple by John Hyrcanus: A Reconsideration Jonathan (Yonatan) Bourgel 2016, Journal of Biblical Literature 2071 Views 21 Pages 1 File ▾ https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1353.2016.3129 Issue: 3 Volume: 135 Page Numbers: 505-523 Publication Date: 2016 Publication Name: Journal of Biblical Literature