Why is this Nativity scene blasphemous?
This is a long overdue post on the kippah or yarmulke, a skullcap worn by Talmudic Jews. In the Nativity photo above, St. Joseph is portrayed as an Orthodox Jew. Interestingly, this photo was included on a blog post at Les Femmes — The Truth, Photo of Vatican Crib Scene Rejected by Facebook!, which complained (rightfully so) about the Vatican’s frightful and macabre Nativity in St. Peter’s Square this year and then says, (bold is ours for emphasis)
“Rather than end on a negative note, I will once again mention my grandchildren's play, The Promise. Isaiah tells us that at the height of man's wickedness, God sent a Savior. And he was beautiful and the scene surrounding his birth was filled with glory and singing and joy. So ignore the ugly and horrifying Nativity presented by the usurpers in Vatican City and put the image below [CMJ note: It’s the photo above in our post] in your mind this Christmas Season.”
We will explain why this image isn’t wholesome but is in fact blasphemous and heretical.
Firstly, the kippah is an entirely different animal than the Catholic zucchetto (also referred to as a pileolus, berettino, calotte, subbiretum, submitrale, or solideo). In the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) under the entry ZUCCHETTO one reads,
It cannot be said positively when the zucchetto became customary, but it was probably not before the thirteenth century. It appears on the cardinals in the fresco, "St. Francis before Honorius III", painted about 1290 in the upper church of St. Francis at Assisi. It is seen also under the tiara in the effigy on the tomb of Clement VI (d. 1352) at La Chaise-Dieu. The figures on the several tombs of bishops of the fifteenth century in the Roman churches show the zucchetto under the mitre. In the "Ordo" of Jacobus Gajetanus (about 1311) the zucchetto is mentioned in connection with the hat of the cardinals (cap. cxviii), and with the mitre in the "Ordo" of Petrus Amelii (cap. cxliv.), which appeared about 1400. It is shown in the pictures and sculpture of the late Middle Ages sometimes as a round skullcap, sometimes as a cap that covers the back of the head and the ears. In this shape it was called camauro; this designation was given especially to the red velvet cap of this kind bordered with ermine that was peculiar to the pope. There was great confusion as to the proper use of the zucchetto and hence the Sacred Congregation of Rites has delivered several decisions on the Subject ("Decr. auth. Congr. SS. Rit.", V, Rome 1901, 382).
A sketch of Pope Pius XII wearing a white zucchetto.
We now move onto the kippah, its origin, and reasons for wearing it. Modern day Jews often lament that in times past the followers of the Talmud were often made to wear some type of identification (a badge, coat, or cap) in Christian countries which identified them as a Jew. They promote this as a form of religious persecution and believe that this eternal victim status gives them carte blanche to commit offenses in the modern world. What if we were to tell you that one of the reasons for the wearing of the kippah served the same purpose, identification (albeit with a huge loophole). Along these lines a kippah identifies the wearer of it as one who follows the Talmud and the dictates of the rabbis including denying Jesus as the Christ. Not only is it used for identification but also as an act of defiance towards assimilation into the Christian country. Don’t believe us, then read what the rabbis and scholars have to say...
• Don’t imitate Christians who pray bareheaded and are lightminded heathens •
“The opinion of David Halevy of Ostrog (17th century) is an exception. He declared that since Christians generally pray bareheaded, the Jewish prohibition to do so was based on the biblical injunction not to imitate the heathen custom (*ḥukkat hagoi; Magen David to OḤ 8:2). Traditional Jewry came to equate bareheadedness with unseemly lightmindedness and frivolity (kallut rosh), and therefore forbids it (Maim. Yad, De'ot 5:6).”
source: Jewish Virtual Library, Jewish Practices & Rituals: Covering of the Head
• Goyim (Christians) pray with uncovered heads and prayers don’t count if the head is uncovered •
“The Taz says even though mi’ikkur hadin, it’s not a chiyuv to wear a kippa, this is “bechokoseyhem lo teilecho” since the goyim take off their headcovering, we should not do the same. To be bareheaded is an issue of “bechukoseyhem lo teilecho”.
[...]
But Rav Moshe does admit that there is one case that the Taz does apply, and that is by davening. This is because when Christians are in Church they have to take off their headcovering. So if one davens without a headcovering, one did not fulfill his chiyuv. If your tallis falls in the middle of shemonei esreh, maybe you don’t have to go get it, but if your kippa falls off you have to.”
source: Pure Torah, Head Covering For Men
• Wearing a kippah isn’t Biblical, it’s Talmudic & a sign to identify one as a Jew •
source: Being Jewish: The Spiritual and Cultural Practice of Judaism Today by Ari L. Goldman, page 218
• The rabbis created the law that Jews were to wear kippot so not as to be confused with the cursed (Christian) nations among whom they lived •
source: A Cultural History of Jewish Dress by Eric Silverman, page 162
• The Catholic faith is false worship and not to be imitated in any manner •
“Maimonides decreed: "The Yid should be distinguished from the Christians and distinct in his dress and his actions, just as he is different from them in his knowledge and understanding." The basic halacha is that any of the practices that Christians use in their false worship (avodah zara) is forbidden to be done by Judaics (Yiddin) even if Judaics used these practices prior to Christianity. In other words, even if the Bible—or the Talmud— sanctions a certain practice, Judaics are forbidden by the rabbis from continuing to do so if this practice was subsequently adopted by Christians.”
source: Judaism Discovered, From Its Own Texts: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit, p. 591.
• Praying with an uncovered head is an impious act and identifies one as a Christian •
“With the passage of time, the custom of covering the head during worship increasingly became mandatory. As the persecutions by the Church increased, the Jewish aversion to everything Christian deepened. The uncovering of the head became associated with Church etiquette and therefore became repugnant. To worship or even to go about with an uncovered head was regarded as imitation of the Christians and an act of irreverence to God. Conversely, the covering of one’s head became an act of Jewish piety. For convenience the skullcap, or yarmulke, was adopted.”
source: My Jewish Learning, Kippot (Head Coverings) in Synagogue
Jews wearing kippot as not to be identified as with the cursed nations (Catholics).
• Don’t be bareheaded like a gentile •
“Taz famously wrote that nowadays since gentiles specifically walk with their heads uncovered, a Jew who walks around with his head uncovered is in violation of the Torah prohibition against following the ways of the gentiles.”
source: Daf Yomi Digest, Friday 31 May 2013, Halachah Highlight, p. 2.
• Don’t be like a gentile •
“As Prof. Zimmer speculates, the symbolic differentiation created by kippot helped distinguish the Jews from their gentile neighbors. A couple of 15th-century German sources, for example, indicate that leaving one's head uncovered inappropriately imitates gentile habits and leads to assimilation. Similarly, in the 17th century, Rabbi David Halevi Segal ostracized those Jews who, like their non-Jewish neighbors, remove their hats when sitting down (Taz OC 8:3).”
source: Failed Messiah, Why Rabbi Akiva, Rebbe, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua All Went Bareheaded
• Jews cannot imitate Christians in any manner when it comes to practicing Talmudism •
• Praying with an uncovered head is like brandishing a weapon in the synagogue — an offense to God •
• The laws and the loopholes for follower of the Talmud concerning the kippah •
• A Talmudic Jew need not wear a kippah in a Moslem country (as they are Noahides), only when in a Christian country •
• Portraying Jesus with a yarmulke (kippah) is an anachronism since they didn’t exist in his lifetime •
We could go on and on with many more citations but we think the reader gets the point — kippot (yarmulkes) were not worn in the time of Jesus the Christ as they hadn’t been incorporated into Talmudic Judaism yet. They are anti-Catholic in nature and not only are they an outward sign of Judaic supremacy, the wearer also proclaims he believes:
The author Michael Hoffman sums it up best when he writes,
To which we would only add that Jews are not obligated to wear a kippah (yarmulke) when in a Moslem country. The reason for this is because Moslems pray to the same god as the Jews and are Noahide compliant while Catholics are considered idol worshipers by the Talmudists.
Returning to the first photo of this post of the Nativity scene with St. Joseph wearing a kippah, we now hope that the reader understands how not only is this blasphemous, it is also heretical and an occult mockery of Our Lord’s birth. It, like Francis’ Vatican Nativity, is dangerous because they are poisons disguised as medicines for the soul.
“In a recent book on the halakhic force of customs, Imrei Barukh: Tokef Ha-Minhag Ba-Halakhah, Rav Baruch Simon addresses this question. One reason for various customs is the biblical prohibition against following the practices of other religions (chukos ha-goyim). Following the Jews’ emancipation, this prohibition became a dominant theme in the complex integration of Jews into Christian society–what are we allowed to do and what is off limits?
Prior to that, Rav Shlomo Luria (Responsa Maharshal, no. 72) concluded that wearing a yarmulke is only a custom, not a law. The Vilna Gaon (Bi’ur Ha-Gra, Orach Chaim 8:6) ruled that you are not even obligated to wear a yarmulke while you pray. However, the Taz (Orach Chaim 8:3) added the consideration of chukos ha-goyim. Since Christians would regularly remove their head coverings, particularly before praying, Jews may not follow this practice. According to the Taz, sitting without a yarmulke–and certainly praying bareheaded–is biblically prohibited.
Rav Simon quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:40:14) who distinguishes between sitting and praying bareheaded. Christians do the former merely out of convenience. However, they pray bareheaded as a religious conviction. Therefore, Rav Feinstein rules, praying without any head covering–even by accident–is forbidden and the prayer is invalid. If your yarmulke accidentally falls off during prayer, you have to pray again after you cover your head.”
source: Torah Musings, What To Do About A Yarmulke #Fail
• Jews mustn’t be like gentiles or assimilate with them •
• Praying with an uncovered head is like brandishing a weapon in the synagogue — an offense to God •
“The Torah Temimah, on this verse, cites the words of the Shulchan Aruch and he raises a question. The Shulchan Aruch writes that one should not enter a shul “with a long knife or with an uncovered head”. The simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch seems to suggest that there are two entirely different topics being discussed: firstly, one should not enter a shul with a weapon and secondly one should not enter without properly covering one’s head (yarmulka). The Torah Temimah wonders what connection there is between these two statements. What’s more the Shulchan Aruch already discussed the hallacha of praying without a head covering in siman 91, why then would he feel compelled to repeat himself?
He therefore offers an entirely different interpretation of the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch is actually discussing one topic throughout and that is weapons in the synagogue. When the Shulchan Aruch writes that one should not enter with an “uncovered head” he is actually referring to the “head” of the weapon. The prohibition exists only if the weapon is uncovered. One is allowed to pray as long as the weapon is concealed. Although the Levush seems to not agree with this novel interpretation of the words of the Shulchan Aruch, the Elya Raba seems to concur with the Torah Temimah.”
Jews are not required to wear a yarmulke if it will hurt them
economically or if they are in a Noahide compliant country.
• The laws and the loopholes for follower of the Talmud concerning the kippah •
Halachos for Thursday, January 29 , 20151) Jewish males may not walk more than 4 Amos (around 8 feet) without a head covering. (Shulchan Aruch Siman 2:6 and Mishna Berura S"K 11 quoting the Taz. See also Shu"t Igros Moshe Orach Chim Vol. 1 Siman 1 regarding the size requirement of the head covering)It is praiseworthy to be stringent and not even sit in one place, or even sleep without a head covering. (Mishna Berura ibid.)Young boys should be trained from a very early age to wear a Kipah on their heads, as the Talmud (Shabbos 156b) teaches that covering the head leads one to fear Hashem.B'sha'as hadchak, If one must walk 4 Amos in his home and doesn't have something with which to cover his head, he may do so with his bare hand .However, if one is outside (and he is directly under the sky) using his hand for a cover will not suffice, rather the sleeve of his hirt or another item must be used.( See Mishna berura Siman 2 S"K 12)2) If one is in a place where he cannot cover his head (like a court house, where it may be the law of the land that heads must be bare), or if he is in such a profession that he is afraid that covering his head will cause him loss of clients or revenue, there is a possibility that he can sit with a bare head without transgressing this Halacha. (See Shu"t Rivevos Ephraim Vol. 5 Siman 40 what he quotes from Rav Moshe Feinstein Zatzal)However, before determining this, especially nowadays when it is acceptable almost everywhere to wear a Kipah (due to the kindness of Hashem that most of us live with religious freedom and tolerance), a competent Halachic authority must be consulted.
HALACHOS FOR EREV SHABBOS KODESH, JUNE 5,2015DOUBLE PORTION L'KAVOD SHABBOS KODESH
HALACHOS FOR EREV SHABBOS KODESH
1) PLACING YOUR OWN HAND ON YOUR HEAD DOES NOT SUFFICE TO BE CONSIDERED A PROPER HEAD COVERING, AND DAVENING THIS WAY IS AKIN TO DAVENING WITH A BARE HEAD. SOMEONE ELSE'S HAND ON YOUR HEAD SUFFICES. (SHULCHAN ARUCH SIMAN 91:4)
2) EXTENDING THE SLEEVE OF YOUR SHIRT OR JACKET OVER YOUR PALM AND COVERING YOUR HEAD WITH THE CLOTH SUFFICES AS A HEAD COVERING. (SEE MISHNA BERURA SIMAN 91 S"K 10. SEE ALSO MISHNA BERURA SIMAN 2 S"K 12 THAT FOR A BRACHA, B'SHA'AS HADCHAK, THERE MAY BE ROOM FOR LENIENCY, BUT HE CONCLUDES THAT IT IS BETTER NOT TO RELY ON THIS LENIENCY.)
HALACHOS FOR SHABBOS KODESH
1) A MALE WHO DAVENS WITH A BARE HEAD, EVEN B'SHOGEG, UNINTENTIONALLY, ACCORDING TO HARAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN ZATZAL (IGROS MOSHE ORACH CHAIM VOL. 4 SIMAN 40:14) MUST DAVEN AGAIN, AS HE HASN'T SATISFIED HIS OBLIGATION, EVEN B'DIEVED. HE WRITES THERE THAT THIS TEFILAH IS DEEMED "TOEVA", AN ABOMINATION.
HARAV SHLOMO ZALMEN AUERBACH ZATZAL (HALICHOS SHLOMO; TEFILAH, PEREK 2:16) RULES MORE LENIENTLY, AND MAINTAINS THAT IF IT WAS DONE UNINTENTIONALLY, B'DIEVED HE HAS SATISFIED HIS OBLIGATION AND DOES NOT NEED TO DAVEN OVER.
2) IF ONE'S YARMULKA, TALIS OR OTHER HEAD COVERING FALLS OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF DAVENING SHEMONA ESREI, HE SHOULD STOP DAVENING TO RETRIEVE IT, EVEN IF HE HAS TO STEP OUT OF HIS PLACE TO DO SO, BEFORE RESUMING SHEMONA ESREI. (SEE HALICHOS SHLOMO; TEFILAH, PEREK 2, DVAR HALACHA 27)
source: Halacha For Today, Archives: Hilchos Tefilah
• A Talmudic Jew need not wear a kippah in a Moslem country (as they are Noahides), only when in a Christian country •
The Rambam prohibits praying the shemoneh esrei bareheaded (Hilchos Tefillah 5:5), and he also states that it is appropriate for a talmid chacham to cover his head at all times (Hilchos Dei’os 5:6).Based on the above sources, most, but not all, halachic authorities contend that, in Talmudic times, covering one’s head was performed on special occasions, such as when praying, reciting blessings, and in the presence of a Torah scholar, but was not always otherwise observed (Tur, Orach Chayim 8, as explained by Darkei Moshe; Shu”t Maharshal #72; Gra on Orach Chayim 8:2). These rulings imply that someone other than a talmid chacham is not required to cover his head, except when davening. As we will soon see, most authorities conclude that, today, one is required to cover one’s head, because of reasons that did not apply in the time of the Gemara.Some authorities note that the Taz’s reason should apply only in western countries and other places where the gentiles have a specific practice to uncover their heads. However, in places where the gentiles have no such concerns, such as in Moslem countries, there is no prohibition of chukos akum in leaving one’s head uncovered (Shu”t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 1:1). It may still be prohibited because of Jewish custom.
source: RabbiKaganoff.com, Under the Big Top
Jesus never would have worn a kippah as Hebrew-catholics are wont to portray him.
• Portraying Jesus with a yarmulke (kippah) is an anachronism since they didn’t exist in his lifetime •
[...]
source: 60 Questions Christians Ask About Jewish Beliefs and Practices, pp. 81-83
We could go on and on with many more citations but we think the reader gets the point — kippot (yarmulkes) were not worn in the time of Jesus the Christ as they hadn’t been incorporated into Talmudic Judaism yet. They are anti-Catholic in nature and not only are they an outward sign of Judaic supremacy, the wearer also proclaims he believes:
“The Talmudic stories make fun of Jesus' birth from a virgin, fervently contest his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God, and maintain that he was rightfully executed as a blasphemer and idolater. They subvert the Christian idea of Jesus' resurrection and insist he got the punishment he deserved in hell--and that a similar fate awaits his followers.”
The author Michael Hoffman sums it up best when he writes,
“The mystery of the ever-present male Judaic head-covering (kipa, yarmulke etc.) is solved by the knowledge that it is mandatory in a religious context because being bare-headed is mandatory for Christian males in church. Rabbi Feinstein rules that entering a synagogue or davening (praying) on the part of a Judaic male without his head covered is strictly forbidden since Christian men always remove their hats when entering a church. Feinstein discusses the need to recite a penitential purification formula (shemonah esrei) on the part of the Judiac male who imitates Christians by praying with an uncovered head. However, many rabbinic authorities (poskim) permit an uncovered male Judaic head in order to deceive the goyim in circumstances in which to wear a yarmulke would raise their ire: testimony in a court of gentile law, for example, or in circumstances where the wearing of a head-covering might cause a Judaic male to lose his job. Hence, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an Orthodox Judaic follower of the Talmud, when running for the office of Vice-President and later President of the United States, appeared in public in most cases without his yarmulke, so as not to risk losing the prospective "job" he was seeking. We can even trace the origins of the Yiddish language to hatred of Christians. The Judaic-German halachic decisor Rabbi Moshe Sofer (the "Chasam Sofer") ruled that, based on the eighteen decrees of prohibition of the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud), one of which forbids the adoption of the language of the Christians, it was later necessary for Judaics to make many alterations to the German language, which as a result led to the gradual rise of Yiddish.”
source: Judaism Discovered, From Its Own Texts: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit, pp. 591-2.
To which we would only add that Jews are not obligated to wear a kippah (yarmulke) when in a Moslem country. The reason for this is because Moslems pray to the same god as the Jews and are Noahide compliant while Catholics are considered idol worshipers by the Talmudists.
Returning to the first photo of this post of the Nativity scene with St. Joseph wearing a kippah, we now hope that the reader understands how not only is this blasphemous, it is also heretical and an occult mockery of Our Lord’s birth. It, like Francis’ Vatican Nativity, is dangerous because they are poisons disguised as medicines for the soul.
